Dracula Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x688 | 6602.82 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x388 | 1585.39 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x316 | 834.19 MiB | divx | |
|
320x172 | 296.35 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x172 | 327.6 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Beware
Love Never Dies.
This version of Dracula is closely based on Bram Stoker's classic novel of the same name. A young lawyer (Jonathan Harker) is assigned to a gloomy village in the mists of eastern Europe. He is captured and imprisoned by the undead vampire Dracula, who travels to London, inspired by a photograph of Harker's betrothed, Mina Murray. In Britain, Dracula begins a reign of seduction and terror, draining the life from Mina's closest friend, Lucy Westenra. Lucy's friends gather together to try to drive Dracula away.
| Gary Oldman | Dracula |
| Winona Ryder | Mina Murray/Elisabeta |
| Anthony Hopkins | Professor Abraham Van Helsing |
| Keanu Reeves | Jonathan Harker |
| Richard E. Grant | Dr. Jack Seward |
| Cary Elwes | Lord Arthur Holmwood |
| Bill Campbell | Quincey P. Morris |
| Sadie Frost | Lucy Westenra |
| Tom Waits | R.M. Renfield |
| Florina Kendrick | Dracula's Bride |
| Jay Robinson | Mr. Hawkins |
| I.M. Hobson | Hobbs |
| Laurie Franks | Lucy's Maid |
| Francis Ford Coppola |
7.20 out of 10 (36495 votes)
Visitor Reviews
An epic love story, spanning time and space.......
posted on 24 Aug 2009Bram Stoker's Dracula is a love story. Coppola's vision of true love, as to reach through the folds of time and space, to reunite two lovers, is an epic retelling of this wonderful story that has had some additional competition in all media forms....Folks, this film won OSCARS. Great soundtrack, great acting from Gary Oldman for capturing that spark within Prince Vlad, to bridge the gap between monster and man.....Sure, some of the acting within this tale was stilted, but considering the task to recreate the period piece, and to do it with young actors such as Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves, you have to give Coppola a lot of credit....Set Design, art direction, costuming, special makeup effects, they are all "cogs" within the wheel that drives this picture to greatness...Many films of this genre have come before this one, and many will come after....Regardless, I believe Bram Stoker would appreciate this retelling of his story the best....
One of the worst films I've ever seen
posted on 18 Aug 2009I recall sitting in the theatre with my friend, and after about half an hour turning to him and asking, "Does this movie suck?". As said it, I could see the grim realization hit him that indeed, it did suck. That characters were flat, the over-embellished production design was such that I was painfully aware this was filmed entirely in a studio. Coppola's feeble attempts at being artsy come off looking like Norman Rockwell trying to paint abstract expressionism.
Would make Ed Wood proud!
posted on 06 Aug 2009Poorly cast, poorly written, and missed the point altogether. The entire thing seemed to focus mainly on sex when the story is strong enough to carry itself if well executed. The costumes and effects could've worked well enough if Copola had put more thought into the roles. None of the actors really worked with their characters; casting Keanu Reeves was a big mistake. It seemed like the main point was trying to stuff as many big names into one title without thinking it through at all.At least it isn't as bad as the 1970's version, but that's really not saying much.
