Dracula Reviews

(BluR) Coppola revisits a story and plants other great themes (the birth of cinema, the quest of evil in ancient codes of adventure), with characters that suffers histrionically and yet delicate, romantic, agonizing love....Oldman is the best, Hopkins is a kindof while not too convincing variation on Cusiing's Van Helsing's archetype...

No recordaba que fuera tan mala; conveniencias de guión, cosas que pasan sin explicación, nulo trasfondo de personajes, efectos que han envejecido terriblemente mal con el tiempo, etc. Todo el concepto es llamativo y tal, pero nunca se utiliza adecuadamente. Y el final, vaya, fue abrupto, y no nos dan una conclusión de los personajes después del enfrentamiento con Drácula.
Por cierto, ¿soy el único que piensa que Elizabeth merecía morir? Digo, cometió viles actos y, prácticamente, salió impune de todo mal.

Los que dijeron que esta es la mejor película de Dracula, son unos locos de Dios.

Si es que entienden el chiste. Polarizante y bastante estúpida a niveles industriales. Lo mejor de la propia película seria el apartado técnico, música, fotografía y algunas actuaciones, pero lo demás, no tiene tanto remedio.

Que existiera Crepúsculo o relacionados, no es una casualidad.

Allow me to take you to a time when vampires were kickass and weren’t pixies in disguise, where CGI was used sparingly and where monster movies were trucking epic!

Ah, the 90’s! Much like the 80’s, the 90’s was a kickass decade for horror and monster movies in general. I mean even though there were some ridiculous ones, there were ones that were epic and made a huge impact. 5 different monster movies all came out in this decade that helped change the face of horror forever.

Those movies were Sleepy Hollow, The Mummy, Wolf, Frankenstein, and today’s subject Dracula directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola as you all know directed two movies starring the late Marlon Brando - The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, but also worked alongside George Lucas to produce Captain EO for Walt Disney World which of course starred another late great legend - Michael Jackson. I even read that Coppola worked a little bit behind the scenes on Burton’s Sleepy Hollow. Coppola is also Nicolas Cage’s uncle - i’m not kidding btw, he really IS Nic Cage’s uncle. You see Nicolas Cage’s actual name was Nicolas Coppola but he changed his last name to Cage - as a nod to the Marvel character Luke Cage. Coppola directed all three Godfather movies as well.

The tale of the legendary iconic vampire known as Count Dracula has been adapted many times, as well as parodied and paid homage to numerous times. I first became familiar with the subject of today’s review thanks to The Simpsons and their parody of it from Treehouse Of Horror IV. Along with Morgan Leger’s review of this movie on his show Vaulting.

The history behind this legendary vampire goes way back and it all goes back to a man known as Vlad Tepes/Vlad The Impaler. Released in 1992, titled Bram Stoker’s Dracula - this Academy Award winning movie brought us a take on the classic vampire of lore that was more closer to the source material.

The story takes place in England, the era is 1462 and Prince Vlad/Dracula (played by Gary Oldman) has returned from war, having won the night attack battle against the Turks - to find that his wife committed suicide after a false report of his death. Enraged by this, Vlad renounces the Lord and vows that he will rise from the grave to avenge her. In a fit of rage, he stabs the cross and drinks the blood from it.


Flash forward to 1897, where Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) takes in Dracula as a client to R.M Renfield, who has become insane and was sent to a mental asylum run by Dr. Jack Seward'. Now, here’s a little bit of an interesting fact for you - there is a real life condition known as Renfield's Syndrome which is the obsession with drinking blood, such as getting excitement for the taste of it or getting turned on by it.

Jonathan travels to Romania to arrange Vlad’s estate acquisition in London, including Carfax Abbey and he meets the count himself, who discovers a picture of Harker’s fiancee Mina (Winona Ryder aka Lydia Deitz) and believes her to be a reincarnation of his late wife. Dracula leaves Jonathan to be seduced by his many brides. Damn are those brides sexy as hell.

