Bram Stoker's Dracula - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Bram Stoker's Dracula Reviews

Page 1 of 529
December 3, 2016
The daddy of Vampire movies.
November 30, 2016
Why did it take me so long to see this!?
November 9, 2016
I suppose all cinematic adaptations of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" are variably characterized by their tinges of eroticism - a vampire's kiss is perhaps among the most grandiose expressions of carnal hunger to be displayed in the movies - but Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 take on the classic novel is arguably the most ribald of them all. From 1958's "Horror of Dracula" to 1979's "Nosferatu the Vampyre," the portrayal of creeping, embodied terror is the utmost priority - to take on the tonality of a horror picture is a given. And yet this "Dracula" feels more romantic than it does horrific.
Not that the film wholeheartedly rejects notions of bloodcurdling; it's that it's so luxuriantly mounted - think "The Scarlet Empress" (1934) visual crowdedness - that it resembles an emboldened, rose-colored stylistic exercise to be fondled and not repelled by. And in that respect was I optically entranced by it; few genre films are as beautiful to behold as "Dracula." Its budget, said to be a lavish $40 million, delectably shows in every frame.
But its ocular panache is also one of its biggest downfalls. Because looking at it is such an awesome experience, with an abundance of its images working as some of Coppola's finest artistic achievements, its relatively understated dramatics don't much suit it. Despite its original story mostly staying intact, it very much feels like an excursion into style over substance materialism. So buried in a deluge of theatrics is it that watching it is something akin to roller skating through a massive Caravaggio exhibit, mostly thrilling but sometimes overbearing. A grave imbalance rests between decadence and plot substantiality.
Even its performances are engulfed in Coppola's self-indulgence. Gary Oldman stars as the titular count, who, in this incarnation, is handsome and suave in the daylight but is hideous - cobra in a cloak reminiscent - in the moonlit confines of his decrepit manor. Everything else, though, remains relatively faithful. The story's set in stone by now, with us introduced to the antagonist through his association to doomed real-estate agent Jonathan Harker (an abominably miscast Keanu Reeves) and later with us acting as audience as he preys on the latter's fiancee, Mina (Winona Ryder), due to her resembling a past lady love.
But Coppola's storytelling methodologies are sweeping, wide-ranging, and sometimes confusing - as opposed to past adaptations that kept things tight as an anxious seatbelt, it resembles something of an epic, operatic in its characterizations and broad in its seat pieces. Those familiar with the classic "Dracula" story will find the film to be navigable if dizzily drawn. But first-timers will undoubtedly get lost in the shuffle of Coppola's maximalism. At least Oldman is snakily good, with Ryder and Anthony Hopkins (as Van Helsing) dependably suited to this kind of material.
And yet the tyrannical spectacle of its visuals keep me from writing "Dracula" off as an overblown extravaganza. Sure it's overlong and more overelaborate than it has any right (or need) to be. But Coppola has incontrovertibly produced a lush, updated take to be artistically savored. If only its heart matched the melodrama of its patina.
½ November 5, 2016
Even with its dull writing and over-the-top performances, the beautiful cinematography and capture of the spirit of Stoker's immortal work, grants this interpretation of the iconic character an unforgettable face among other classics.
October 31, 2016
Solid attempt but nothing can ever compare to the classic. Lugosi and Frye were just too good. Not to mention, Reeves sucks and so does Dracula's costume. Really??
October 27, 2016
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.
October 22, 2016
Really difficult to understand and follow causing a lot of boredom
½ October 10, 2016
Its boring story is backed by its even more boring performances.
October 5, 2016
One of the bests movies of Francis Ford Coppola! The way that the history is evolving in the elapse of the film is fantastic. The acting of, the always exceptional, Gary Oldman make you feels what happens inside the mind of Dracula.
September 22, 2016
So bad it's worth seeing again; if Mystery Science Theater 3000 was still on, it should be an annual offering. Given the budget, director and principal actors Hopkins and Oldman, it should be a winner. But it isn't; it's a film which promises much and ultimately disappoints. Saw it on the big screen when it opened, and several times since, and it begs consideration of what might have been. Perhaps translation of Victorian sensibilities to 1990's cynical audiences was too much of a stretch. Understand it did make quite a bit of money. But the comic book special effects and scenery chewing by the principals transcend camp. More rotten than notten.