a fairy tale
posted on 03 Aug 2009I have read some strange things here about this movie. One can always choose a better character or a better script or better food on the set etc etc etc... Try to make a movie yourself and I think you'll sing another tune. Dracula is simply a nice fairy tale or more like a dream. I have seen this movie about 75 times (my favourite bedtime movie) and I can say that I know every little detail and filming errors. I loved the way Gary Oldman played it, he was at the top of his biorythm. He was magnificent. The movie could be called kitsh, but Gary, he was in control of every single little expression. He changed my life through this movie for very special reasons. Elisabeta
Great trailer, missed potential
posted on 31 Jul 2009This could have been the defining "Dracula" movie, but like many Hollywood movies, it took the low road. Too much focus on sex, and capturing the all important 18-40 demographic led to this movie's demise. First, let's start with the casting. When will people learn that Keanu Reeves should NEVER be cast in anything but surfer dude roles. His performance was so bland, and his "accent" so phony, I can't help but wonder if this is the same director that gave us "The Godfather" Second, Wynona Ryder is not much better, sorry folks. Her accent is barely passable, and she doesn't really seem right for the part either. (How about casting some British actors for the British characters?) The movie does start strong in terms of storytelling, showing us the back story of the Dracula legend, with Gary Oldman as Vlad Dracul (or Tepes) the Romanian knight who goes off to war to fight the invading Muslim armies. After returning victorious, he is crushed to learn that his wife has committed suicide on the false information that he was killed in battle. Renouncing God, Vlad vows to fight for the powers of darkness, etc etc. Fast forward 400 years, and Jonathan Harker, solicitor (Reeves) arrives to help a weird looking, ancient, Romanian Count (Dracula) purchase some property in London. What the costume designers and more importantly the hairstylists were thinking when they came up with this is anyone's guess. While Dracula is a creepy character, it goes completely over the top with the ridiculous hairstyle they give Drac. After some strange goings on, Harker realizes he is being help prisoner in Drac's castle, while Drac travels to London to seduce Harkers fiancée Mina, (Ryder) who is a dead ringer for Drac's late wife. Needless to say, lots of sexual situations and "erotic" scenes ensue, with hammy acting on all accounts, especially from Anthony Hopkins (in the quasi comic relief character of Dr. Van Helsing, vampire hunter) The movie just never really realizes the potential the material has. Instead of making an "erotic thriller" , they should have tried making a scary vampire movie. (The novel does have enough material to do that) It's a shame this movie never lives up to it's potential, but that's Hollywood...
Stop whining!!
posted on 28 Jul 20092 Things:1.) This film is flawed. It has some amazingly powerful, visceral and affecting scenes (I bought the DVD for the opening scene alone), and deserves a point or two for originality. It also has some plot lulls coupled with a few operatic climaxes too many, and a last half an hour that all but falls apart under the weight of sensory overload and choppy editing. Gary Oldman's performance is memorable; so strange and original, emotional. Some would say it approaches high camp, but that is a matter of personal taste. The rest of the cast (save Tom Waits)is unremarkable.2.)To the other people that have reviewed this film: it seems as though your bitterness and disappointment with regard to this film has blinded your writing style. If you have something to write, explain yourself thouroughly and succinctly instead of reverting to bickering and whining, some of your reviews are more painful to read than watching a bad film.
This movie would be fine, if not for the title...
posted on 19 Jul 2009... This simply isn't "Dracula".By naming it "Bram Stoker's Dracula" Coppola holds himself to a higher standard of faithfulness to the original book than any other version of the story, past or future. And he falls flat on his face."Dracula" was never a romance, nor was it intended to be. If Coppola wanted to make a vampire love story, he was more than welcome to do so. But not Dracula. Dracula was about conquest, and NOT the romantic sort. If Dracula falls in love, it blows the entire plot and subtext of the original. How does that qualify as faithful to the original story?Yes, beautiful cinematography. Yes, great cast (with the obvious exception of Keanu Reeves, who couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag). Yes, great costumes, score, yada yada.NO, it was a LOUSY rendition of Dracula.
Francis Ford Copolla should get on his knees and BEG for forgiveness from Bram Stoker!!!!
