Bram Stoker's Dracula [Blu-ray] Reviews

• Actually, I come down on this as James V. Hart's "Dracula"

  
  By A2NJO6YE954DBH on 2004-10-23
  "Bram Stoker's Dracula" or, more properly, "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula"? The assumption was that the title was chosen to stake a claim to being the film adaptation closest to Bram Stoker's original gothic novel, but the reason was more mundane. Another studio had the rights to the title "Dracula," so a qualification was necessary. Since this 1992 horror film would have the same characters along with the same general plotline as the novel, this seemed reasonable enough. But screenwriter James V. Hart added a significant element to Stoker's novel that justified the movie's potent tagline, "Love Never Dies." As director, Francis Ford Coppola provides the stylistic flourishes, which are this movie's best parts, but Hart is the one who is responsible for the derivations.
  
  In the novel Count Dracula only makes vague reference to the historical Vlad the Impaler, son of the prince known as Dracul (the Dragon), hence the name Dracula (son of the Dragon), when he tells his guest Jonathan Harker of the history of his family. Hart takes advantage of what we know about the historical figure to craft the film's prologue. Vlad (Gary Oldman) is fighting the Turkish invaders, not simply as a prince of Wallachia, but rather as more of a true Christian knight. He succeeds, but the exaggerated rumor of his death reaches his beloved Elisabeta (Winona Ryder), who throws herself to her death from the castle walls. As a suicide she cannot be buried on consecrated ground, and an outraged Vlad renounces God and is somehow transmorgraphies into a vampire as a result of his blasphemy. Then we get to the beginning of the novel.
  
  Harker (Keanu Reeves) is traveling to Transylvania to Dracula's castle to complete a series of real estate transactions that will allow the Count to come to London and live in style. Something not very nice happened to the previous member of Harker's firm to make this trip (can you say Renfield?), but the old Count only seems eccentric. However, when he sees a picture of Harker's fiancée, Mina Harker (Ryder), the Count knows that she is the reincarnation of his beloved Elisabeta. Now Dracula has reason to not only travel to London, but to make himself young again so that he can woo his woman.
  
  Once we move from Transylvania to London, we meet the rest of our cast of characters. Mina's best friend, Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), is being courted by Dr. Jack Seward (Richard E. Grant), who runs his own little asylum, Lord Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes), a handsome nobleman, and Quincey P. Morris (Bill Campbell), who hails from the American West. However, before Lucy can choose from amongst her beaus, she becomes the new bride of Dracula instead. Fortunately, Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) knows more about medicine than what is found in science books and knows what is to be done in this situation. Meanwhile, Count Dracula manages to run into Miss Mina, and the seduction is on.
  
  The production design on this film is fantastic. When it first came out on DVD I would use it as a prime example of what could be down with sets and decor: Thomas E. Sanders and Garrett Lewis were nominated for an Oscar. The film won Oscars for Eiko Ishioka's Costume Design, and the Makeup of Greg Cannom, Michèle Burke and Matthew W. Mungle, as well as the Sound Effects Editing by Tom C. McCarthy and David E. Stone. Cinematographer Michael Ballhaus deserves to be mentioned despite similar notice. The bottom line is that this is a great looking film, which is one of the things we come to expect in Coppola's work.
  
  Oldman's performance as Dracula is interesting. Given all the actors who have come before from Max Schreck and Bela Lugosi to Christopher Lee and Frank Langella, it is hard to stake out new ground in the role. But Oldman bases his characterization on not only the romantic but also the tragic elements of this particular Dracula. Unfortunately, the performances of the cast are the weakest part of the film. Reeves is far and away the most wooden, but Ryder does not create a woman worth waiting for as far as I am concerned, which is the true weakest point of the film. Hopkins follows Laurence Olivier in the Van Helsing role and in a similar vein creates an eccentric ethnic know-it-all who spends a lot of time basically telling the gang of fearful vampire slayers to shut up and do what he says.
  
  When "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is over you will be struck by how gorgeous the film is from start to finish. That will make up for so many of the actors being as wooden as the stakes used to dispatch the vampires. Hart's twist on the tale helps improve Stoker's original ending, which was basically a race to kill Dracula before the sun sets. The tragic element established by the prologue is adequately played out in the ending. This film might be another example of the triumph of style over substance, but given the depths that some vampire movies can reach, it is nice to have one that aspires to such artistic pretensions.
  
  
  

• "We are all madmen for God"

  
  By A1M4NJYP0WNL8Q on 2002-11-23
  When I first saw this film I was completely carried away with Francis Ford Coppola's dark and brooding presentation of the novel that created the modern vampire. The visual composition, the use of color as theme, and the music overloaded my senses to the point that I barely noted the movement of the plot. After all, I had read Stoker's tale often enough to recite it word for word. Why pay too much attention? Going back over the film 10 years later revealed much that I missed the first time.

