100% John Wick Oct 24
No Score Yet Ouija Oct 24
No Score Yet 23 Blast Oct 24
62% Laggies Oct 24
58% White Bird in a Blizzard Oct 24

Top Box Office

81% Fury $23.5M
88% Gone Girl $17.8M
79% The Book of Life $17.0M
64% Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day $12.0M
8% The Best Of Me $10.2M
23% Dracula Untold $9.9M
47% The Judge $7.9M
31% Annabelle $7.9M
62% The Equalizer $5.4M
63% The Maze Runner $4.5M

Coming Soon

86% Goodbye to Language 3D Oct 29
48% Saw Oct 31
83% Nightcrawler Oct 31
57% Before I Go to Sleep Oct 31
50% Horns Oct 31

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)


Average Rating: 6.5/10
Reviews Counted: 47
Fresh: 37
Rotten: 10

Critics Consensus: Overblown in the best sense of the word, Francis Ford Coppola's vision of Bram Stoker's Dracula rescues the character from decades of campy interpretations -- and features some terrific performances to boot.

Average Rating: 6.7/10
Reviews Counted: 9
Fresh: 8
Rotten: 1

Critics Consensus: Overblown in the best sense of the word, Francis Ford Coppola's vision of Bram Stoker's Dracula rescues the character from decades of campy interpretations -- and features some terrific performances to boot.


Average Rating: 3.6/5
User Ratings: 257,126



Movie Info

Based on Bram Stoker's classic 1897 novel, this film from Francis Ford Coppola and screenwriter James Victor Hart offers a full-blooded portrait of the immortal Transylvanian vampire. The major departure from Stoker is one of motivation as Count Dracula (Gary Oldman) is motivated more by romance than by bloodlust. He punctures the necks as a means of avenging the death of his wife in the 15th century, and when he comes to London, it is specifically to meet heroine Mina Harker (Winona Ryder), the … More

R (for sexuality and horror violence)
Horror , Romance , Science Fiction & Fantasy
Directed By:
Written By:
James V. Hart
In Theaters:
Oct 7, 1997
Columbia Pictures


Friend Ratings

No Friends? Inconceivable! Log in to see what your friends have to say.

Critic Reviews for Bram Stoker's Dracula

All Critics (48) | Top Critics (10) | Fresh (37) | Rotten (10) | DVD (22)

This luscious film restores the creature's nobility and gives him peace.

Full Review… | October 20, 2009
TIME Magazine
Top Critic

Overall, this Dracula could have been less heavy and more deliciously evil than it is, but it does offer a sumptuous engorgement of the senses.

Full Review… | September 26, 2007
Top Critic

A somewhat dispersed and overcrowded story line that remains fascinating and often affecting thanks to all its visual and conceptual energy.

Full Review… | September 26, 2007
Chicago Reader
Top Critic

This lack of a convincing central dynamic leads to the occasional sense that the film is little more than a spectacular edifice, but you'll be too spellbound to resist seduction.

Full Review… | January 26, 2006
Time Out
Top Critic

With Dracula it's apparent that Mr. Coppola's talent and exuberance survive.

Full Review… | May 20, 2003
New York Times
Top Critic

It is Coppola's most lavish and, certainly, his most flamboyant film; never before has he allowed himself this kind of mad experimentation.

Full Review… | January 1, 2000
Washington Post
Top Critic

It's shame to see such a mess made of a project with such a capable cast.

Full Review… | November 7, 2013
Eye for Film

A feast for the senses that fails to satisfy the heart, libido or mind.

Full Review… | June 1, 2011
Lessons of Darkness

Bloody, sexy, scary Dracula for mature teens only!

Full Review… | January 2, 2011
Common Sense Media

Salomť goes to Transylvania

Full Review… | July 22, 2009

Fighting against pop culture expectations and a century of vampire clichť, Coppola's approach is unique. Like it or not, no one had ever seen a "Dracula" quite like this.

Full Review… | May 2, 2008

misguided and ludicrous

Full Review… | October 14, 2007

Unashamedly epic, but it's the details which make the film, particularly vampire-killing Anthony Hopkins and Tom Waits as insect-gobbling Renfield.

Full Review… | September 26, 2007

Has a film ever promised so much yet delivered so little?

