VIDEO CAPSULE: Dracula, Bram Stoker's (7/10)

[JoBlo]

Dracula (Bram Stoker's)- 1992

Well, I just HAD TO watch a creepy movie on Saturday nite (apres-party) and Coppola's retelling of the Dracula tale won me over. I had seen this picture a few times before, but never while on a cheap buzz or nearing the eve of Halloween.

I LOVED the first 30 minutes of this movie. It was dark, it was creepy, it was stylish, it was brooding, it was scary, it was interesting...it even provided for some decent performances (Reeves' straight man and Oldman going ALL OUT with Dracula!)

Unfortunately, the film faltered quite some after that as the story seemed to focus LESS on Dracula and more on the "Lucy" character (Winona's friend in he film) and the romance between Dracul and Winona. The creepy atmosphere, the style and the beautiful set designs remained, but the story seemed to leave the realm of horror and enter a "Romeo and Juliet" phase, which just didn't do much for me.

But overall, I have to admit that I was still thoroughly impressed with Coppola's style, his exciting camerawork and the great effects. I wish the story could have been stronger, but I guess I will have to wait until I watch INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE on Halloween Night, in order to appreciate a film with great elements all around.

Starring Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves and Anthony Hopkins

[DaN]

I have to disagree with you on that Joblo. One reason is that I thought that the story was focued on the love between Dracula and Lucy. And the best part of the movie is that it made the characters very deep.
The other reason is simple. I gave it a 9.5/10.

[JoBlo]

Hmmmm, interesting angle. I never looked at it that way. Actually, I just watched the movie AGAIN tonite (oh, what we'll do for our better halves! /ubb/smile.gif, and did still quite like it the umpteenth time around, so kudos to Coppola on that.

One thing I did notice this time is that for a movie about "Dracula", there sure was a lack of blood/and or neck-biting, eh?

But not the end of the world.

Maybe Verhoeven should take a shot at it next... /ubb/smile.gif

[mafia]

The thing with Bram Stoker's Dracula is that it throws out the idea that Dracula was an evil demon who just sucked blood for fun. There was never a motivation behind it. He was a vampire and that was that. Mr Coppola tried to be as true as he could to the original story written down by Mr Stoker. The outcome is that Bram Stoker's Dracula is weird to watch because you expect a 'scary movie' and you get served with a 'romantic movie'. Dracula IS a love story, but the weird thing is that nobody knows about it. But.. have you ever seen such a stylish, deep, motivated and sometimes psychadelical love story?? I think it is beautiful. I remember that I saw it four times in the cinema, I couldn't get enough of it. But I also remember people walking out of it, I guess because they could not comprehend the real Dracula, the character that he was supposed to be instead of that bloodsucking loser. And how about that soundtrack!!! Wojchieck Something arranged the orchestra and Annie Lennox performing 'Lovesong For a Vampire'. It's all just stunning.

[Nightflyer]

I'm probably the one one who doesn't like it. I went to the pictures when it first came out and it put me to sleep.

I was board to tears, but I will watch it again now, just to see if it is better than I remember. I post a rating after I rewatch it.

[DaN]

Adding on to Mafia's post:

Dracula was written as a horrifying love story. An outcast trying to get in. The main beauty that made Dracula last and last through all the ages was that it had two different viewpoints. One person could view it as a gruelling horror story about a heartless bloodsucker. Another person could view Dracula as a love story that moves beyone predictable love and lust and enters the "realm" of necessary love. All people must have some type of love. If one lives eternally without anybody to love, the person will die emotionally. Dracula was trying to give himself one last chance to be loved. However, becuase of his curse, he must make the person emortal by sucking the blood out.

I know that I'm just babbling but it's true. Dracula has been percieved in many different viewpoints. The one that is most famous is a horror story. This movie is different and provides an extrememly effective love story. SOme however came to see a horror story because that is basically who dracula is. A horrifying creater. however they were given that along with a more powerful love story. This is why I love this movie so much. I may be the only shmoe on earth who likes it this much. But hey, movies move different people at different times at different places. Feel free to quote me on that if you wish. /ubb/wink.gif

[Tuukka]

I knew right from the start that Bram Stoker's Dracula was going to be a love story instead of a horror movie, so I wasn't disappointed at all. In fact when I saw it in 1992 I would have rated it 9/10 but now it gets 7/10. The visuals totally blew me away at the time and it's still one of the most mesmerizing experiences I have ever had in movie theatre. But when I watched it again in video half a year later I noticed all the flaws the film had with script and acting. Keanu and Winona were totally miscast and it was just too overacted all around. At times it felt like a Beverly Hills 90210 remake of the Dracula. But still, I think the film is destined to become a classic. And it's still the last film where Coppola showed the visionary skills that his earlier films were full of. What the hell happened to the great man? What went wrong?