posted on 19 Jul 2009Firstly, I'm NOT going to say that the story of Dracula is strictly for Gothic culture (whatever's left of it) because, truthfully, such a fabulous example for literature is something that anybody of refined taste should enjoy. However, Dracula, due to being a story about the children of the night and their haunting impulse on the world of the living, has become associated with Gothicism. But it makes the Gothic genre of art and literature (I'm referring to Byron, Henry Fuseli, the Romantics etc) look poor and squalid because of the way it has been TAKEN and MAIMED by modern day Hollywood. Now this review is not about me personally, but I want to mention how I, as a Gothic, can no longer look at this story and admire it. Want to know why? Because every time I hear the name 'Dracula', horny, tanned and frankly un-vampiric Gary Oldman and his groaning, self-orgasm-ing miniature Harem (the three brides, Mina AND Lucy, for those of you who didn't guess) fill my head! What has Francis Ford Copolla done?! What possessed him to mutate such a beautiful piece of Victorian literature? And what the Hell makes him think-HONESTLY THINK-that his pornographic, dirty, lecherous,flea bitten vision is SO worthy of the title "Bram Stoker's" Dracula?I could talk all night about the mistakes he's made. For one thing, Johnnathen Harker and Mina Murray, not just as sweethearts but also as aristocratic Victorians, have a CHASTE and PURE relationship; a relationship that does not require sloppy, sweaty sex to show virtue and passion. F.F.Copolla has not only discarded of Johnnathen Harker's importance to the story, he has also totally distorted Mina's gentle, heroic character by pretending to himself that she is actually Dracula's long lost reincarnated 'love'. Having a tag line like 'LOVE NEVER DIES' and a theme of love between Dracula, the wraith, and Mina, the maiden, is ludicrous.Its not only ludicrous because its NEVER what Bram Stoker intended; its also ridiculous because Mina and Dracula DO NOT love each other! How can Dracula rape Lucy, have a harem of brides AND adore Mina all at once? Whenever the two are around each other they behave like sex-deprived, sex-seeking, silly little lustful teenagers-sucking each others nipples and canoodling each other in public places. Where is the love-REAL love-in that?You see, the Victorians had extremely strict ideals about love and marriage. Mainly all marriage was prearranged, the entire point of the corset was to keep a woman faithful to her husband (the husband laced her corset up in a specific way so that, if it was ever undone and then redone up, he could tell.)...and the characters in Bram Stokers book just go to show that that scummy thing we call 'sex appeal' is not actually important. Stokers characters are valiant, beautiful, in corrupt. Or were. I think Copolla should be ashamed for ruining such a beautiful story. If he wanted to make a movie-another scummy excuse of a vampire movie-he should have wrought it with his own story and his own characters. Why he felt he had to deform this perfectly beautiful story about the triumph of purity over Death, is beyond me. And I will hate him forever for what he has done.
Brilliant Updating Of An Oft-Filmed Classic
posted on 13 Jul 2009Count Dracula, a fifteenth-century Romanian nobleman, is overcome with grief at the death of his beloved wife Elizabeth. Renouncing Christianity, he pledges his soul to the Devil and is cursed to walk in limbo forever as an undead vampire. Four hundred years later he is meeting with Jonathan Harker, a London solicitor's clerk, when he sees a photograph of Harker's fiancée Mina, who looks the image of Elizabeth. He imprisons Harker in his castle and travels to London to woo Mina, but his vampire attacks draw the attention of the eminent Professor Van Helsing. Mina is seduced by the Count, but does not yet know his true identity, whilst Van Helsing and his friends are closing in.What to say about this movie ? It's brilliant - it's the work of an extraordinary director. It's visually sumptuous, extremely well made and one of the more faithful adaptations of an oft-filmed book, but it also takes far too many liberties with certain characters and story aspects, which can prove distracting. Let me take the good points first. Visually and aurally, this is a sheer delight from start to finish; it was all filmed on stages and the sets are just stupendous, as is the powerful bass-string score by Wojciech Kilar. The photography by Michael Ballhaus is simply stunning - every classic horror trick is used; up lighting, candles, reverses, extreme lenses, fake shadows, mattes, different speeds, iris pulls, partial dissolves, what have you. Almost every shot, particularly in the first three reels, has some brilliant effect going on - perhaps my favourite is the moment when the mysterious coachman quite literally picks up Harker. Equally creative are Eiko Ishioka's amazing costumes, which transcend time and place and push traditional garments just slightly over the edge into fantasy; Dracula's clothes alone are worth watching the movie for. Coppola manages to direct with seemingly wild abandon but never once is the story sacrificed for arty pretension. He also captures beautifully the feeling of the ages passing in Dracula's world, contrasting his medieval castle in Transylvania with modern London, full of new inventions and engineering marvels (wax-cylinder recorders, typewriters, the cinematography, etc). The cast throw themselves