Dracula takes on the form of a wolf-like creature when he arrives in London, amid a fierce thunderstorm and then uses his hypnotic powers to seduce, entrance and knock up Lucy Westenra who Mina Harker is staying with her while her fiance Jonathan is over in Transylvania. He then bites her.

Over time, Lucy is slowly being turned into a vampire as indicated by her deteriorating health and her change in behavior, which prompts Mina’s old suitors Quincey Morris and Dr Sedward along with her old fiancee Arthur Holmwood to call Dr Abraham Van Helsing, played by Anthony Hopkins. Who recognizes her as a victim of a vampire attack.

One of the many things I love about this particular movie is how much attention it pays to classic vampire lore, as although most vampires are typically seen with the ability to transform into a bat - in classic vampire lore it is indicated that vampires can also turn into wolves, smoke/mist, or sometimes swarms of insects. It’s even implied that if an improperly disposed of werewolf were to die, he/she would actually come back as a vampire.

In the daylight, Drac appears in his more youthful and handsome appearance and charms Mina. And handsome is right. The funny thing was I thought that was Johnny Depp at first before I knew it was Gary Oldman. Even though this movie came out before Johnny Depp became known for his roles in movies like Edward Scissorhands. Young Drac looks quite yummy if I do say so myself….it’s not hard to see where Russell Brand stole...oops, I mean ‘borrowed’ his look from.

They receive word from Jonathan who has escaped from the castle and recovered at a covenant, Mina travels to Transylvania to marry Drac. In his fury, Drac turns Lucy into a vampire. Lucy is killed out of mercy by Dr Abraham Van Helsing, Arthur Holmwood, Dr Sedward, and Quincey Morris the following night.

I am not going to go over the rest of the plot because well this movie is too good for me to spoil, plus everyone has already seen this movie and they are familiar with it already. I mean who isn’t familiar with the tale of Dracula? No one? Exactly!

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is in my opinion one of the most elegant monster movies i’ve ever seen, everything about it is just so visually stunning, classy, and well made. I love the sets, I love the props, I love the costumes, I love the musical score, I love the acting and I adore the makeup fx. No wonder this movie won a few Academy Awards, it deserved them for being such a marvelous piece of work.

Sure, some people have made fun of this movie because they thought the acting was too over-the-top and have even made fun of Keanu’s ‘English accent’ , but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying it. It’s one of my personal favorite vampire movies and always will be.

Last but not least...I ADORE this movie’s ending theme ‘Love Song For A Vampire’ by Annie Lennox, it’s so sad but also moving and an overall beautiful piece. The lyrics are very moving as well, well written and full of emotion. *sings* Once I had the rarest rose, that ever deigned to bloom. Cruel winter chilled the bud, and stole my flower too soon. Oh loneliness, oh hopelessness, to search the ends of time. For there is in all the world, no greater love than mine! Oh love oh love oh love, still falls the rain (still falls the rain), oh love oh love oh love, oh love, still falls the night (still falls the night), oh love oh love, oh love oh love.. be mine forever…(be mine foreeeever!), oh love, oh love, oh love, oh looove.

"She lives beyond the grace of God, a wanderer in the outer darkness. She is "vampyr", "nosferatu". These creatures do not die like the bee after the first sting, but instead grow strong and become immortal once infected by another nosferatu. So, my friends we fight not one beast but legions that go on age after age after age, feeding on the blood of the living. "

Bram Stoker's Dracula is the epitome of polarising. In a nutshell, it's a sensuous, artistic, peculiar, eccentric and at times thrilling adaptation of the iconic 19th century novel, packed with demonic rites, erotic images and Christian symbolism. From the project's inception, director Francis Ford Coppola sought to adapt Stoker's original novel as faithfully as possible, which most prior Dracula retellings had neglected to do. To be sure, the resultant film is flawed, but it's a mostly enthralling throwback to the golden days of Hollywood. Eschewing CGI in favour of in-camera special effects techniques from a century prior, Coppola has crafted an intriguing take on such a legendary literary tale. It won't work for everyone, but this reviewer found it uniquely breathtaking.

