Watched the 4K version and overall it's a good movie, would probably give 8 or 9 stars back on 90's, but for today audience it's a bit boring.
I really like how similar this movie is to the book! I'm not a big fan of the romance between Mina and Dracula as there was nothing of that sort in the book, but overall I think this is one of my favorite movies
Bram Stoker's Dracula
I was not a fan of this movie.
The majority of the characters were boring.
The accents were laughable.
The pacing was a drag.
It felt overly sexualised, for no good reason.
The thing I liked was the set design and gothic atmosphere.
5/10
#NicksMiniReview
https://t.co/PvFdPqCXhW
I was expecting something better. It follows more or less the original novel, but with many digression on sexuality between characters that do not add anything at all, and even make the plot more difficult to follow. I would have preferred a much drier representation of the classic.
Baroque and melodramatic like nothing else, but that’s exactly what I want from a Dracula film. Everything has been already said about the lush costumes and evocative art direction, but there are also some outstandingly elegant transitions and many symbolic scenes that almost look like paintings. Even though things get a little goofy towards the end, I think it’s still a valid rendition of the original story with all its strengths and weaknesses. If you don’t mind the Harlequin Romance edge, of course. I am pretty sure that the stilted acting and dialogues were intended, but it’s hard to keep listening to Keanu for more than five minutes without having a seizure.
Francis Ford Coppola's vision of the iconic Bram Stoker novel is certainly a striking one. The aesthetic of this movie is fascinating and full of personality and is without a doubt the main selling point, along with an impressive soundtrack and a legendary performance by Gary Oldman.
However, I certainly didn't like the writing, which to my eyes was a weird mix of refined gothic sensibilities and rauncy, over the top scenes (like all the sex scenes). The movie can't seem to decide if it wants to be serious or campy and as a result the tone was all over the place for me. Some characters are downright absurd, or feel like a mockery of how they were in the original story.
Overall, I can see why this movie is loved, but it definitely wasn't for me. I can't deny its qualities, especially in the visuals and music, but they were not enough for me to rate it any higher.
This film should be praised for its similarity with the book, it owns the right to bear Stoker's name in the title. Besides following the actual main story and events of the 1897 novel, it manages to get the gothic/romantic vibe on. The ostensive language presented in the classic book (representing great concern with artistic form) is translated in to gorgeous photography, impeccable makeup, proper soundtrack, and astonishing costume design (Eiko, we love you!).
There is evidence to the theory that Bram was inspired by theater and by the work of the actor Sir Henry Irving to create his masterpiece, people also believe that he intended the book to be portrayed on stage. That did happen for some years, and it is truly beautiful to see that the language of dramatic theater was studied and represented by the intentional overacting of this beautiful cast. The sassy and scandalous drive Lucy Westenra received is hilarious. Her 3 candidates are just as characteristic and over the top as I pictured while reading.
Winona Ryder and Gary Oldman look beautiful together, even though I do not personally enjoy their melodrama, one of the picture's few downers. I understand that, at the time, there was an urge to insert some humanity into Drac (there had already been too many just-naturally-evil nosferatus in the XX Century), but the way Mrs. Harker fell in love with him goes too far for me. After all, she is supposed to be a woman of brilliant wit and fiber, instead of the frivolous and distracted girl she turns out to be throughout the movie.
Of course, cinema always needs to be situated in time, and some of the film's elements may remain hostage to its conception in early 1990's. Due to timeline proximity, sometimes it looks like a hybrid of satire and hommage to the over-sexualized vamps of the 80's. Besides that, we can see an urge to follow Anne Rice's revitalization of the blood-sucking creatures' image: after the publication of "Interview with the Vampire" (which would receive its own adaptation less than 2 years after), the undead portrayed - more than ever - a philosophical and beautiful analogy to our suppressed animal impulses, making the monsters less monstrous and giving them the privilege of our identification, pity and complacency. This impression is an attribute that was present and marked by Mina's goddess-like character in the original book, but almost ignored throughout XX Century's countless Draculas. Such look upon the Count makes this very film even more remarkable.
Finally, I believe it's a complete and respectful adaptation because it does not neglect the previous images created by other movies. It seems to summarize some of the richest portrayals of Stoker's creation: the decrepit old man, opulent ghost, hopeless romantic, cruel womanizer, gory werewolf, disgusting transmorph, and more. It is versatile and shows many of Oldman's faces. Unfortunately, the first minutes referencing the popular belief that Count Dracula is Vlad Tepes is one of the disappointments that Francis Ford Coppola brought to the screen. At the same time, it does not give much space for a try on the iconic image we all know, which is a great choice. Trying to add anything refreshing to the eternal looks of Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee could have been a miss that Coppola happily avoided. I believe that staying out of the ultimate stereotype in a Dracula picture is one of the vampiresque 1990's directors' best choices.
Anthony Hopkins plays the Van Helsing character big, but he has to just to keep up with Oldman's terrifically awesome Count Dracula. Winona Ryder is really good in this, too. Keanu Reeves...uh, not so much.
The visuals are amazing and the inserted shots of blood cells under the microscope, rapid sunsets, and sped up moments of flowers and plants wilting in the presence of Dracula are very effective. This movie looks great. I love the castle and the streets of London as presented here.
Francis Coppola's loyal translation of a classic piece of literature merely proves that many times some new wrinkles are necessary to interpret a printed property for the screen. Visually ambitious but thematically dreary, it often seems like a thin excuse to try out some of Hollywood's craziest ideas in wardrobe, set design, hairstyling and film editing.
