VIDEO CAPSULE: Bram Stoker's Dracula (2/10)

[McBain]

Have to disagree with an earlier review - this is without a doubt the biggest waste of potential ever. Coppola's effort is a total mess which unfortunately centres around Gary Oldman's schtick and Keanu Reeves being his usual can't-act self. To much crap - no interesting characters, about as good as Dracula: Dead and Loving It!.
From The Godfather and Apocalypse now to this? How the mighty have fallen (see also Jack).

[DaN]

What the...? Are you kidding me? Are you telling people that you don't like effects, love stories, blood, boobs, and strange occurences in a movie? If so then I pity you. I usually give a person some credit for their reviews that disagree with my opinion. But how can you actually give this a serious 2/10? I cant even see it that bad even if I try. I may be over-glorifying it but that's me. I honestly don't see how you can hate the movie so much. I did post my opinion on the other one. So if you want to see my crap about this movie go there. But a 2/10 is really questionable.

[laurajade]

That movie was a complete waste of time, I actually zoned out during it it was that bad. What I want to know is how a director who started out so well got so bad. P.S. The cotton club was the start of his down fall, (singing during the finale?) how the mighty have fallen indeed!

[halfanarcher]

I saw this film in the cinema and remember liking it. Thinking about it I can see how it probably doesn't translate to the small screen very well. Then again most Coppola films don't work very well on the small screen (Rumble Fish, One From The Heart).

[kerryanne]

Gary Oldman, Keanu Reeves, Sir Anthony Hopkins... While the film may not have lived up to the potential that some thought it should, it was greatly directed, and Keanu did alright acting smart in this one. It was romantic, dark, and it put a different look to a horror story, that has been reacted numerous times, only to fall short of the publics expectations. Give the movie a break...2/10? Mission to Mars deserves a 2/10 only because I sat through the whole movie with out turning it off, but it's not a movie that I will ever watch again(that was the dumbest f***ing movie EVER.)... Bram's Dracula, I have seen it atleast 4 times, and I find the dark romance intriguing. This is a movie I would give an 7 and 1/2 or maybe even 8/10. Never a 2/10. But then again that is just my own opinion.

[Brock Landers]

Gotta disagree on this one, bra...ya know, Dracula is no Apocalypse or Doggfather...g-fresh, but it ain't no Battlefield Earth either. Oldman is way dope and Reeves is actually The Opposite Of Sux in this fizzilm. Tom Waits, Sir Mix-A-Hopkins and the Lost Souls chick ain't too annoying, and the NOFX are pretty sweet, in a hotel-motel-Holiday Inn way. Maybe you just got a thing against the OldMan or River's Edge-boy Reeves. It at least gets an ocho out of ten, que paso? El tango es gato in los pantalones...

[JoBlo]

<moderator bump>

[Ki'esha Foxx]

I disagree with McBain. I agree that it possibly could have been better, but the film in 1992 was able to go so much farther than Stoker could have in the Victorian Age, 1897 (when the book was published). Stoker could not describe two, or three, or four people having sex, so he used the vampire's bite to represent the sexual act(s). This one I found to be darkly thrilling and exciting in its own right. For an even better appreciation of this version, watch the Dracula film from 1979 with Frank Langella for about ten minutes. That one absolutely butchers the story in several not-so-subtle ways that almost made me burst into tears. Or even better, Dracula 2000 or (even worse!) Dracula 3000. It might just be the product of the tickings of my strange little mind, but I've always believed that to do a vampire movie, not just Count Dracula, it must be done tastefully and with a certain degree of class which Coppola's version does a wonderful job of.