In 1462, Romanian knight Vlad the Impaler (Oldman) battles to overthrow the Turkish Empire. But when his wife Elisabeta (Ryder) receives a false letter claiming that Vlad died in combat, she kills herself in despair. Finding his wife dead upon returning from the battlefield, Vlad renounces God and essentially joins the dark side, becoming a bloodsucking member of the undead going by the name Count Dracula. Centuries later, aspiring real estate broker Jonathan Harker (Reeves) travels to Transylvania to organise the sale of a London abbey to Dracula. When the Count sees a photograph of Jonathan's fiancée Mina (also Ryder), he sees his lost wife Elisabeta in her, and looks to reclaim his love. Leaving Harker at his castle surrounded by lascivious vampires, Dracula travels to London in pursuit of Mina.

James V. Hart's screenplay adheres closely to Stoker's novel, though a few changes were made to distinguish this adaptation. Most notably, the script bestows Count Dracula with more depth and dimension. Rather than a one-dimensional menace painted in broad strokes of black and white, Hart based the Count on Vlad the Impaler, a vicious historical figure with a body count estimated in the tens of thousands. By giving Dracula a back-story, his motivations are more understandable for pursuing Mina and it adds to the story's overall impact, giving weight to what could have been a cheesy romantic angle. Due to its focus on the relationship between Mina and Dracula, the film is more sensual and sexy than any prior Dracula adaptation have ever dared to be. However, as the source novel is epistolary in form, Bram Stoker's Dracula constantly switches between storylines, and consequently feels a bit overstuffed. Put simply, the movie runs too long, and required more narrative focus and momentum, not to mention more disciplined editing. Indeed, some may find the film dull from time to time.

Francis Ford Coppola purposely abstained from creating any outright horror, and this aspect holds the film back from perfection since genuine thrills would have been welcome. However, Coppola's attention to visual detail and atmosphere is what makes this Dracula such an enthralling experience for most of its runtime. The feature was reportedly produced for $40 million (no small chunk of change for 1992), and the outcome is pure spectacle. Coppola allowed his imagination to run wild in the best possible way, dreaming up unforgettable and often beguiling imagery. Furthermore, Coppola flat-out refused to use digital effects for the film - he fired the CGI-focused crew he was given, and instead recruited his son Roman to create the vast onscreen illusions in-camera without using green screen, optical printers or computers. Coppola and his son utilised every old cinematic trick from the dawn of moviemaking to generate the effects, and the results look better than their glossy digital counterpart. Thanks to such creative innovation, there's a staggering sense of film magic throughout Bram Stoker's Dracula that will always remain intact. Also notable about the film is Wojciech Kilar's formidable score, which excellently establishes a Gothic sensibility.

Coppola was responsible for creating the world for Dracula to inhabit, but it's Gary Oldman's convincing performance as the titular protagonist which truly brings the Count to life. Oldman submitted a remarkable performance here - he alternates between subtle and over-the-top depending on the situation, and presents Dracula as a multilayered character. However, the same praise cannot apply to Keanu Reeves, who's woefully miscast as Jonathan Harker. Reeves' performance is universally despised (Coppola even regrets the casting decision, claiming he only cast the star for his appeal to young girls), and for good reason; he's stilted and wooden, and his awful English accent doesn't convince for a single second. Moreover, his general bodily demeanour is every bit as stiff as his line delivery. Meanwhile, the usually-dependable Anthony Hopkins is somewhat underwhelming as vampire hunter Van Helsing, as he lacks the fire and vigour to bring the role to life. At least Winona Ryder and Cary Elwes are decent in their respective roles of Elisabeta/Mina and Lord Arthur Holmwood - not brilliant by any means, but serviceable.

At times, Bram Stoker's Dracula does border on pretentious, goofy, ludicrous and campy, and the quality of the acting drastically varies, but the production has more going for it than not. It's an old-fashioned monster movie on a grand scale, a Gothic horror spectacle benefitting from Oldman's stunner of a performance and Francis Ford Coppola's memorable visual style.