I'll tip my hat to Coppola's dedication to his craft; his demands that the entirety of the film's effects be produced in-camera have given the picture an eerie look entirely its own. When they're working, their influence makes the whole picture seem hazy, uncertain and ghostly, like a foggy, lucid dream. When it all goes wrong, though - and this happens fairly regularly - the illusion shatters and once deathly-serious scenes become downright hysterical. A super-heavyweight cast can do little, if anything, with a script so overcooked and while I'll always welcome a healthy dose of indulgent sex scenes, they really don't seem to have a point here.
I was kinda bored for most of this. The monster effects were great though.
On rewatch I liked it a lot better.
"Love never DIES"
Watching a great movie with my sweet VampLisa
Makes no sense and highly sexualized, it was enjoyable but not gonna watch it again
I just wached it again after 30 years. Aged very badly. It’s like a weak musical but without any songs.
Francis Ford Coppola is known for not doing things halfway. Therefore, it is no surprise that "Bram Stoker's Dracula" contains many ideas that ensure that the film never gets boring. Especially on a technical level as well as from the overall visuals, it is entirely captivating. The costumes and makeup are truly phenomenal. Looking at the script and the actors, however, there is definitely some room for criticism. For instance, Coppola's approach to adapting the vampire novel can perhaps be described as poetic. But cheesy and corny would probably be just as accurate. The cast, on the other hand, is mostly good despite some overacting, with one major exception: Keanu Reeves is truly awful. As Jonathan Harker, he is perhaps the miscast of all miscasts. Fortunately, his character doesn't play that big a role after the first act. So I was able to enjoy Coppola's vampire movie nonetheless.
Great revision of the vampirism classic.
I just finished watching the 30th anniversary version at Cinemark, it was good, and there was some extra scenes and extended cuts at the end. They upscaled the movie for the big screen which really made a huge difference in quality.
Before going into this, the majority of what I had heard about the film revolved around Keeanu Reeves' terrible accent, and lackluster performance.
Little had I heard about the impeccable performances from Anthony Hopkins, Winnona Ryder, and Sadie Frost. Gary Oldman is also very good in his role as the titular Dracula, but some scenes leave a bit to be desired, and I also don't much care for his Transylvanian accent, though it's not as bad as Reeves' English one.
Aside from all of that, the most striking part of the film for me was the atmosphere it sets. With astounding set pieces lit by otherworldly hues, framed in such a manner to evoke a feeling that these were not sets that were photographed, but instead surreal gothic oil paintings brought to life by some unearthly means.
This feeling is cemented even further by Wojciech Kilar's gloomy and unnerving score, lending a sense of dread to the film, yet also has a feeling of mysticism to it.
I must also mention the astounding special effects, most of which are practical in nature, and, alongside the rest of which I have mentioned, add to the overall art direction and atmosphere of the film.
This atmosphere is, however, occasionally interrupted by the script, which has some bits of typical Hollywood comic relief that does not feel out of place in a film from the early-90s.... but can certainly feel a bit out of place when compared to the setting and tone of the film. Still, this is a minor complaint, all things considered.
All in all, Francis Ford Coppola does a fantastic job adapting the story of Dracula to the screen, and this version is well worth seeing for anybody who is interested in gothic horror films.
“I am the monster that breathing men would kill. I am Dracula."
This film starts off strong, then halfway through I was wondering if it was overrated and boring, then the third act is pretty awesome. The practical effects and demonic look were great, but definitely feels more like an art piece than anything else.
I appreciate this film more now that I'm older than I did before.
Keanu Reeves is barely in the movie.
No man will ever love me in a "I have crossed oceans of time to find you" way. That kinda sucks.
Director Francis Ford Coppola brings a new vision to the Bram Stoker classic, Dracula. Putting a reincarnation spin on the story, Dracula pursues his lost love across time and finally discovers her in Mina Harker. With a cast that includes Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, and Anthony Hopkins, the film has an interesting array of performances. Ryder gives a near perfect performance as Mina Harker, and Hopkins delivers one of most unique and entertaining interpretations of Van Helsing. The visual and directing style is distinctive and attempts to convey the unconventional nature of the original novel. However, the film’s visuals and storytelling are also problematic at times. While the film is remarkably faithful in some aspects, extraordinary liberties have been taken with others. Bram Stoker’s Dracula delivers a vivid new interpretation for a new audience, but is a far cry from the original novel.
It really felt more like a play than a movie to me. Very well crafted and acted film.
I do not know how close that is to the original material. To be honest, I have never read one of the classics. But this movie is worth watching for its atmosphere and acting, and I appreciate it now much more than 25 years ago.
Coppola makes a great movie!!
liked it as a kid. years later I find Keanu reeves a little more wooden and the religious horror aspects don't effect me. It also seems a little gimmicky now. Saying that I still think it's a good version of Dracula and the atmosphere is brilliant. The good budget and director make it worth watching.
From the costume design to the color palette, the soundtrack to the architecture, weird choices to camera angles and at times the symmetry, the intelligent use of shadow, the persistent sense of dread following every step of the journey, this flick has so many rights that you might as well leave the wrongs in its background - and willfully forget about them.
I wouldn't think of some scenes having what we could call ludicrous acting or even some of the shots presenting odd camera movements - everything's just part of the spectacle.
We're brought to a place where we transit between lust and naïvety, science confronted by the unknown, the supernatural longing through eternity for something so mundane and ever so frail: eternal love.
This movie, along with "Interview with the Vampire" and "Let the Right One In" (curiously those two also being based on books), albeit not up to par with the same flamboyant execution/borderlining pure amazingness, are to me some of the best cinematic renditions on the theme, specially considering contemporary ones.
Belluci looking so good!
Young Winona Ryder and young Keanu Reeves
Shout by Rushdan Abdul RashidBlockedParent2015-01-12T03:51:38Z
Eiko Ishioka's costume design is one of the reasons I chose to immortalize this horror-love movie in my iPhone 6 Plus, other than that Francis Ford Coppola is at his best.