  Of course, the film really tries to capture the feeling of the book rather than be a literal copy, which may bother some aficionados. Coppola has chosen to gradually shift emphasis from a horror tale to the tragic story of an impossible love, without ever losing either thread. By shifting Dracula (Gary Oldman) back and forth from Rumanian hero to terrible monster, and allowing each persona to have its emotional context, he forces a foreboding dilemma on the viewer. Dialog and narration is sparse, just enough rather than florid. Again, nothing is allowed to distract from the building tension.

  What completely escaped me on the first viewing was Coppola's vision of a creeping corruption that infects almost all of the characters. British social mores fare little better than those of the vampires. Jack Seward (Richard Grant) is a morphine addict and Lucy Westenra's (Sadie Frost) sexual intensity proves her Achilles heel. Even Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) is subject to eerie, almost degenerate moments. This is a less pure, more disturbing world than that of Bram Stoker's imaginings.

  Coppola keeps the film working on many levels - foreboding horror, grand romance, sharp social commentary, and transcendental morality play. If love redeems, it only does so at a terrible price. Well worth viewing - several times.
  
  

• 16:9 HDTV/480p DVD/5.1 sound = SUPERBIT DRACULA !!!

  
  By AW003H7Z3OCHA on 2002-02-06
  This review is about "SUPERBIT COLLECTION" an outstanding Home Theatre version of Bram Stokers Dracula, a Francis Ford Coppola film.

  Columbia Pictures has raised the bar on DVD video and sound quality with the new "SUPERBIT" series movies. This feature improves the picture by doubling the bit rate digital transfer. Simply, twice the picture quality of existing DVD transfers. Also the sound has been enhanced equally in performance.

  NOTE: GOODS NEWS - All this can be enjoyed on existing DVD players with noticeable improvements. BAD NEWS - Its not really bad news its really the "BOTTOM LINE NEWS" - the "SUPERBIT COLLECTION IS FOR YOU IF" you have; a Home Theatre, HDTV WideScreen (Enhanced 16:9)w/Component Video, Progressive Scan DVD (480p) w/Component Video & DTS or 5.1 Sound environment. IF you have this then the "SUPERBIT COLLECTION" Dracula explodes of the screen!!!!!!

  Summary: SUPERBIT Dracula directed by Francis Ford Copplola is a very beautiful photographed eerie love story. With a story line more to the tragedy of Dracula (brillantly played by Gary Oldman)than the viciousness of vampires. The detailed scenes & colors explode off the screen with this "SUPERBIT" version film. The 5.1 sound is crystal clear and adds immensely to the eeriness of this dark gothic horror film. This SUPERBIT detailed film makes for an unbelievable visual experience. Coppola does a grand job providing us with an unsusual twist in the story of Dracula.

  This is the best "SUPERBIT" transfer so far in the Columbia Pictures Collection. Just remember, "SUPERBIT" was developed to give the Home Theatre owner a new improved DVD experience and they have done this with "Bram Stokers, Dracula". Enjoy.
  
  

• Brilliant but flawed

  
  By A3AAK33K3BUUTM on 2007-09-12
  I've waited and waited for this collector's edition while scoffing at the bare-bones release for the better part of a decade. Come on, this is legendary director Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of the most iconic vampire story of all time, surely they could do better. Well, my prayers have finally been answered. 30+ minutes of deleted scenes, director's commentary, documentaries; this is what I'm talking about! The cover is rather silly, as if someone caught Drac without his makeup on and he's shielding his face from the camera, but it's the movie that counts, right?
  
  The film itself is a visual masterpiece that suffers both from it's overwrought, big-budget nature and it's annoying lack of faithfulness to the original work. I mean, if you're going to call it "Bram Stoker's Dracula" the least one could reasonably expect is for the story to stick as closely to the book as possible. Sure, there are plenty of lines from both the novel and the classic Bela Lugosi film as well as plenty of other faithful details, but that isn't necessarily enough. The biggest chink in this film's shiny armor is the baffling romantic story that is shoehorned into what was a classic horror yarn. I'm not talking about the romance between Mina Murray and Jonathan Harker, nor Lucy Westenra and her three suitors -those were in the book- but the romance between Mina and the undead monster that kidnapped her fiance, raped and murdered her best friend to bring her back as a soulless creature that feasts on children in the night. Not a good foundation for any relationship. And let's face it, the whole "vampire searching for his reincarnated lost love" storyline is a terrible cliche that never fails to make an otherwise good horror film drag. This was a bad move on Coppola's part that compromises the film's integrity in an attempt to appeal to the Anne Rice set. The time spent on Mina and Dracula's romance would have been much better spent on sequences that were left out of the film, such as Drac's wolves tearing apart a mother who comes looking for her child that was stolen in the night by the vampire, or the fate of the ship's captain who ties himself to the steering wheel with a crucifix attempting to avoid sharing his crew's fate and is found dead that way when the ship docks. And then there's Jonathan Harker's attempt to end Dracula's life with a shovel while he sleeps in his coffin. These are three of the most memorable scenes in the novel (the latter, at least, is available as a deleted scene) and they would have been amazing on film.
  