[Kaku]

DRACULA, BRAM STOKER’S - ***

[JoBlo]

<moderator bump>

[urbanlegend23]

Poor Francis Ford Coppola. He must look back on this movie nowadays and tear his hair out. Well, maybe if Francis old’ man had bothered to actually write a good script and maybe forget about the eye-candy and the casting ideas for just a second, this would’ve turned out OK. Actually, I don’t know if it would. Even with the great costumes, stunning make-up and beautiful sets, the film has so many flaws it is hard to imagine it ever been great. The movie stays true to the original, which is good, and the romance has a lot of chemistry. However, this movie is so utterly confusing – What is Winona Ryder now? A heartfelt girl? A lesbian? Dracula’s lover? A vampire? A witch? A werewolf? For crying out loud, you don’t even know what is happening in this film. Who are the characters? You don't really figure it out until the end and it’s no use then because you’ve ended up hating the movie. And Dracula just moves on and on without filling the plot holes of the stories it is telling. Add to that, the story in this style is not interesting, the film isn’t scary and as I mentioned before, the whole flick just doesn’t make sense. It looks lavish, but underneath the visually impressive surface of this film, there is the rotten core which ranges from extremely laughable to just plain silly. 4/10.

[Mike]

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

I knew to expect more of a love story from this one, but even then I still expected more from it. It starts out pretty decent and I was interested for the first half an hour. But after that it switches gears and my interest in it went to almost non-existent. After about an hour and twenty minutes, I started to do other stuff while I listened to it. Then after listening to it for maybe 15 minutes, I decided to go outside and leave it on, and I'd try to come back inside in time to catch the ending. And I did make it for the ending, which I was less than impressed with, but just glad the movie was over. I was hoping to like it, but after around the first half an hour, I just got less and less interested, and didn't much care anymore.

The highest compliment I can give this movie is that it "looks" good. Other than that, I thought it failed. I wasn't even expecting anything great from it. I just thought it might be "good." But in the end, "vampires suck, and for the most part, so does this movie."

Grade: 4/10 (D+)

[Mike]

Originally posted by urbanlegend23
Poor Francis Ford Coppola. He must look back on this movie nowadays and tear his hair out. Well, maybe if Francis old’ man had bothered to actually write a good script and maybe forget about the eye-candy and the casting ideas for just a second, this would’ve turned out OK. Actually, I don’t know if it would. Even with the great costumes, stunning make-up and beautiful sets, the film has so many flaws it is hard to imagine it ever been great. The movie stays true to the original, which is good, and the romance has a lot of chemistry. However, this movie is so utterly confusing – What is Winona Ryder now? A heartfelt girl? A lesbian? Dracula’s lover? A vampire? A witch? A werewolf? For crying out loud, you don’t even know what is happening in this film. Who are the characters? You don't really figure it out until the end and it’s no use then because you’ve ended up hating the movie. And Dracula just moves on and on without filling the plot holes of the stories it is telling. Add to that, the story in this style is not interesting, the film isn’t scary and as I mentioned before, the whole flick just doesn’t make sense. It looks lavish, but underneath the visually impressive surface of this film, there is the rotten core which ranges from extremely laughable to just plain silly. 4/10.

I'm with you pretty much all the way on this one. It had a bunch of plot holes and you don't even know what's going on. It's like they expected you to have read the book and if you didn't, then you're screwed and won't know what's happening. Oh well though, they made this movie in such a way that after awhile, I didn't even give a shit what was going on anyway.

A better title would have been Dracublah!

[thompsoncory]

This is one of the best adaptations of the story ever made. I enjoyed it thoroughly despite some obvious flaws, such as the Keanu Reeves character. Gary Oldman really impressed me with his great and memorable performance, and I enjoyed the romance aspect of the film and found it truly touching.

7.5/10 or B+

[::salty::]

I just got the movie on DVD, I liked the film, the atmosphere was great, the music was excellent, the effects were great considering it was made in 1992, and the performance by Oldman was awesome and it was a pretty solid movie in my opinion, not the best, but a good film for what it's worth.

[wyodebbie]

The reason I love this film so much is that my favorite genre is the gothic romance and here you have Dracula's everlasting love for Mina. Of course it doesn't hurt that Dracula is played by the outstanding actor Gary Oldman, one of my favorite actors. That said, my biggest complaint of the film is why did director Coppola make Dracula an ugly beast three-fourths of the film? It would of been much more effective as a love story if Dracula could of looked like he did in that gray suit and top hat when he met Mina on the London street and the scene in the museum with the wolf and later scene with Mina remembering her first life with Dracula. Both Oldman and Ryder had great chemistry together, Ryder as Mina was perfectly cast as the innocent swept up into the evil, and Oldman as the evil one who couldn't bring himself to turn his Mina evil. I loved the few scenes with the bright, vibrant colors and wish that more of the film was like that. I could of rated the film higher if Coppola emphasized the romance instead of the sex and gore. However, even with the flaws this film is on my top ten favorite movies list that I watch over and over.