into their gallery of lunatics with admirable gusto, though slightly varying success. Oldman is terrific under several different complex makeup jobs and brings out the romantic melancholia of Dracula perfectly, but also his terrifying feral side. Hopkins lends gravitas to Van Helsing without too much hamming (though he does keep adding an unnecessary letter "i" to Dracula's name), and Grant and Waits give solid horror-movie stock-character performances. Ryder and Reeves, as the young lovers Jonathan and Mina, try their best and are very pretty people, but are a little out of depth. So what's the problem ? It's that over-inflated title. James V. Hart's script is good and he has carefully adapted the novel closely, but this movie is also greatly influenced by the many previous film versions (essentially it has the look of the 1922 F.W. Murnau / Max Schreck version and the heart of the 1931 Tod Browning / Bela Lugosi version) and invents some new mythology for itself, and as such it is not a definitive movie of Bram Stoker's great book. So for the record horror fans, where does it differ ? Well, for a start there's the middle-ages prologue, based on the legend of Vlad Tepes, which is good and bookends the story nicely, but is a bit fanciful. There are some important plot points not in the book (the business with the locket where Dracula sees Mina's image, Renfield's preceding Jonathan as an emissary to Transylvania) and a few key omissions; there are no rats in the coffins at Carfax Abbey when there should be thousands (this is done brilliantly in the 1979 Werner Herzog / Klaus Kinski version) and the mark Van Helsing puts on Mina's forehead with holy wafer symbolising her unclean spirit is significantly absent. Where this version goes completely loopy though is the relationship between Dracula and Mina - here they are star crossed, infatuated lovers, separated by the ages. In the book he sees her as just another one of his victims and she is revolted by him. Their lengthy courtship in London is completely fabricated, as is the finale within the chapel of Castle Dracula - in the book Jonathan and Quincey kill Dracula just as the sun is setting, and he fades into dust. I guess what irks me most about this version is the emphasis on romanticism - in Stoker's book, Dracula is a monster, a fiend, a selfish, greedy, vicious, horrific creature of the night, and his presence instills only dread horror. He is like that too in parts of this movie, but in the middle-section particularly he is also a bit of a soppy, flowery-shirted wet blanket. However, whilst the title may annoy me, in the end this is a great adaptation of Dracula and a fabulous horror movie.
Gothic brilliance
posted on 13 Jul 2009I must admit that I saw this film after reading the book and I was therefore ready to point out any errors that the director/writers made. However to my surprise I found myself really drawn into the world of Francis Ford Coppola and his spin on the classic tale.It must be set from the start that Dracula would not be an easy book to adapt from, as rather than there being one long narration, the story is told through a series of diary entries that sometimes conflict and overlap. However while the story of Stoker's book is not strictly true, the atmosphere that comes from this movie would do no writer shame.This is mainly to do with the cast. Winona Ryder makes an engaging Mina Murray and Anthony Hopkins is very good as the old Van Helsing. It is only Keanu Reeves that doesn't measure up with his performance of Harker, seemingly attempting to cover a thin British accent with a lot of British chiches.But as good as Hopkins and Ryder are, it is Gary Oldman as the Count himself that really drives this movie. His brilliant ability to play both the old and the young count with aplomb as well as his menacing yet somehow sensual demeanor is what really what makes this movie shines. Other actors that deserve mention are Richard E. Grant as Dr Seward and Tom Waifs as the lunatic Reinheld.Bram Stoker's Dracula is a quintessential Gothic film that encapsulates the darkness of the novel. I think it is the best of the tellings of this tale.
Grandeur of the Piece.
posted on 04 Jul 2009There will never be a more sexually drawing and enticing performance of Dracula then there was in this. Gary Oldman has been the best and, most likely, always will be. His ability to use several accents makes his Dracula a dark, mysterious, sexually arousing lover and character. It makes some forget the true horror he is supposed to instill, but that shall never be a problem in my book. It would have received a 10 if Lucy's lovers didn't always seem to be sucking up to her or another one person. They just seemed to be constantly quarreling in their minds about one another and always trying to win Lucy from Arthur! This should of course seem normal, but just makes them seem weak. Overall though this movie is great for Romance and slight amounts of Horror.
A violent but beautiful movie
posted on 28 Jun 2009This movie boasts one of the greatest casts I've ever seen in a
horror movie, and Francis Ford Coppola's excellent direction is clearly evident. It's not hard to see why this movie received Oscars for costumes and makeup. Unlike most Dracula movies, this one remains true to the original version, except for a very well done romance added on, which gives the story a whole new gravity. It's also my personal opinion that Anthony Hopkins and Winona Ryder are among the greatest actors of all time.
