Bram Stoker's Dracula - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Bram Stoker's Dracula Reviews

Page 1 of 530
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.
June 19, 2017
Heart pounding and enchanting
½ June 13, 2017
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!
May 24, 2017
I'm unsure why making a film about Dracula and his overall story has always been butchered and lame in every attempt. Almost every film on the subject is either cheesy, humorous and of course just degrees of awful. The origin story has so much potential if only a director and cast could present it from origin to imagination. Of all the the TV shows and films regurgitated over the years this version of Coppolas Dracula from 92' is by far the best attempt. Thanks to insanely good makeup and performance from Gary Oldman even of over the top it's the only version I've seen with mystery, terror, intrigue and stylish camera work. It has flaws but when you look at the million attempts like twilight to any version this one stands the test of time in a genre full of potential. I guess it's just hard to make a good film based on this half historical half mythical creatures story. I also loathe how the rules are always different concerning vampirism in terms of weaknesses and strengths they need an origins story by a director with vision like Nolan I bet would make an interesting version. Either way if you want to see an actual good take on vamps and Dracula Stokers is the only one that captures it.
April 2, 2017
This movie is a masterpiece! So well directed and acted. Very suspenseful and everything you look forward to in this legendary tale.
March 20, 2017
Quite stupid adaptation
March 9, 2017
Bloody, sexy with amazing cast
January 18, 2017
Dis was da shiznit fam alam
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.
Page 1 of 530