  The performances are uneven at times, but are overall quite good. Keanu Reeves will always be Keanu Reeves, but his performance doesn't detract from the film as much as it could have since his blandness certainly helps the Mina-loves-Dracula story seem a little more believable. Anthony Hopkins gives an enthusiastic performance as the original vampire hunter Abraham Van Helsing; commanding at times, and at other times bizarre and off-putting. There is a scene which was deadly serious in the book where Van Helsing is attempting to explain the gravity of the threat Dracula's influence poses and Hopkins delivers lines like "We are dealing with forces beyond all human experience, and enormous power. So guard her well. Otherwise, your precious Lucy will become a bi+ch of the Devil! A whore of darkness!" to Lucy's lover while attempting to suppress hysterical laughter. Real classy, Abe! Speaking of Lucy, Sadie Frost plays her as an extremely sexy, charming, and eventually horrifying tragic character. Spot on. Not much needs to be said about Gary Oldman; he is an unbelievable actor who goes so far into his characters that he is often unrecognizable. As the 19th century vampire lord who has lived for centuries, this one is no exception. Wynonna Ryder plays Mina with an interesting mix of innocence and sexual curiosity and though she comes off as clueless in the end, I'll let it slide since she wasn't the brightest bulb in the book either. Dracula's three brides are portrayed in very memorable fashion: seductive, beautiful, and terrifying. Perfect.
  
  The deleted scenes are a mixed batch, featuring some truly ghastly acting from Reeves in an otherwise grand alternate opening, much more of the film's awesomely elaborate sets, and at least one scene that should have stayed in (discussed previously). Throw in four solid documentaries and commentary from the director and you've got a DVD done right.
  
  Other than the few major quibbles I've discussed, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is the most faithful and visually impressive Dracula adaptation to date. There are scenes that will thrill, repulse, titillate, and creep you the hell out, sometimes all at once. It also features some of the coolest edits ever in a horror film and plenty of shocking imagery. While it fails to capture the charm, iconic performances, and legendary status of the original "Dracula" (still my favorite vampire film) this is a worthy update and, with the bonus features, this is an no-brainer for horror and vampire fanatics. If you haven't seen this film you've missed out on a unique, visually staggering, and atmospheric take on the greatest vampire story ever told and you shouldn't hesitate to pick this up.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• The Best Dracula Movie I've Ever Seen!

  
  By AAQUF1J7H0OMY on 1999-07-02
  Francis Ford Coppola does an excellent job retelling the Dracula tale using actual history blended with legend. Gary Oldman is excellent as the Count. Oldman's portrayal of the Count as a tortured man longing for the lost love of his life acutally had me feel sorry for the man. When he observes the portrait of Mina(Winona Ryder) and remembers his lost bride it is truly an awesome scene. Oldman's Count can also be bloodthirsty as well! Sir Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing is very fun to watch. To say that Van Helsing is a little nuts is an understatement! The music is also classic and it really sets the mood during the entire film. Winona Ryder as Mina playing a woman torn between the Count and her intended husband(Kneau Reeves) is well done. The most awesome scene is when the Count receives Mina's letter saying that she'll never see him again. You can feel the heartache and pain in the Count and also feel his anger. Awesome! A must see for the true Dracula fan!
  
  
• This collection's edition DVD features incldue
  By A2D5FK0NKOFWNJ on 2007-08-29
  Number of Discs: 2
  Special Features:
  · Video introduction by Francis Ford Coppola
  · Audio commentary by Francis Ford Coppola
  · Documentary
  · Deleted scenes
  · Trailer
  
  
• Total disappointment
  By ABM71MMZAD3DP on 2007-11-04
  This Blu-ray disc is, to put it simply, awful. Reading serious professional reviews, I didn't have high expectations, but I love the movie and gave it a chance. I wish I didn't, becouse I have seen upscaled standard definition discs that look much better then this. Colors are drab, picture is both grainy and fuzzy, awful, awful. To be fair, there is a lot of supplements, but I didn't look at them, frustrated by the scandalous picture quality of the movie, which should be the thing that really counts here. I really tried to find what was so nice about the disc that other reviewers praise, but couldn't find that. I just hope they do a remaster, like they did for "Fifth Element" which now looks and sounds great. "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is not that old a movie and can look much better. Look at "2001" Blu-ray (although, it may not be fair to compare, since it's source was 70mm film). Just look at any other Blu-ray or HD DVD disc, becouse this one is simply THE worst HD disc (both Blu-ray and HD DVD) I have ever seen. Beware!!!
  
  
• FINALLY- I've been waiting for this for years!
  By A3VT02MM16OKNS on 2007-09-02
  Certain scenes from promo materials & in the script never made it to final editing- Harker swinging a shovel at Old Dracula springing from his crypt, Harker's escape from the Brides, Van Helsing holding the Brides' heads- plus I've heard there's LOTS of Tom Waits' Renfield scenes that have yet to be seen. Between this & the DVD of BBC's COUNT DRACULA with Louis Jourdan, this Halloween is gonna rock!
  
