Bram Stoker's Dracula - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Bram Stoker's Dracula Reviews

Page 1 of 530
February 14, 2018
Some great performances and best depiction of Dracula to date. Not perfect but still enjoyable years on.
½ February 10, 2018
So much better than the Bela Lugosi version.
Edit: Wow, I originally rated this 4.5 stars. What was I thinking? I recently rewatched this and have had to downgrade to 3.5. I had it in my mind that Keanu Reeves was the only bad actor in this but really quite a few of them are terrible. Though, to be fair, the characters are mostly idiots anyway. And the effects really haven't aged well. Still fun though.
½ February 8, 2018
Gary Oldman is fiendishly good as Dracula.
February 2, 2018
Best of any Dracula plots.
January 29, 2018
Must have watched this a hundred times and it never gets old. Always hoping my brain will go mad and the ending will be different... Mina and Vlad together but ho-hum, such is death. I happen to be in love with Gary Oldman anyway so can't go wrong... the minute details of some his acting are priceless, for example, study the way he checks the envelopes that he compelled Jonathan to write... pure genius.
January 13, 2018
Gothic gorgeousness.
December 26, 2017
A visually stunning film at times with a wonderful cast topped by Gary Oldman in scene stealing form.
December 18, 2017
Bram Stoker's Dracula is an adaption of the vampire classic directe by Francis Ford Coppola. The movies follows the classic story of the undead Dracula (played by Gary Oldman) feasting on the blood of the living and later hunted by group seeking justice led by Van Helsing (played by Anthony Hopkins). It's also one of the few adaptions most close to the source material as it has Quincy Morris and Arthur Holmwood. Visually, the movie looks stunning. It has this gothic feel that is just beautiful to look at with grand epic sets (from Dracula's Castle to London). The movies does not shy away from blood as gore effects are plenty and look great. The movie also features an All-Star cast. Gary Oldman plays a Dracula that is both sympathetic and psychotic. Anthony Hopkins plays the intellegent and weird Van Helsing. Wiona Ryder plays a sexy Mina. And even Keanu Reeves does a good job as a gentleman Jonathon Harker. Over, the movie is a fangtastic movie that captures the romantic horror that capture the feel of the novel.
½ November 16, 2017
This felt more like a romance movie than it did a horror one, which I'm not too wild about. Gary Oldman owns the role here as Dracula and Winona Ryder does a standup job as the romantic lead, but Anthony Hopkins was basically second banana here which was a waste and worst of all Keanu Reeves was absolutely miscast as a Brit with one of the most unconvincing accents I've ever heard. Overall it's a pretty good story, again despite heavy on the loveydovey stuff, it could have been better though.
Super Reviewer
October 29, 2017
During the early 90's there was a reinvigoration for classic horror characters that were tackled by some of the most reputable names in the movie business. Under the watchful eye of director Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson put his spin on the werewolf in 1994's Wolf while Kenneth Branagh managed to convince Robert DeNiro to take on the lead in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (also in 1994). Two years previously, however, it was Francis Ford Coppola who reimagined Bram Stoker's lengendary tale of Dracula and he done so with some of the most visually impressive work he's ever produced.

Plot: In 1897, young lawyer Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) travels to gloomy Transylvania to close a deal on 10 London properties purchased by Count Dracula (Gary Oldman). However, the Count happens upon a photograph of Harker's betrothed Mina Murray (Winona Ryder) who strongly resembles the undead vampire's lover, Elisabeta, who died centuries ago. Inspired by the photo, the Count imprisons Harker and sets forth for London on a reign of seduction and terror to find his lost love.

The Godfather's, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now are considered some of the cinematic greats and just a few from the resumé of Francis Ford Coppola at a time when he was at the forefront of filmmaking. However, when Bram Stoker's Dracula was released it came when, the once great, Coppola had fallen on harder times and he was unable to recreate the quality that his name had become synonymous with. Many would even claim that Dracula continued his poor run of projects but as a reimagining, it's actually quite a stunning piece of work.

One thing that can't be said about the film is that it lacks style or is anything less than ambitious and hugely extravagant. It's obvious that it's Coppola intention to provide a fantastically visual experience and if the film is to be judged on that alone, then it's a massive success. Production designer Thomas Sanders really earns his crust in his recreation of this timeless story and he's helped, immeasurably, by Scorsese's regular cinematographer, Michael Ballhaus as every movie artifice in the book is utilised to beautifully, hyper-stylised effect.