½ September 17, 2016
There was things with Bram Stoker's Dracula that fascinated me: Gary Oldman's performance as Dracula and the plot. But the one thing that standed out to me, not bad but wasn't convincing: Keanu Reeves trying to play a 19th century British man. That didn't work for me. Some of the movie takes place in Transylvania, the home of Prince Dracula. The other thing that fascinated me was Bram Stoker's inspiration for the book. He somehow came upon a story that involved a Romanian Prince. Vlad Tepes aka Vlad The Impaler, also known as Vlad lll. Who tortured, burned and impaled thousands of people in order to save his kingdom. But this is not what this movie is about. This is about in some way about Vlad, but except Vlad/Dracula loses the love of his life by a letter that was sent into the castle of Vlad's home to say that he was died during his battle, Vlad returns to find his wife dead after throwing herself into the river. Vlad raged, starts to reject and everything he stands for. He grabs his samurai sword and rams it into the cross of the church. Vlad drinks the blood falling from the cross. He lives 4 centuries to find the love of his life again, but doesn't get anywhere.
½ September 10, 2016
What accent is that Keanu? Why does Gary Oldman look like that? None of these exasperating questions can be answered by watching this movie. Not a recommend.
September 9, 2016
Bram Stroker's Dracula(1992)
Starring:Gary Oldman,Winona Ryder,Anthony Hopkins,Keanu Reeves,Richard E.Grant,Cary Elwes,Bill Campbell,Sadie Frost,Tom Walts
Directed By:Francis Ford Coppola
My Review
"Love Never Dies"
For some reason I very much like this film a little bit better then it's original predecessor from 1931. The film feels like a re-adaption to the novel it's based off(I don't know I've never read it) cause it ensues the passion of love that Dracula has for Elisabetha and I know understand why he loves her thanks to the film's opening.
In the opening sequence you see the Human version of Dracula and that he use to serve God in a church until his beloved died and he was angry and blood spilled the room. That is when he died and transformed into Dracula.
The film presents as a love story with a horror that is out in the night,sucking the blood of those the beast is aroused by. I did like Gary Oldman's Dracula but if there was an actor who stole the show during this film it would be Anthiny Hopkins as Van Helsing,that was the best performance I have eve seen from Anthony Hopkins since Silence of the Lambs. I wasn't big on Keanu Reeves in the film when he talks it just gets boring. The blood in this film looks cool, I don't if they were computer generated or prop but the effects of the blood were cool.
The remake of Bram Stroker's Draculahas a stellar cast with some great performances,one small one and a creepy erotic torture of love and evil. I give Bram Stroker's Dracula(1992) a 5 out of 5.
½ September 6, 2016
The best adaptation of the timeless novel that has ever been transitioned to film! Yeah sure, it's hard to get past Keanu Reeves's bad English accent, but that doesn't bog down the film for how unique it is! Anthony Hopkins as Dr Van Helsing, oh man! Just awesome as that character! Gets better every time I watch it! 9/10!
August 17, 2016
Personal favorite because it follows Bram Stoker's novel the closest.
July 28, 2016
1931's Dracula Is One Of My Favorite Films.
June 26, 2016
Gary frickin' Oldman!! FFC one of the best directors to ever grace film! A great watch.
June 22, 2016
Undoubtedly a handsome looking production that despite it's much publicized faithfulness to Bram Stoker's novel, fundamentally alters the mood and tone of it's source material. Coppola's florid visual style is interesting, but it mostly seems oddly pointless. Visual flourishes seem to exist for their own sake, which is distracting and really detracts from what should be an atmosphere of menace. At least I think that's what the atmosphere should be. Coppola's shoehorning in a romance angle makes it unclear whether I'm watching a bit of Grand Guignol or a Gothic romance. Most of the time, it seems like I'm supposed to be watching both, but the parts never coexist in a comfortable way. Much has been made of how awful Reeves is in this film, and he is (Why don't folks just let actors speak in their own voice? It would be much less distracting for Jonathan Harker to speak in an American accent than a terrible British one.), but most of the cast isn't a lot better. Oldman is the one lead actor in this who doesn't embarrass himself.
Page 1 of 529