  
• "Love Never Dies"--A Lush Production of the Romantic Dracula
  By A1AUK3KZC0JUN6 on 2000-11-05
  Dracula, the greatest character in the long history of B Movies, finally gets A Movie treatment in this lush production from Francis Ford Coppola. The art direction, costuming and special effects are first rate; they are used as prime examples in a recent film textbook. With Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins as the main protagonists, you can forgive a couple of younger well known name actors being a bit out of place. Despite the title, this film actually goes beyond Stoker, trying to work in a bit more of the original Vlad the Impaler backstory. The biggest difference is that this Dracula film is an epic love story, with Mina now the reincarnation of Vlad's long dead love. Stoker's novel has long been open to interepretation and variation, so this is hardly the time to consider it holy writ. If nothing else, this is the most beautiful vampire movie you will ever see (yes, even more than "Interview with the Vampire."
  
  
• A Dracula Movie??!!
  By A2NLJNXAR4UOXD on 2003-11-08
  When I borrowed this movie from a friend (who unfortunately hasn't seen it yet)my expectations were high (academic prizes, reviews and all such stuff). I started to watch the movie with an aticipation for something really good and scary, but as the movie went on I was inclined more and more to laugh. My opinion about this movie can be summarized in a few words: a movie overdramatized and overstuffed with visual effects that got nothing to with the classic novel by Bram Stoker. The beginning looked very artifical (in the full sense of the word), the style was sentimental and so overdramatized that I couldn't get myself to believe anything that happened on the screen. Gary Oldman playing the count Dracula was quite amusing because of the fact that the fearsome vampyre looked like an eccentric fragile old man (G. Oldman acting an old man, yeah, a bad pun) with rather strange hairstyle and long crimson robe. Such Dracula looked more capable of falling apart from the first touch finger than of murdering the innocents and sucking out their blood. Jonathan looked like some bad version of Leonardo da-Vinchi (sorry, Leonardo di-Caprio) et cetera. The other rather horrible thing about this movie was its omnipresent eroticism. Lucy couldn't be that sexy just because it all happens in the nineteenth century and the views on sex there were rather strict. Dracula turning into something looking like large ape with long mane of black hair (meant to be a werewolf????) and half raping Lucy half sucking her blood was just ridiculous. The succubi in the castle were the only creatures that shoud have been sexy, no one else. Anyway sex is one of the things that destroy the atmosphere of gothic horror story, not creating it. In short, if you're a fan of Edgar A. Poe or H.P. Lovecraft, playing "Diablo" or listening to such stuff as "Iced Earth", to be precise, if you're a fan of the horror genre, don't watch this movie (whatever is said in the five-star ratings, they're all wrong).
  
  
• After Years of Anticipation ...
  By A36BN0WY0XV6TL on 2007-10-02
  Like many who love this movie, knowing that Coppola reportedly had to submit something like 38 different cuts of the film to the MPAA before they'd give it the passable blessing of an "R" rating, I've assumed that the version released to the public was drastically compromised and that, someday, a "director's cut" would be released that would be at once more wickedly graphic and cinematically substantial than the theatrical cut. At the very least, for years I've been hoping that Criterion, who had distributed the film on laserdisc, would put out a new, comprehensive DVD set of "Bram Stoker's Dracula" with the missing (practically censored, I'd imagined) footage along with extras that would shed light on all the gory details fans have been waiting to sink their fangs into.
  
  Well, as it turns out, that ultra-transgressive "director's cut" doesn't quite exist as I (and many others) had envisioned. What we have here is a brand-new transfer of the same movie as it was released in 1992, together with an outstanding commentary and extensive video introduction by Coppola, some great featurettes and documentaries, and that deleted material, which does not contain the reels of censored were-beast ravishment and full-frontal-Monica-Bellucci vampire-bride orgies that I had somehow built up in my mind.
  
  The transfer is noticeably sharper and cleaner, but it does seem overly dark in places, and I expect more fan-boy "controversy" about how correct the colors are in this print. (I still have my Superbit copy, and though I haven't compared the two, there's a difference.) What's more, in a few shots I noticed barely visible transparent horizontal bars scanning across the screen. It didn't seem to be a problem with my monitor, but some sort of video glitch in the transfer-scan, part of the actual digital print. At any rate, the new print impressed me in places, disappointed or outright irritated me in others -- far from a reference-quality transfer, with the flaws evidently all the more visible on the Blu-ray disc, I have read.
  
  The documentary extras are all beautifully produced. There is the definite sense that F. F. Coppola and his production company were responsible for all of the supplemental material, not a DVD producer working out of a cubicle at Sony Pictures, and that alone makes this set worth buying. Even the simple, slim packaging is nicely done.
  
  That's basically my two cents on this edition of the DVD, but I'd like to make a couple of modest points about the film itself.
  
  First: No, the movie doesn't follow the book to the letter, nor was that Coppola's intention. All of Coppola's comments on the film illustrate how incredibly knowledgeable he was, and is, about Stoker's novel and the factual history behind the Dracula myth. The book is a classic, but it is not great literature; it's a gothic potboiler full of clumsy narrative techniques, egregious historical and medical inaccuracies, silly characters and dialogue, a mish-mash of ideas taken from now-forgotten but once-popular vampire stories, etc. Anyone familiar with Coppola's work knows that, as one of the few filmmakers with a genuine familiarity with and appreciation of literature, it is his custom to include the name of the author in the title of a film he has adapted from a written work (hence, "Mario Puzo's The Godfather," the original, complete title of that movie).
  