Dracula meets Romeo and Juliet
posted on 25 Jun 2009I loved this movie but the only problem that I had with it was Reeves acting. All I could see was his beedy eyes trying to bring up his character in which he failed so misurably. I could have chosen another actress besides Ryder who I thought was good for the part but it could have been played by somebody else. Oldman took my breath away and made me just melt making me fall in love with Dracula instead of just watching Ryder. this movie was so passionate and deeply played by most of the characters in this movie that i was very impressed. Hopkins played an excellent role with his character as well. He has always played an excellent doctor. One of the best Dracula movies I have seen except for the baby eating part in the movie i found shouldn't have been added to this movie.
i have crossed oceans of time to find you....
posted on 22 Jun 2009This version of Dracula is closely based on Bram Stoker's classic novel of the same name. A young lawyer (Jonathan Harker) is assigned to a gloomy village in the mists of eastern Europe. He is captured and imprisoned by the undead vampire Dracula, who travels to London, inspired by a photograph of Harker's betrothed, Mina Murray. In Britain, Dracula begins a reign of seduction and terror, draining the life from Mina's closest friend, Lucy Westenra. Lucy's friends gather together to try to drive Dracula away...Easily Coppolas best work of the nineties, and possibly since Apocalypse now, his version of Dracula is sumptuous beyond belief, border lining on insane in it's cinematography and editing, the film is almost an experiment on different camera styles and mise en scene, and this is what makes the film so memorable, that and the performances.Oldman is fantastic as the titular character, and has a performance he has only bettered in Leon. Ryder too is great in her role and together they make the film, the truly touching love story it is, and it really is tear jerking come the finale.the film is highly erotically charged throughout, signifying virginity and 'treading the dark side' the film could also be viewed as a warning against adultery, but that is a whole different argument. Coppola uses the effects in a very strange way. for instance in some scenes, the effects and make up are astounding, and then in the next instance, the film looks as cheap as hell, but that makes the film all the more interesting.the only thing that lets this film down is Keanu Reeves, his portrayal of Harker is abysmal and this is his worst performance to date. Hopkins overdoes it a little as Helsing, but the film is as maniacal as his character, so he fits well in the film.apart from Reeves, this film is perfect, the score, costume and sets are all first rate, and with Nosferatu (the twenties version) aside, the best adaptation of Stokers novel to date.
Balance
posted on 05 May 2009Thankfully, the performances of Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins counter the dreadful ones by Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder! I haven't seen acting this bad and accents this poor since DiCaprio and Diaz in "Gangs of New York." Coppola, as expected, is in fine form; and his dedication to Stoker's wonderful book is quite admirable. The eroticism is, once again as expected, lush; as is the dialog. Following the film's release, Hollywood began basing other films on the books that spawned them; Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, most obviously. (What a "novel" concept: staying true to the books.) "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is well done; however, Reeves and Ryder are so clearly out of their league it, often, makes this film tough to watch.