Full Review… | September 26, 2007
Empire Magazine

Francis Ford Coppola's lavish version of Bram Stoker's classic novel is a visual cornucopia, overstuffed with images of both beauty and grotesque horror.

Full Review… | September 26, 2007
TV Guide's Movie Guide

Coppola never stops putting on his own showboat performance. His Dracula isn't like anything else around.

Full Review… | July 30, 2007

When Dracula Met Sally...

January 27, 2007

I was still thoroughly impressed with Coppola's style, his exciting camerawork and the great effects.

Full Review… | July 1, 2006
JoBlo's Movie Emporium

Stressing the erotic aspets of Stoker's book with graphic depictions of sexual fantasies and nightmares, the story line and characters sometimes get lost, but the sumptuously mounted film is always a visual treat for the eye.

Full Review… | May 5, 2006

Overblown, but entertaining.

June 10, 2005
Juicy Cerebellum

Suffers from several severe cases of miscasting, but there's still some good gothic gravy to be found.

April 3, 2005

Overproduced, overdirected, overheated, but eye-catching.

August 24, 2003
Mountain Xpress (Asheville, NC)

Audience Reviews for Bram Stoker's Dracula


Dracula: Listen to them: the children of the night. What sweet music they make.

"Lord Never Dies"

After just recently reading Dracula for the first time, I thought I'd give Francis Ford Coppola's film another look. This is a pretty faithful adaption altogether, albeit with the sexual subtleties from the book thrown out. The subtleties aren't there when it comes to sex anymore. There's a lot of nudity, a lot of sex talk, and innuendo thrown in throughout this Dracula adaption.

Same story as every other Dracula. Jonathon Harker is sent to Transylvania to meet with, and care for the purchases of Count Dracula. Once in his castle, Jonathon notices a lot of unusual things with the Count and his home. Soon Dracula leaves for London. Once there he begins corrupting the women as he begins his takeover of London, England, while also trying to get Harker's wife, Mina, to himself.

The cast isn't perfect in this one and neither are the characters. Keanu Reeves feels so out of place in this movie. Van Helsing, like every other Van Helsing character, doesn't really feel like the character from the book. I like Anthony Hopkins and he's good here as well, it's just not the true Van Helsing. Winona Ryder is a decent, but unsatisfactory, Mina. Gary Oldman is the selling point and is great as Dracula.

Altogether this is a really good Dracula adaption. It has its share of problems for sure, but the terrific cinematography, music, and atmosphere of Coppola's horror epic, more then make up for the small problems.

Melvin White

Super Reviewer


Coppola tries so hard to make something stylish above anything else that his film seems like a ludicrous comedy, with so many laughable camera movements, ridiculous overacting and cheesy effects in a mostly incoherent adaptation of what is supposed to be a terrifying story.

Carlos Magalh„es

Super Reviewer

In his rather extensive career, Francis Ford Coppola has given us some of the most iconic, famous, and history changing films from The Godfather Trilogy (yes, I do adore Part III. Get over it) to Apocalypse Now to The Outsiders. With every film he has made, he always makes them completely different from one another in terms of his style, direction, and power; constantly pushing the envelope on how to make a film. With Bram Stoker‚(TM)s Dracula, Coppola enter gothic territory with a film adaptation on the famous Gothic Horror novel that has spawned countless film adaptations, subgenres, and has been a benchmark in pop culture. With this adaptation, Coppola gives us something Dracula fans have been wanting: a serious, faithful, and gorgeous adaptation that does not copy the legendary 1931 Dracula nor goes to all of the stereotypes. Instead, we get something fresh, new, and original.

Of course, the main reason why this film is so great is not really due to Coppola‚(TM)s direction. More so, it is due to Gary Oldman‚(TM)s performance of the title character. Recreating the character to be more based off of the historic ruler Vlad the Impaler, Oldman makes his Dracula more romantic, more powerful, and more terrifying while not doing what so many other actors have done and try to mimic the performance of Bela Lugosi. Yes, Gary Oldman is over the top in this performance, overacting as so many actors in vampire films tend to do (really, it is difficult not to overact in a vampire film), but he adds a passion, sorrow, and evil into the character that really makes you pity him. When Vlad is a human, you feel his anger and hatred for the world and his hatred for God due to the events that have happened. With this in mind, Gary Oldman gives a performance that is still powerful today as it was when this film first came out. Many have tried to copy his tortured performance, and all have failed.

