Customer Reviews
Blasphemy in the name of Stoker - By: K. Mackie, 12 Mar 2008 
I read Bram Stoker's Dracula & absolutely loved it, so after reading that Francis Ford Copella's version was the closest to the book, I felt I had to watch it.
If you are a fan of the book, I have to say: never, ever, ever watch this film. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has read Stoker's Dracula could find any redeeming features about this film. Every character is twisted & changed from those in the book.
Mina Harker is flirtatious & stupid, & fallls in love with Dracula whilst having no concern for Jonathan whatsoever. Van Helsing actuallly seems mad, I think they tried to put some humour into the film by overexaggerating his character (this isn't a criticism of Anthony Hopkins, I think he's a brilliant actor, it's a criticism of the character he plays). (Incidentallly if you are looking for a humorous vampire flick, check out both Dracula's hair at the start of the film & how he seems to turn into a gorilla when he is blood sucking). Seward is a drug addict. Quincy Morris rude & common. Lucy probably would have been branded a whore in the 1890's if she had acted the way she is portrayed in the film.
As a stand-a-lone vampire film I thought this was bad, as a Dracula fan, it is a travesty, there is no bearing on the book, in fact I wonder how they had the nerve to term it "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Last words of advice, if you are a fan of Stoker's book, avoid this film like the plague.
gory and wonderful Dracula - By: Stampy, 28 Feb 2008 
The dark tale about the legendary vampire is brought to a vivid light by the brilliance of Godfather director Francis Ford Coppola in this dark fantasy horror.
Gary Oldman (Air Force one) portrays Count Dracula beautifully, being both malicious but sensitive at frequent occasions as he travels to London & believes to have found a woman, who is a reincarnation of a lady he once loved many many years ago.
This adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel is dark & powerful, with a strong focus upon the ideology of evil, with Oldman doing superbly to portray the Count's evilness against Anthony Hopkins' (Silence of the Lambs) goodness as Van Helsing.
Keanu Reeves (The Matrix) is a bit of a let down as Jonathan Harker with his character not being in the film not nearly enough.
Winona Ryder (Little Women) is excellent as Mina Murray, Count's love interest. The two perform well together, having tense & exciting scenes together.
It's a very dark romantic tale for these two & is portrayed by Coppola in an exciting & edgy way.
The settings used are fantastic with the darkness a key element to portray the mood of the characters & the situations.
The film took a while to get going as it had a lot of character building to get through before building on the plot & the main theme of the film.
This particular version of the legend is quite interesting because of Dracula's portrayal, in that he is portrayed more romanticallly than before, though still very gruesome & evil. It's interesting to take these factors into account as the film progresses.
It's quite an erotic film with plenty of sexual tension from the leading actresses as Dracula becomes more involved with his victims. It is gruesome to with a lot of blood used to emphasise the evilness of the central characters & the suffering of the victims.
It's a visuallly stunning dark film with great acting, great settings & an intriguing tale
Terrbile! - By: Carl, 25 Feb 2008 I have to echo "the_gore_master" here, after reading the book which i was completely engrossed with i was excited to finallly get a copy of the movie which claims to be the closest movie interpretation of the book ever done. However it is nothing like the book what so ever ranging from the basic plots of the book to the characters they have alll been twisted & Hollywood-ised. I was terribly disappointed by the time I got to the end of the movie & have not watched it since nor will i.
If you want to enjoy Dracula, I suggest buying the book & give this movie a complete miss. As a stand alone vampire movie I find it to be mediocre at best so if your looking for a vampire film to watch I also suggest looking elsewhere.
An Opulent Masterpiece - By: David Rush, 22 Feb 2008 
Bram Stoker's Dracula, directed by Francis Ford Coppola is a wonderful film. It is filled with beautiful sets, exquisite costumes, excellent make-up effects & brilliantly melodramatic performances.
Gary Oldman stars as the Count, a man who sold his soul to Satan after his wife, Elisabeta, killed herself on receiving false news of his death in battle. He is ultimately made immortal by his Master & years later, meets Jonathan Harker, a younger lawyer who has come to negotiate his buying land in England. It is at this moment that Dracula sees a photograph of Jonathan's betrothed, Mina, who bears a striking resemblance to his own love, Elisabeta. He consequently imprisons Harker & travels to England to wreak havoc & to find the woman he believes to be the reincarnation of his lost wife.