  Second: All the above taken into consideration, I believe Coppola's version is the truest in spirit to Stoker's novel (seconded, perhaps, by Guy Maddin's "Dracula"), even though the storyline is divergent from the book. Like the book, this movie is a gonzo gothic potboiler, kinky and compelling, and each outlandish exclamation point at the end of virtually every line of dialogue delivered by Anthony Hopkins is an echo of its source material.
  
  
• Finally another good blu-ray title
  By AQB4DH57MSZSC on 2007-10-07
  Most of the blu-ray movies I want are not yet out. I'm glad this classic is finally available. It is stunning in the blu-ray format (we have a PS3, 1080i tv, and HDMI hookup), very high quality, both video and sound meet expectations. The extras are also well worth the $18 we paid for it at Wal-mart.
  
  
• THE WORST!!!!!
  By A1YBW6HOVOYDP8 on 2003-06-28
  I really don't know how any true Dracula fan could recomend this insipid vastly overrated waste of film. Every thing about this miserable version is objectionable, from the crass and misleading title that implies a faithfulness to the original source material (though actually this film disregards the original Bram Stoker story in favor of a hoary long lost "love" romance theme!?) to the uninspired acting and ill concieved production design. This film has no mood or ambiance (not to mention scares!)at all but is chock full of trite Mtv style flash filmmaking technique that completely works against the depiction of victorian era England (which is not convincingly evoked at all!} In fact some of the depictions in this thing are hilariously ludicrous (Vlad "impaling a victim single handedly,his "crazy" shadows, Drac's head sticking out of dirt on the boat!). A true failure and disapointment especially coming from the man who directed the Godfather and Apocalypse Now! Stick with the old lugosi/Lee classics or better yet check out Murnau and Herzog's Nosferatus and Polanski's Fearless Vampire Killers (or the BBC production with Louis Jordan). Coppolla's Dracula doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as these films, even the Frank Langella version is better!
  
  
• A poor transfer and low value blu-ray movie
  By A2NY83RZ5NGV0L on 2007-11-06
  The cover looks elegant, but the movie is a dull/disappointment. It appears to be a low budget video transfer.
  
  
• F.F. Coppola's Dracula... or is it a Harlequin romance?
  By A3KMZ8HMOWUIZ9 on 1999-12-31
  Coppola is a hit-and-miss director, sometimes scoring a majoracheivement (the first 2 Godfather movies, Apocolypse Now, TheConversation), sometimes wallowing in nonsense (The Godfather Part III, The Outsiders, Rumble Fish). But he seems to have embraced some sort of comfortable combination of hitting AND missing in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

  Though the title is a bit misleading (it should actually be called Francis Ford Coppola's Liberally-Amended Version of Bram Stoker's Dracula), it actually is the closest Dracula film to its source novel. Unlike other filmed versions of Dracula, this one actually manages to get the characters straight. I've never been sure why other versions have Dr. Seward as old (if not older) than Van Helsing, of whom the former was once a student. And I can't think of another Dracula movie where Mina and Lucy are not confused as one character, or at least switched around for some baffling reason. What this version fails to do is cast the proper actors in many of the characters' roles. True, Anthony Hopkins is a marvel, dare I say one of our finest living actors, and Gary Oldman, no matter how bizarre, is always a thrill to watch. But Keanu Reeves as a stuffy British lawyer? A black hole of charisma, Reeves actually sucks all the credibility out of nearly every scene...so painfully miscast him.

  But aside from some right-out terrible casting, and the fact that it masquerades as a horror movie yet never really creates any feeling of horror, this film is actually quite enjoyable. It's almost campy in its homage to classic horror films, and Oldman's intriguingly outrageous performance is one that will never be topped in a Dracula movie. Never. And as much as Bram Stoker's novel is NOT a romance between Dracula and Mina, the romance here adds an element to the story that propels Coppola's version into its own unique niche. Coppola also succeeds in using just about every conceivable film trick to craft a visually stunning piece of cinema. It truly is one of the best looking films ever made, and it absolutely MUST be seen in widescreen.

  (F.F. Coppola's Liberally-Amended Version of) Bram Stoker's Dracula may fail to amaze the too-serious veiwer, and may cause even a casual viewer's tongue to firmly plant itself in cheek, but I think that's part of the point. It's one-part horror, four-parts silly romance, two-parts comedy, one part-good casting, five-parts bad casting, and twelve-hundred-parts opulent visuals.

  Don't take it too seriously and you'll be fine. If you have a hard time abandoning your grave manner of film interpretation, just keep in mind the fact that it's a vampire movie starring Keanu Reeves. That should help you suspend your seriousness.
  