[catlady]

I have been a fan of Gary Oldman for years and had watched him in Chattahoochie, Prick Up Your Ears, Sid & Nancy and a few BBC specials. This part was really different for him, and it took a while getting used to a Dracula that wasn't just dark and brooding. I have seen ALMOST every Dracula movie ever made. My main problem was that I do not like FF Coppolla, and I am not a fan of him or any of his movies, and dislike the man intensely (this goes back to some animal-cruelty issues I have). However, I do have to admit that I like the cinematography in this movie, the story line and the majority of the acting. I thought the love story between Drackie & Mina was touching, and it gives you hope for find that love in your future. But, UHG! Keanu Reeves! Please spare me. I hope he sticks to the Matrix movies, he was absolutely horrible in this film. Almost to the point of ruining the movie for me. Also, the more I watched it, the more flaws I saw in it, although overall I like it alot. I saw it a bunch at the theatre, and bought the DVD. One thing that was REALLY was understateded in the movie was the musical score. The music was incredibly beautiful and scary at the same time. I really feel like it should have won awards for the score, and was disappointed when it did not. I still listen to the CD alot, and have worn out two copies already.
I also saw a special on HBO about how the movie was made. Even with that pompous ass FF Coppolla narrating, it was interesting. Not enough of Gary though!

[42ndStreetFreak]

"BS Dracula" stunk the world out!
This has some of the most revolting acting ever seen...either a mixture of TOTAL HAM (Hopkins, Richard E Grant) or WOOD (Step right up Keanu the Plank for pissing all over the English accent and the wonderful Harker diary entries of Stoker's).

And even Brits like Sadie Frost are terrible...(though she always is).

And costumes? well I don't know, but hair???? That THING on Oldman's head was hysterical

The wolf/sex scene on the tomb summed up the crass attitude, and the less said about the CGI hell of the 'bendy Bride's' scene the better.
they looked like something out of "Society"!

Only the final chase was in anyway watchable...
And on top of all that it's (the odd bit aside) a crap adaption as well...adding all this long lost love crap that has nothing to do with Bram Stoker.

The absolute dregs of Hollywood horror.

[Cronos]

i really enjoyed Bram Stokers Dracula, the acting is perfect, each actor portraying their characters very well. i also thought it was very well written with some very clever dialogue. the highpoint though IMO are the costumes and sets, all perfectly filmed, they are great to look at and really add to the feel of the film

9/10

[42ndStreetFreak]

the acting is perfect, each actor portraying their characters very well.

Oh come on!! Either total ham or complete WOOD.
Fucking Reeves! Dead things could act with more life and feeling.
He ruined Harker's diary readings, which is some of the best work in the novel.
It, and he, was an utter disgrace!

And no adaption (the BBC one aside) has been really close to the novel...but none of the othershave had the hypocritcal balls to put 'Bram Stoker's' name in the title.
That whole 'love across the ages' shite had as much tio do with Stoker as "Finding Nemo".

No real fan of the novel could bare to watch this almighty turd of a film more than once, or have any time for any of the piss poor performances.

[PackBacker]

"Bram Stoker's Dracula" 1992

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Written by: James V. Hart and based on Bram Stoker's novel

Starring: Gary Oldman, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Winona Ryder

9/10

"Yeah, she was in great pain! Then we cut off her head, and drove a stake through her heart, and burned it, and then she found peace. "


Plot: A young Englishman travels to Transylvania and sells some real estate to the eccentric Count Dracula. Dracula travels to his new beholdings and terror sweeps London. Beneath the horror is a love story of the ages.

Review: This film is visually stunning and effortlessly weaves a love story with our traditional horror story. Coppolla oozes style throughout the film in the costumes, sets, makeup, and cinematography. The scene where the cross gushes blood comes to mind as particularly excellent.

The plot takes a lot of flak but it stays true to the original. Bram Stoker's novel was a story of eternal romance marred by death. I think that Coppola does a tremendous job in giving the audience satisfying quality and amounts of both genres that doesn't distract from the overall feel to the movie.

The acting is both the high and low points of the film. Oldman and Hopkins give stellar performances. Hopkins plays an over-the-top Van Helsing who pulls out all the stops while Oldman is more reserved but utterly terrifying as the Count. His cackle is perfect and goose bump inducing. Ryder is middling while Reeves is, as usual, horrible. I was waiting for the addition of "dude" to some of his diary monologues. Reeves needs to stick to "Point Break" or "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure."

Overall a terrific retread of the vampire genre and perhaps the best adaptation of the original tale. It's worth seeing alone for the costumes (and I don't think I have ever said that of any film).