Oldman's Nosferatu is superb in "Bram Stoker's Dracula"
posted on 02 May 2009Francis Ford Coppola's horror spectacular "Bram Stoker's Dracula" stays very close to the original true account of Vlad "the Impaler" with all the blood, sexuality, gore, & carnage but does not leave out the fangs. Of all the Dracula films made over the years this one was missing one key component, that being Gary Oldman. Oldman's portrayal of the Transylvanian count supersedes any other & makes this film edgier, more sensual, & much more interesting to view. Oldman does more than drink blood or morph into a hideous beast; he shows a side of himself rarely seen in that of a lover. Oldman's Dracula is vulnerable, crazed with broken heart, & the consummate tragic figure. I found Oldman's performance to be one of the best if not the best performance of the Count I have ever seen.The story is simple but moves at a good pace. Many, many years earlier, Vlad Dracula is a prince who is deeply in love with his bride, Elisabeta. For pride & protection of his realm, Vlad leads the kingdom's forces against the Turks with success, which also gains him the nickname of Vlad "the Impaler". Unbeknownst to Dracula, a Turk spy shot an arrow into the castle with a note attached bringing false news of Vlad's death. Hopelessly distraught, Elisabeta threw herself into the river below to her death. After returning from his successful war campaign, Dracula is stunned to realize what has become of his lovely young bride. The High Priest tells Dracula that Elisabeta is damned forever for committing suicide according to religious belief. Filled with uncontrollable rage, Dracula renounces his faith, curses God, & thrusts his sword into the Holy cross which bleeds in gushes. Dracula drinks the blood & is forever transformed into what we now know as Count Dracula. Meanwhile in Carfax Abbey, England, two young lovers Mina Murphy(Winona Ryder) & Jonathan Harker make plans to marry. Before all plans are to be finalized, Harker must go on a business trip & complete a big transaction for his boss' firm. Young Jonathan Harker(Keanu Reeves) goes to Transylvania to complete a real estate deal made with mysterious Counnt Dracula(Oldman). During an evening supper, Harker mistakenly shows Dracula a photo of his beloved Mina, who eerily looks a lot like Dracula's Elisabeta. The devious Count devises a plan to keep Harker at the castle while traveling to England to seduce an unsuspecting Mina/Elisabeta. The strange Count holds the poor Harker captive in his castle indefinitely. Packed in his native earth aboard a ship, Dracula nightly feeds on crew members until the ship floats into England unmanned. Dracula infects the rats on board & holds the legions at bay to use later to release a plague on the city. Dracula then goes on the prowl for Mina & seduces longtime friend Lucy Westenra, a local wealthy young woman. As time went on, Lucy fell under the curse of Dracula with a form of anemia & strange physical symptoms. Baffled & confused, Dr. Jack Seward tries to cure Lucy to no avail. Dr. Seward, beau Lord Arthur Holmwood, & Quincy P. Morris all scramble to find answers to Lucy's condition. In desperation, Dr. Seward calls upon the expertise of his former medical professor & friend Prof. Abraham Van Helsing who arrives to help cure Lucy. Van Helsing reveals Lucy's condition as vampyrism, the curse of the foul Nosferatu. Lucy's condition worsens & results in death. Meanwhile, Mina meets the seductive Dracula & begins a strange courtship. Mina cannot understand her magnetism to the Count but still will not totally break her love for Harker. Sensing her need to go to Harker, Mina sets sail for Transylvania to find her love. Harker, who escapes Dracula's brides stumbles upon a nunnery in the mountains where he is nursed back to health. Mina reunites with Harker & the two marry. Furious by Mina's betrayal, the Count knows that Harker must be destroyed & that he must release the plague on England to further his ire. In the crypt, Van Helsing, Seward, Holmwood, & Morris discover that Lucy is the undead & must be vanquished. Holmwood sadly drives a stake through his fiancé's heart & Van Helsing decapitates her. Mina & Dracula share an intimate moment with Mina accepting the dreaded curse in order to be with him forever. Reluctantly, Dracula condemns Mina to an everlasting life of blood thirst. Van Helsing & the men intrude on the interlude with Dracula escaping. Van Helsing, knowing that Mina is now cursed, gathers the men together & sets off to Transylvania to destroy the evil Count. Dracula, using Mina's thoughts, travels to his homeland as fast as he can before Van Helsing & the others reach him before sunrise. Van Helsing finds Mina only to realize that she is in league with Dracula & must help her fight the thirst swelling within her. Also, Van Helsing must fend off Dracula's brides who are in a trance fueled by their loyalty to their master & their blood lust. Once caught up with Dracula, Van Helsing & the men fight the master vampire to the death. Dracula is mortally wounded & falls into the chapel inside the castle with Mina. The fallen Nosferatu begs the lovely Mina to end his suffering & release her from his curse. Mina grants Dracula's wish & breaks the curse within her.With great costumes, terrific scenery, well done make-up work, & wonderful performances by Oldman, Ryder, & Hopkins, "Bram Stoker's Dracula will mesmerize & enthrall you. One of the best Dracula films made to date. I give the film a 7 out of ten with a big thumbs up!!!