  

• Skip The Movie, Read The Book
  By on 2002-10-28
  No, no, no. This is just awful. I swear that there is no way that anyone involved in this movie actually bothered to read the book! The only thing that does shine through is Dracula's lush sensuality. At least that was done well. But the rest of the movie is a mockery of Bram Stroker's vision.
  I mean come on! Dracula and Nina Harker in love? This undead creature is a blood sucker! While women are sexually attracted to him, they are still afraid of him. At the end of the book, Stroker really wanted you to understand how brave the men and women were who stood up to Dracula's demonic power. It ends with the thoughts that all the men who risked there lives did so because they all loved Nina. The fact in the movie that she loves the count is a twisted mockery of the true story.

  One star! Ha! I would give it -5 if I could! Granted the book may not be the easiest to read, but at least you are getting the writer's true vision.
  Now I know how you are trying to defend this movie. You might think that this is cinema. And has to be changed to actually entice an audience to watch it. Well guess what? I already know that! Take the Count of Monte Cristio. That movie is vastly different from the novel. But the difference between the two movies, is that in Monte Cristo they are still able to stick to the basic storyline. It enhances the book, it doesn't try to rewrite it!
  Now as far as the acting, costumes, special effects, and sheer horror go, you have a really good movie here. But even in this it doesn't make up for it's faults! I recommend Dracula 2000 over this movie. At least in that movie there are some interesting plot twists!
  
  

• Should Remove Bram Stoker's Name From The Title!
  By APM06HT7JIPZ5 on 2002-11-04
  By the title, I expected a straight forward adaptation of Bram Stoker's original all-time classic. But don't be fooled as I was; this tragic piece of sex-and-gore falls flat in the end, and exploits Bram Stoker's good name.

  The acting by Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder are very good, actually, but Keanu Reeves' performance as Johnathon Harker is one of his all-time worst. Anthony Hopkins is the only relief, who seems to be having a blast as the eccentric scientist/vampire killer Abraham Van Helsing, and is very entertaining to watch.

  There's just too much emphasis on sex and cool photograpgy, rather than spending time trying to scare you; it's NOT SCARY!

  You wanna see good Dracula? Then go see the 1958 Hammer verion (it's great!), or even the Mel Brooks spoof of it! Anything's better than waisting your time with this poor excuse for a horror film!
  
  

• Oh my god!
  By A2S02FDWNVNK3Y on 2003-07-02
  One of the worst movies on the subject ever made. A shocking script and terrible performances all round make this a laughable installation to the Dracula legend. Gary Oldman is at his usual over-acting worst, and Keanu Reeves is shocking as Jonathan Harker, effecting the worst English accent in the history of cinema. Winona Ryder bored my packet off; the exchanges between her and Reeves were sickening along with the rest of the script, Harker: We can be married when I return.
  Mina: Oh Jonathan.....Jonathan....Oh Jonathan.....

  I'm sorry if I seem harsh, but please try and avoid this movie lest you like it. And of course we had to have a big American, with a big moustache and a big knife because obviously Mr Coppola thought our interest could not be aroused without an American charater. Balls, pure balls.
  
  

• Worst remake........EVER
  By A3LHW8DGRLY9P9 on 2004-10-21
  If this wasn't one of the worst movies Ive ever seen, I dont know what is. I am a huge horror movie fan and this movie pissed me off beyond belief. If I could give it negative numbers I would.
  
  
• BEST DRACULA MOVIE EVER
  By A2KD62P971YDYL on 2005-12-24
  This comes from someone that is not a horror movie fan. Dracula was done in plenty of versions. All bad in my opinion or at least a waste of time to watch. This one is the only Dracula movie where you would sit from start to finish, you wake up the next day and you feel like you want to see it again. In this movie there is a great love story as well. The costumes and the photography are superb. DVD quality is also very good. If you want to own 1 Dracula movie, this is the one
  
  
• "See What Your God Has Done To Me"
  By A1XPGRB6C8CKI6 on 2006-03-09
  A few years ago I approached Coppola's "Dracula" in a mood of indifference mixed with skepticism. Remembering Hammer Studios final, rather mediocre Dracula films, unable to forget Paul Morrisey's travesty of a film, and dissatisfied by Frank Langella's interpretation of the vampire Count--I expected Coppola's "Dracula" to be mildly entertaining at best. Thus I sighed, slipped the borrowed disc into my machine, sighed once more--and 130 minutes later I started breathing again! Coppola's "Dracula" is truly spellbinding, breathtaking. The very first moments of the film were surprising: the musical score's harsh, Balkan rhythms, the sight of wind-driven mists over the dome of St. Sophia's, the fine narration of the Turks' 15th century conquest of Constantinople, a heavy cross thrown down and shattering on a cobblestone pavement: such is beautiful film-making. That such visionary intensity could be sustained the entire length of the film--miraculous!
  In practically every respect the film seems unprecedented--paradoxically because it adheres to the spirit, if not the letter, of the original 1898 novel. Only the conclusion deviates significantly from Bram Stoker's book. Nevertheless the cinematic ending remains quite effective: passionate, violent, Romantic--epithets that can be applied to the entire film as well. But there's one more word that seems equally fitting: "grandeur." "Dracula" has a truly epic scope: it begins with medieval armies contending for the possession of Europe; it spans centuries of implied supernatural warfare; it concludes among the incredible fortified mountains and precipices that seem to overlook the edge of this world...
  While such visuals are stunning, they never diminish one's interest in the principal characters. Gary Oldman's portrayal of Dracula is both flawless and original. Less a monster than a tragic hero, he suffers a centuries-old torment of lost love. At the same time he is painfully aware of his own monstrosity--apparently inflicted for the understandable sin of cursing God! Anthony Hopkins is likewise impressive as Van Helsing--eccentric to the point of mania (as are many geniuses), yet formidable in every respect. Wynona Ryder is appropriately cool and beautiful as Dracula's reincarnated love. She is upstaged, however, by Sadie Frost's incredibly sexy interpretation of Lucy Westenra, the aristocratic Victorian dream-girl transformed by Dracula into a Victorian nightmare. Incidentally, I am astonished that Mistress Frost has yet to be recognized as a major horror film Icon.
  All in all, Coppola's "Dracula" is one of those rare films that one can seriously compare to the best work of certain European directors--men like Mario Bava, Dario Argento, Jean Rollin, Jess Franco. In the horror film universe that constitutes the highest possible praise.
  
