GamerTab That was an excellent one.

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

sinthemix-49649 Where do I start. The actress playing Lucy, although beautiful, had one mode. Sound like she's orgasming in every scene. When you're that ill and/or dying you don't sound like you're being pleasured. What the hell was the hairy weir beast raping her on a slab of concrete? The male actors except E Grant and Hopkins were all useless. The British Accents were utterly abysmal and there was no tension or creepiness whatsoever from Oldman. Just dreary boredom. Ryder's performance was so depressingly terrible. That same tired rasping noise when she heavy breaths in every scene. There are child actors with more depth than this "actress". I have enjoyed some of her movies such as Beetlejuice, Heathers, Alien Resurrection. However she and Keanu are so painfully bad at British accents. The story in this was a total butchery of Stokers and it's quite shockingly bad for a producer of Coppola's calibre.

goreilly40 When comparing this adaptation to Stoker's novel, it is more faithful than others but the story has an added element to it, that of romance and love over time. This element along with the back story at the beginning and the explanation as to why Dracula is the way he is, makes him a more complex character, you think of him more as a tragic hero, and as such puts him in a more sympathetic light than his pure evil counterpart in the book. Gary Oldman as the title character is brilliant as he displays the Count's many different faces, from the tragic hero, to the monster to the charming seductive younger version, so much so you almost pity him when he meets his demise at the end. The rest of the cast, with one exception are all very good as well, Anthony Hopkins as the legendry hunter Van Helsing in particular is excellent. The only downside was Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker, his performance, accent included was very unconvincing and wooden. Winona Ryder in her duel role as Mina/Elisabeta is another one who stands out, her performance was really convincing as someone who was at first terrified, then falls for the Count. The movie portrays both 1897 London and Transylvania perfectly, it is also well paced, you feel gripped by it and the chase at the end is very exciting and makes for a good ending.The actual story, like the title character is more complex with added elements that make it fascinating and the changes don't adversely affect it. If your a fan of the original novel, then this is an adaptation you'll really appreciate and enjoy, just be prepared for a different and more complex but not a weaker story.

cinemajesty Movie Review: "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992)Marking the picture's 25th anniversary of Director Francis Ford Coppola, given full creative freedom at Hollywood Major Columbia Pictures, to fulfill a life-time's dream of adapting the classic Gothic tale of Count Vlad Dracul from 1897 written by author Bram Stoker (1847-1912), brought to the screen in extraordinary enriching visuals, tension-tweaking sound design and emotional-perfectly received score by composer Wojciech Kilar (1932-2013) of further splendid production design by Tom Sanders (1953-2017) accompanied by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus (1935-2017) best work of light and shadow.The cast in its striking resemblance with actor Gary Oldman as Count Dracula, ranching from a young ranging warrior in middle ages wars with the Ottoman Empire in the deepest region of Eastern Europe, defeated armies in back-lit red ambiance of the epic epilogue to an unnaturally old age with Academy-Award winning make-up effects; powers due to his uncompromising love to princess Elisabeta, innocently-convincing performed by actress Winona Ryder at the age of 20, who's character ends her life due to false notice of the enemy of her husband's death, which makes Count Vlad Dracul renounce his belief into the Christian church to become Count Dracula for the centuries to come.The suspense has nothing lost of its initial stroke with supporting characters as real estate agent Jonathan Harker, portrayed no less convincing Keanu Reeves, who fills the spot of an older real state agent, already in a mental institution due to his encounter with Count Dracula and his brides of terror, here given face by acting-talented musician Tom Waits. Further cast members as late-arriving actor Sir Anthony Hopkins, performing as notorious Professor Van Helsing, steals the scene with utmost of ease and professionalism in his performance as vampire hunter, leading the avenging party of confronting Count Dracula in classical-set London in times of industrialization at the turn of the 20th century.The love story between reincarnated Elisabeta into the character of Mina Murray, financée to Jonathan Harker, goes on a journey toward a coming-of-age by falling for the rejuvenated Count Dracula on a busy London street; continuing followings into a movie-projecting etablissment, where Director Francis Ford Coppola unfolds the strongest scenes of a gently-growing relationship with leather gloves in color forces of overall dark green and red between an unless menacingly-hurt and power-drunken as to say demon-forced man, who finds his emotions uncovered to embrace instead of kill another human being, before the price of the encountering bliss becomes an highly accelerated showdown back to breeding grounds of Transylvania in this timeless tale of Horror and beauty to redeem a forfeited life in death.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

Joshua Belyeu This movie is both easy to describe, and yet difficult as well. I say this because while I like many of the design elements, the music, and some of the performances...the story and most scenes are outright horrible. They're far too explicit compared to the novel, and many scenes in this film have no place in Stoker's work at all. As I understand it, Francis Ford Coppola placed the author's name in the title to avoid either confusion or a lawsuit with Universal Pictures, owners of the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi. Nonetheless, this film represents Coppola's desire for a Dracula story much more than Stoker's...so the director should have used his own name instead.How to criticize this film beyond the title - oh, let me Count the ways (pun fully intended). First, Dracula's existence as a vampire is shown to be the result of him renouncing God after his wife commits suicide, and driving his sword into a large Christian cross...which gushes blood that Dracula then drinks. He even tells the priests in that scene, "I shall rise from my own death, to avenge hers with all the powers of darkness." That's some seriously messed up spirituality to begin with, and it appears nowhere in Stoker's book.Second is the depiction of Mina Murray, as a reincarnation of Dracula's wife centuries later. Coppola's version of Dracula is motivated completely by this, in spite of the fact Stoker never wrote it either. More changes include Dracula's beast form attacking and having sex with Lucy, and Dracula giving his brides an innocent baby...presumably to eat or defile sexually. The writers were sicker with these inventions than Stoker ever was, and Coppola's a fool for supporting it.Another element in the film is very common to adaptations of the story, yet it appears nowhere in the novel. That element is the idea of Dracula being an undead or cursed Vlad Tepes, a 15th-century prince of Wallachia. This is a very popular myth which has persisted thanks to Hollywood, but again Stoker never equated Dracula with Vlad.Aside from the excessive sexual, Satanic, and gory elements in the movie, there's actually a very talented cast in it. Gary Oldman has done phenomenal work through his career, as has Anthony Hopkins. Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were fairly well-known in 1992, but had not yet reached superstar status. Billy Campbell's main role prior to this film was "The Rocketeer" for Disney, a perennial favorite of mine. Cary Elwes had done "The Princess Bride", which remains his most popular role 30 years later. But all these fine actors were wasted on a tale that, in spite of bearing Stoker's name, has only the slightest commonalities with the book.If you're going to adapt someone's work, and use their name in the title...keep your film as close to the source as possible. This movie is a violation of Stoker's book in so many forms, the title being the least one. There's so much here that is absolutely horrendous; I'm surprised Stoker's estate didn't sue Coppola and American Zoetrope.