Amazing,Romance,Love,Fear,Surprise,Desire,and one scary dude
posted on 23 Apr 2009Bram Stoker's Dracula I have seen this movie at least 70 times. The thing that stands out above all is this beautiful/complicated love story that spans centuries.A monster that can change form or become formless. The "Monster" is not the Dracula you remember from Lugosi or Christopher Lee. This monster is very powerful, very powerful. The only part of this movie that is hard to believe; is that this creature/man has survived centuries, has ample opportunity and the means to kill everybody in the cast, yet allows himself to be slain and be separated from his lifes love. The first time I saw this movie I wasn't all that impressed, but something about this movie attracted me, and I had to watch again, and again. This is first and foremost a romance. Watch everything, especially the shadows. Dracula got my respect on this one, the only problem is, that now I want to be Dracula. To have power over the beasts and the wind,to be able to cross oceans of time. Congratulations to everybody involved in this film, and thank you very much. And to Mr. Gary Oldman; I don't think Sir that you will ever have a better role. I have been impressed by Gary Oldman in everything I have seen him in. Bravo
Coppola ruins a great novel by adding his own flavor.
posted on 05 Apr 2009I was supremely disappointed by this, "Bram Stoker's" Dracula. I have read the classic novel by Bram Stoker, and I don't think this would have gained his approval. The only things common between the movie and the book are the names of the characters, and that Count Dracula is from Transylvania. I don't know why Francis Ford Coppola felt he had to spice up a story that has stood up for generations of scrutiny as a classic story of good vs. evil and dress it as a love story. There is a reason that other horrible characters have been created in literature, but there are only a few that endure. Dracula is one of them, and it is because of the chills a reader feels when in his presence in the world Stoker created. The novel has suspense, feeling, and good, noble characters throughout. The movie has none of these qualities. Everyone in the book has their own vices and greatness. Dr. Seward: doubtful but brave. Dr. Van Helsing: brilliant and cunning. Quincey Morris: simple and impetuous. Arthur Holmwood: sophisticated and selfless. Jonathan Harker: loving and loyal. Coppola manages to remove all these qualities from the characters in this movie. But the worst tragedy of them all was the butchering of the character of Mina Harker. She is the heroine in Stoker's story, a great woman who was indispensable in their pursuit and ultimate destruction of the monster. In the movie, she is the reincarnation of Dracula's lost bride and loses all of her charm and any connection with the audience by pining for an undead demon. Who, by the way, Coppola manages to humanize by somehow justifying his thirst for blood by showing us how much he loved his bride hundreds of years ago. If I had not read the book, I might be less disappointed with the movie. I did enjoy Anthony Hopkins' performance as Dr. Van Helsing, although he turned the doctor into a bit of a religious crackpot. I have never seen the "Dracula" starring Bela Lugosi, but I intend to, if for no other reason to go back to a time where movie makers developed plot lines and characters rather than just splashing blood and bared chests across the screen.
what a way to ruin a great story..
posted on 30 Aug 2009i am sorry but this movie defines suckiness. i thought it would be impressive at least..francis ford coppola is a pretty cool guy, right? and the cast is superb..though i am never quite sure why keanu reeves was ever cast as anything. but i was wrong. much of the acting is wooden and pretty damn unfeeling. keanu reeves' and winona ryder's pathetic attempts at an english accent are laughable..wot no voice coach? the count, though suitably scary-looking, also looks like something out of star trek. gary oldman sadly overdid his acting, as per usual. keanu reeves simply makes a fool of himself with his dull acting and non existent presence, dreadful haircut, and aforementioned terrible english/american valley guy mixed accent. winona ryder is pretty but bland in comparison to the bright and lovely sadie frost, and her accent sucks too. the texan drawl of the american dude is sadly overstated, just when you thought things couldn't get any worse. the story has been ruined..anyone who has actually read bram stoker's novel can see that. for example what's with lucy westenra's character?? she has been morphed into some kind of nymphomaniac, whereas in the book she is written as a kind and sweet young girl, which is why everyone cares so damn much about her anyway. the beautiful use of descriptive language used in the book's collective diary entries has been abridged in such a way that we hardly believe such supposedly literate individuals could write that kind of 8 year old's account of important events. credit is due to superb performances from the brits amongst the cast..richard e grant is a convincing and brilliant dr.seward, sadie frost is perfect as lucy westenra, and anthony hopkins plays the role of van helsing beautifully. it is, sadly, half what it could have been. despite cast members salvaging some credit, this is a thumbs down. :(