  
• Almost A Classic
  By A13N5OJ7N4DTHE on 2007-08-23
  I Love Almost Everything About This Film.
  Beautiful Sets. Beautiful Costumes. Beautiful Cinematography.
  Great Adaptation Of The Story. Great Acting. Except...
  Please Notice That Whenever KEANU REEVES Appears On Screen, The Air Is Totally Sucked Out Of The Film!
  Could He PLEASE Have At Least A Little Energy?
  If You Can Make It Through His Time On The Screen Without Passing Out Or Throwing Something At Your TV, As A Dracula Fan, You Should Enjoy This Film.
  
  
• Terrible transfer
  By A12I9D4LAKAJWO on 2007-10-16
  The transfer of this collectors edition is bad. The dark scenes are way to dark. If you are looking for a good transfer stick with the Superbit edition dvd.
  
  
• "COUNT" on this version!
  By AM5WLF25DW3XU on 2000-02-08
  This film, the upteenth telling of the classic novel is quite simply one of the most sumptiously filmed and brilliantly stylistic. Unlike the other adaptations, it is the first to combine as completely the true history of Vlad, the Impaler with the tale of the legendary vampire. Through the excellent screenplay by James V. Hart and director Francis Ford Coppola's understanding of it, it does so with nary a seem showing. The explanation of how the fictional legend and the historical person became one is handled with such beauty, tenderness and intelligence that one might forget the horror elements of the story.But the eerie quality and sometimes violent nature of the film provides enough scares to satisfy even the strictest horror aficiaonados.The music score, make-up, costumes, sets and visual effects are fantastic. The cinematography and sound are particularly good and contribute greatly to Coppola's and Hart's overall vision. That vision is among the most imaginative and original ever committed to celluloid.The aforementioned script when dealing with the legend follows Stoker's book very closely. The almost documentary use of the character's diaries, letters and newspaper clippings in the book comes through effectively in this film.Gary Oldman's portrayal of the Count is excellent and alternates with great regularity between fury, tenderness, repulsiveness and tragedy. Due to Coppola's and Hart's concept and Oldman's thinking man's approach to acting, the title character comes through infinetly more dimensional than ever before.Winona Ryder as Mina, Keanu Reeves as Harker and Tom Waits as Renfield are all quite good. Reeves particularly gives Harker more courage and strength than in past versions and therefore is closer to the book's depiction of the character.The only major flaw in the cast and in the entire film is Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. Surely the second most important character in the novel, he was originally written as a person with equal parts strength, sensitivity and presence. In this film he comes across much too colorful and bizarre and the quiet strength of the character in the original book is very seldom felt. This, as in the qualities of the film, is due as much to Coppola and Hart as it is to Hopkins. The audience acquainted with Stoker's Van Helsing never quite become comfortable with Hopkins broad and often inaccurate interpretation. His performance keeps the film from winning a 5-star rating.In tying both the legend and the history together, things are added and sometimes changed from the Stoker novel. But these changes and additions are necessary given the extra attention paid to the life of Vlad, the Impaler. Considering the connection referred to between Vlad and the infamous Count through the years, it is the sincere wish of this reviewer that more filmmakers follow Coppola & Hart in the future. And if those future filmmakers are half as successful in their attempts, the results will at least be interesting.
  
  
• Gary Oldman makes this movie work
  By A2B7BUH8834Y6M on 2000-07-29
  Not since Bela Lugosi has there been a Dracula this sexy, handsome, ugly, lovelorn and pure evil at the same time. Whether portraying the young count in the 16th century or playing himself as a late 19th century ogre of a man with a big white bufont hairdo (with a handsome window's peak to boot) and Edward Scissorhands fingernails, Oldman makes this film what it is. His acting is exquistite as the tortured soul who longs after his lost love and lusts after the taste of human blood.