Although faithful to Stoker's original source material, narratively, the film has holes bigger than anything an old Transylvanian could sink into your neck. However, on this occasion, it doesn't really matter such is Coppola's ability to sweep you up in a romantic, Victorian love story while adding a much needed humanity to Dracula's character and motivations. This isn't just a generic horror tale involving coffins, stakes and garlic, this cuts across each characters personal journey; from lovers Mina Murray and Jonathan Harker to vampire hunter, Abraham Van Helsing, with each of them afforded equal and ample screetime. That said, the least said about some of the performances, the better: Winona Ryder is an actress that I've never taken to so anything she delivers doesn't really work for me and as Harker, Keanu Reeves is plain woeful. Reeves is no thespian and often comes in for criticism but this is, unequivocally, the worst he's ever been and his accent alone is so cringeworthingly bad that it's hard not to feel embarrassed for him. To be fair to him, though, you get the felling that even Reeves knows he's out of his depth. Meanwhile, Anthony Hopkins doesn't fare much better as Van Helsing. Normally, Hopkins delivers strong work but he absolutely hams it up here with another poor grasp on an accent that he simply can't get his tongue around. On the periphery, there's an overindulgent Richard E. Grant, an overzealous Sadie Frost and a very entertaining Tom Waits as the deranged, insect eating R.M. Renfield. Anyone familiar with Waits' ability to assume different personas in his musical work will see that this is a perfect role for him. When all is said and done, however, the majority of the meat on the films' bones rests with the leading man and Gary Oldman really delivers the goods. He's absolutely superb. Of all the main performers, Oldman is the only one who seems to understand what the tone of the film should be. He knows when he's required to crank it up or play it down and his range as an actor is on full display. He, at once, makes Dracula a broken-hearted romantic while also capturing a genuinely sinister and foreboding presence.

With an abundance of atmosphere and visual mastery, Coppola lays the old cliched vampire to rest and ressurects the gothic tale in true creative style. It's certainly not without its flaws but you've got to admire Coppola's chutzpah to do things vastly different from any other adaptation. His handle on mood is masterful while his composition is breathtakingly imaginative.

Mark Walker
½ October 21, 2017
Some of the performances are awkward, but this is a visually stunning and creepy adaptation.
½ October 19, 2017
The effects and Gary Oldman are cool
½ October 16, 2017
Oldman is fantasic. Reeves is the opposite of that
October 11, 2017
Coppollas vision of Dracula is as stylistically inconsistent, messy, and hard to follow as it is visceral and well performed.
Grade: C+
October 7, 2017
loved it when I was young, not as good as I remember.
½ August 12, 2017
Not Coppola's best nor his gothic horror masterpiece but it's still a great classic horror movie with some amazing performances. The first 30 mins Is my favourite because it has a mood and the scene with draculas eyes floating in the sky is creepy in it self. Buuuut there is some overacting *cough Keanu reeves *cough* and if more Delves into gothic romance and the romance story is too overlong I thought. Other than that it's a great horror movie and recommend it to any horror fan
August 3, 2017
This is so appalling it's actually pretty funny. Even if you weren't a fan of the book, previous films, or the lore in general, the film feels like a blockbuster chore. It wastes some great gothic settings and creative camerawork with some terrible choices in adapting the classic story. This could've done with more character development since some actors play their parts well at times - not all the time *koff* Keanu Reeves *koff* - and less of the overblown sexuality and an unnecessary tie-in with real-life figure Vlad the Impaler. For Coppola to direct such a poor adaptation and slap Bram Stoker's name on the title is a mystery as it proves faithful yet misses the mark the way other versions have done in the past.
July 10, 2017
Dark, violent, Gothic and tragic, Coppola's adaptation of Bram Stoker's vampire classic is a faithful and spellbinding. A visual masterpiece, this beautiful film is easily the best adaptation of the Prince of Darkness since his celluloid debut in the 30's.
June 30, 2017
Dark and creepy atmosphere, good performances (except from Keanu Reeves), and great direction. Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula may be the best rendition of Bram Stoker's Dracula and is one of the best vampire movies of all-time.
Page 1 of 530