Another actor that I need to mention is Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. To be honest, I was shocked at how cold, frank, and just humorous he makes the character. Typically the character of Van Helsing is meant to be serious, old, and kind of a bore. But Hopkins, he makes the name Helsing be as cool as it sounds. Everything he is on screen, he delivers his lines, his movements, his entire persona with such a likeable charm that you can‚(TM)t help but laugh when he says something so macabre that it disgusts the characters. Truly a likable performance.

With the other actors and actresses, they are all okay. Nothing really stands out about any of them, and this is sad because there is SO much potential. Why Coppola decided to focus on the acting of two characters, I don‚(TM)t know. Even more so when there is so much time dedicated to Mina Harker (Winona Ryder) and I would have liked it if she was more developed as a character. It is quite sad, but regardless, we have already two powerhouse performances that are enough to carry this film as far as it was carried.

The aspect of this film that took me the most is the makeup effects on Gary Oldman as the old Dracula, the Werewolf Dracula, and the Vampire Dracula. With every variation, I found myself spellbound at how wonderful and breathtaking each version was. To say that the makeup team did not waste their time would be an understatement. Another aspect I want to talk about is Coppola‚(TM)s direction. As mentioned earlier, Coppola has a tendency to use different styles with his films to get the story across. With Dracula, I liked how he handled the prologue, the romance, and the ending of the film. However, some aspects are a little left to be desired. Like the scene where the Werewolf Dracula seduces Lucy in the garden. Personally, the direction was a bit confusing while you still got the point across. Things like that were a tad bit odd, but for the most part his dirction is pretty good, but he should probably not do Gothic Horror again unless he decides to fix some of the few problems he has with this film‚(TM)s direction.

In the end, this is the Dracula we have been waiting for: dark, creepy, romantic, fresh, and new. Granted, there are some aspects that are left to be desired, Coppola does direct Oldman and Hopkins in powerful performances that breathes new life into their characters and the impact of Coppola‚(TM)s film has had on vampire films in general is still apparent to this day.

Zach Brehany
Zach Brehany

Super Reviewer


Dark, sensual and very atmospheric. Precisely the way a movie about Dracula should be. The storyline is great, and the visuals even better. At least when it comes to the art direction and production design, which is nothing short of impressive. As for the acting, it's sadly one of the departments that comes with a few drawbacks. For while actors like Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are excellent in their respective roles, the talent level of the supporting cast is very inconsistent. I'm mainly refering to Keaunu Reeves here, whose half-hearted performance and unconvincing accent, leaves a lot to desire. The movie is also bordline cheesy in some scenes. Not so much that it's really bothersome, but not too easy to ignore either. Also on the list of negatives, is the special effects. They look really dated by now, and even downright bad here and there. Considering it's made in 1992, however, I suppose you can't demand too much of it. At any rate, there's something about this film that keeps me coming back for more, and it only gets better for each time I see it (with an exception for the effects that is). Because despite said shortcomings, its strengths more than makes up for it, and I wouldn't have seen it so many times if I didn't consider it something special. For when all is said and done, this is a vampire movie beyond the norm. A memorable piece of film-making, that I'm more than happy to add to my collection.

Mike S

Super Reviewer

Bram Stoker's Dracula Quotes

Count Vlad Dracul/Dracula:
There is much to be learned from beasts.
– Submitted by Mina E (15 months ago)
Count Vlad Dracul/Dracula:
The victories of my great race are but a tale to be told.
– Submitted by Thomas G (19 months ago)
Count Vlad Dracul/Dracula:
What devil or witch was ever so great as Attila, whose blood flows in these veins?
– Submitted by Thomas G (19 months ago)
Lord Arthur Holmwood:
An autotopsy.
Professor Abraham Van Helsing:
No, no, not really, I just want to cut off her head and take out her heart.
– Submitted by Andrew O (21 months ago)
Count Vlad Dracul/Dracula:
I have crossed... oceans of time to find you...
– Submitted by Edward D (21 months ago)
Count Vlad Dracul/Dracula:
Do you believe in destiny? That even the powers of time can be altered for a single purpose? That the luckiest man who walks on this earth is the one who finds... true love?
– Submitted by Galea N (22 months ago)

Discussion Forum

Discuss Bram Stoker's Dracula on our Movie forum!