  Post-Lagosi vampires in cinema have always seemed to get the best of the good guys, but in this film taken from Stoker's 19th century novel, good does triumph over evil. Copola endeavored to stick with older cinema effects and he did a superb job. There are some scenes that you will never forget ... a marriage between simple effects and creativity gone wild... especially when the elder count's shadow acts on its own accord. More suave than gory, but there is gore... this is the best production of the tale of Dracula since the invention of color film. If Anne Rice's spin on the vampire tale is more your speed, this film will probably not be up your alley. Violence and sexual inuendo make this a film not suitable for kids.
  
  

• An extreme dissapointment
  By A2JE88533VZ5WY on 2002-04-12
  I watched this movie with high expectation, partly because of the cast, partly because of the budget, but mostly because the director had indicated that he would stay true to Bram Stoker's book. From the first scene, it is obvious that this was never his intention. He attempted to turn the story into a romance - something that is quite far away from Stoker's novel. Things go downhill from that point very quickly. First of all, we find Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. Usually, I like Keanu, but here his is totally miscast and the delivery of his lines is painful. Gary Oldman also makes a very poor Dracula. For me, a telling early scene is the famous bit where Dracula refers to the wolves as Children of the Night and their howling as music. Not only does Oldman deliver the line extremely poorly, but Reeves' tacked-on protest seems very out of character for a guest (and a very nervous one, at that).
  By the time we get to London to find Lucy...in post-Victorian England and Dracula stalking Mina behind sunglasses, it was clear to me that the movie was hopeless. I did see some very clever camera shots and there were some decent bits on board the ship, but it's not enough for me to give this anything more than the worst rating possible. To be honest, I actually found the movie insulting - a very rare occurrence for me because I have very low standards.
  
  
• Bram Stoker's Dracula? I don't think so.
  By A25N8CWL5KAK7E on 2003-05-17
  I'm sorry, but this is not what Bram Stoker wrote. This is what Francis ford Coppola wrote. This is a beautiful film, yes, but Not Stoker's DRACULA.
  There are good things with this film and others that are not so good, but let's make things perfectly clear once and for all. THERE IS NOT A LOVE AFFAIR BETWEEN MINA HARKER AND COUNT DRACULA!
  Dracula is a vampire, a monster and Jonathan Harker is his ticket to ENGLAND. After the deed to his new estate is signed, Harker is a dead man left to Dracula's three vampire wives.
  In England Dracula gets Lucy and then Mina and Mina is the only link to Dracula because she is under his power and it is through her that Van Helsing and the other men can chase Dracula back to his Castle and destroy him. Forget the romance,Dracula is a horror story and perhaps one day will be done the way it was meant to be. As for now the closest thing to Stoker's novel is El Conde Dracula (Count Dracula) with Christopher Lee.
  
  
• Crap--read the book, people!
  By on 2004-05-19
  This film is so far off the book it can barely be called the same thing, and how they managed to incorporate the author's name in the title is beyond me. Keanu Reeves is laughable trying to mimic a posh British accent, and the high amount of sex thrown in at any slow point (none of which occurs in the story) is enough to put you off entirely. The performances are pablum, and even Anthony Hopkins, who has saved other movies in his time, could not pull this one out of the dung pile for me or anyone I know. All I can say is thank God Coppola did The Godfather, because without that, where would he be with films like this? There are much better Draculas out there, notably the original, silent German film Nosferatu, which actually FOLLOWS THE BOOK, a concept apparently lost on the makers of this film.
  
  
• Worst movie ever made from a great book
  By A28ZOKMGSS3HI on 2004-09-23
  I suppose if I had never read Bram Stoker's novel then I would be praising this movie for being so "faithful" to it just like so many of the reviewers here. But I have read the book several times so I know how far off the mark this dreadful movie is.
  
  Dracula was never a swinging Transylvanian playboy in the novel but in this movie the character was so ineptly presented that I found myself expecting to see Dan Akroyd and Steve Martin show up as the Festrunk brothers to help Drac look for "wild english foxes". Not that the shrivelled old grandmother Dracula with the kooky crimson robe and breakdancing shadow was any better. Everything about the Dracula character was awful in this movie.
  
  The supporting cast was not much better although I'll say a good word about Bill Campbell. It was a pleasure to see Quincy Morris in the action and an added joy that Campbell was able to refrain from the camp overacting favored by Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins was simply dreadful as Prof. van Helsing in a role that was apparently written with Rip Taylor in mind.
  
  The narrative bears only the slightest resemblance to Stoker's novel in that there is a vampire who comes to England, causes trouble and then flees for home, chased by a band of friends. A pity because the book would really make a wonderful movie if somebody had the guts to do it.
  
  Avoid this one at all costs.
  
  
  
• Silly and pretentious
  By A2RB1EGH8K2BYM on 2005-01-02
  Silly and pretentious, with overt sexuality that is more camp than erotica. Perhaps Coppola itended a lavish parody?
  
  

• Underworld (Unrated) [Blu-ray]
• The Fifth Element (Remastered) [Blu-ray]
• Interview with the Vampire [Blu-ray]
• Troy - The Director's Cut [Blu-ray]
• The Shining (Two-Disc Special Edition)