7.3/10

I can remember it as if it was yesterday. There was indeed a huge buzz before this movie was released but, unfortunately, it didn't turn out to be the masterpiece that so many of us hoped for. Basically, there is one major issue with Francis Ford Coppola. Indeed, the guy ruled the 70's but it was as much a blessing as it was a curse as, basically, for each movie he made afterwards, the audience was expecting another 'Godfather' or another 'Apocalypse now'. Anyway, this movie was his last big production and, in my opinion, there were still many things to enjoy here. First of all, the directing was really good, the whole thing looked terrific and the cast was also pretty good, above all Gary Oldman was just awesome. The only issue was probably that it tries maybe too much to be faithful to the original source and since we all know the story, there was not many surprises when watching this. To conclude, I'm aware that there are many more and even better remakes of 'Dracula' but still, I think this one was actually pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Coppola's work.

Gary Oldman as Dracula will forever remain my favourite and this is one movie I never get tired of watching. It is incredibly sensuous and worth watching if only for the two best actors, Oldman and Hopkins. I don't think the rest of the cast did all that well.

if that is treu i have a few hundred woman in this city and a few 100 movie stars i seriously need to meet, probably why i'm trying so hard to get the world redecorated and have a space program and pagan army together.

I am the monster that breathing men would kill. I am Dracula.

My favorite vampire film of the lot. It stuck close to the story penned by Bram Stoker (save for a few features, such as making Elisabeta/Mina Murray the resurrected wife of Count Dracula), and the way the film was made with hardly any special effects (a special request from the director) was so effective, it provided audiences with a cinematic masterpiece from the same man who directed the Godfather, another favorite film of mine. Presenting Count Dracula as a romantic being who became a bloodthirsty monster because of the sudden and tragic demise of the woman he loved was also a touch of creativity - audiences tend to find the romantic side to every story, and by giving Count Dracula as a monster who became as such because of love, well, this film can be thought of as endearing. I couldn't help but sympathize with Count Dracula all throughout the film.
In the year 1462, a Transylvanian knight, Dracula (Oldman), is forced to leave his young wife, Elisabeta (Ryder), who he prizes above everything else in the world, in order to do battle with the Turks who are invading their country. His war is successful, and he rushes home to his wife. Unfortunately, Turks have shot an arrow bearing a letter with the news that Dracula is dead into the castle. Elisabeta believes the news to be true, and after penning a letter of farewell, she throws herself out the window and into the river below. When Dracula sees the lifeless body of his beloved wife, he flies into a rage, denounces God and the Church, and swears to avenge her death with all the powers of darkness. Nearly four centuries later, a young clerk, Jonathan Harker (Reeves), is also forced to leave his fiancee, Mina Murray (Ryder), in order to go on a business trip to take care of some negotiations with one of his company's clients who lives in Transylvania. Although both clearly don't want to be separated from each other, they say farewell, and Mina goes to the house of her childhood friend, Lucy Westenra (Frost), who is a free-spirited, but spoiled woman. Soon enough, Lucy gets engaged to Arthur Holmwood (Elwes), a fellow aristocrat. However, Lucy begins her old habit of sleepwalking, and when Mina follows her, she sees a large creature biting into Lucy's neck. Dracula has arrived, and he is Jonathan's mysterious client. He had seen Mina's picture among Jonathan's belongings, and he imprisoned Jonathan in his castle while he traveled to London. Dracula is now determined to claim Mina as his own, but is thwarted when Mina and Jonathan meet in secret. In retaliation, he turns Lucy into a vampire. Jonathan, Mina, Lucy's suitors, and Abraham Van Helsing (Hopkins), who is an expert on the supernatural, have to find a way to stop Dracula in his tracks.
Fantastic. Bloody. Romantic. Seeing Monica Bellucci in this film was also a nice surprise (although when I first watched this film I didn't know who she was back then). Definitely a must see.