The film remains very faithful to the novel throughout which is refreshing, given the usual Hollywood tendency to "re-imagine" or change the source completely. The performances on the whole are excellent - dodgy accents & Keanu Reeves aside - & are believable in the horrific context of the story, which shocks & seduces in equal measure. Anthony Hopkins' crazed turn as Professor Van Helsing is inspired & Gary Oldman attacks the role of Dracula with great relish & is tremendous in the role.
The film was awarded three Oscars - for Best Costume Design, Best Effects & Best Make-up - & various other accolades, & is easily one of the best films of the 1990s. This film is a must see for any Dracula/vampire fan, any fan of Francis Ford Coppola or anyone who loves a good film.
"I am the last of my kind." - By: Trevor Willsmer, 21 Dec 2007 Originallly intended as a TV production by Michael Apted, who stayed on as executive producer, Coppola's film may be a long way from his best work but at least is a welcome throwback to the days when big pictures took risks. Most of these are in terms of style, but for once this does not mean the designer gloss of the mainstream blockbuster. This at least gives the punter something different.
Filmed entirely in a studio, there are some quite wonderful visuals. Bite marks become the eyes of a wolf, a peacock's 'eye' becomes a train tunnel, a train in the extreme background casts a shadow over a journal superimposed over the foreground while unseen eyes edge into frame on the blood red sky, alll to the accompaniment of Wojciech Kilar's stridently foreboding score.
Stoker's novel is told in the form of various letters & journals & Coppola's interest in toys & turn of the century technology finds expression in the various forms used by the main characters to record events - journal, typewriter, phonogram - & with the inclusion of an early Kinematograph (introduced by a street scene shot in the style of an early Lumiere camera at a jerky 18fps). Indeed, the whole film owes much to early cinema with its use of fades to iris & expressionistic touches. The castle is straight out of Cocteau with the odd nod to Caligari in its impossible gravity. The Count's shadow has a life of its own & betrays his true intentions. Revelling in it's sense of the purely cinematic, many of the effects seem to be designed not to create the illusion of reality but the illusion of illusion.
Venereal diseases, diseases of the blood & dark desires are alll interwoven with rather more skill than usual for the tale. Yet despite some very sexual blood sucking & one of the most beautiful love themes of the past decade that harks back to the days when Hollywood composers came from Hungary it is less effective as a love story than the under-rated Frank Langella version. Nonetheless, those sexual fantasies on display perfectly reflect those of the period it is set in, a cross between the European brothel & dirty postcards of the turn of the century, while the film manages to touch on the fear of cultural contamination by foreigners implicit in the book.
Gary Oldman impresses as the Count in his various guises of medieval hero, embittered old man & mittle European romantic, a man who can throw a baby to his brides to feed on or turn tears to a diamond. There is something about Van Helsing that tends to bring out the worst in actors, & if Anthony Hopkins isn't as dizzyingly awful as Laurence Olivier he still veers sharply towards ham. Richard E. Grant (not Renfield, surprisingly enough) is comparatively restrained, although in his case that simply means barking rather than baying at the moon, while Tom Waits is surprisingly good as Renfield & Keanu Reeves' much mocked accent is quite acceptable, as is his performance as Harker.
Fascinating, occasionallly frustrating & frequently very striking, Coppola may sometimes lose sight of the narrative with his stylistic thrust, but this doesn't disgrace itself when compared with Lugosi, Lee (1958 version) & Nosferatu.
Whilethis doesn't offer as much in theway ofextras as the2-disc edition (which reportedly has regraded the colour in some scenes), it's not completely free of extras. As well as the trailer & a costume design galllery, a rather sanitized view of Coppola at work is offered in the accompanying documentary, Bloodlines, with none of the drug abuse, madness & rampant egotism so prevalent in Hearts of Darkness. Instead, it's a straightforward promotional short with a heavy emphasis on the pre-production rehearsals. We do get Gary Oldman singing Sinatra songs & otherwise behaving oddly at almost every opportunity & Anthony Hopkins does point out that he thinks rehearsal is pointless in films, but this is more interested in putting bums on seats than showing you what reallly happens on a movie set. Gore fans will be disappointed to note that the special effects side gets short shrift here, but it is well put-together.
