Yar, you be here: Bram Stoker's Dracula (Superbit Collection) > Customer Reviews

Bram Stoker's Dracula (Superbit Collection) Customer Reviews (19 - 21 of 82 Reviews)

"See What Your God Has Done To Me"
A few years ago I approached Coppola's "Dracula" in a mood of indifference mixed with skepticism. Remembering Hammer Studios final, rather mediocre Dracula films, unable to forget Paul Morrisey's travesty of a film, and dissatisfied by Frank Langella's interpretation of the vampire Count--I expected Coppola's "Dracula" to be mildly entertaining at best. Thus I sighed, slipped the borrowed disc into my machine, sighed once more--and 130 minutes later I started breathing again! Coppola's "Dracula" is truly spellbinding, breathtaking. The very first moments of the film were surprising: the musical score's harsh, Balkan rhythms, the sight of wind-driven mists over the dome of St. Sophia's, the fine narration of the Turks' 15th century conquest of Constantinople, a heavy cross thrown down and shattering on a cobblestone pavement: such is beautiful film-making. That such visionary intensity could be sustained the entire length of the film--miraculous!
In practically every respect the film seems unprecedented--paradoxically because it adheres to the spirit, if not the letter, of the original 1898 novel. Only the conclusion deviates significantly from Bram Stoker's book. Nevertheless the cinematic ending remains quite effective: passionate, violent, Romantic--epithets that can be applied to the entire film as well. But there's one more word that seems equally fitting: "grandeur." "Dracula" has a truly epic scope: it begins with medieval armies contending for the possession of Europe; it spans centuries of implied supernatural warfare; it concludes among the incredible fortified mountains and precipices that seem to overlook the edge of this world...
While such visuals are stunning, they never diminish one's interest in the principal characters. Gary Oldman's portrayal of Dracula is both flawless and original. Less a monster than a tragic hero, he suffers a centuries-old torment of lost love. At the same time he is painfully aware of his own monstrosity--apparently inflicted for the understandable sin of cursing God! Anthony Hopkins is likewise impressive as Van Helsing--eccentric to the point of mania (as are many geniuses), yet formidable in every respect. Wynona Ryder in appropriately cool and beautiful as Dracula's reincarnated love. She is upstaged, however, by Sadie Frost's incredibly sexy interpretation of Lucy Westenra, the aristocratic Victorian dream-girl transformed by Dracula into a Victorian nightmare. Incidentally, I am astonished that Mistress Frost has yet to be recognized as a major horror film Icon.
All in all, Coppola's "Dracula" is one of those rare films that one can seriously compare to the best work of certain European directors--men like Mario Bava, Dario Argento, Jean Rollin, Jess Franco. In the horror film universe that constitutes the highest possible praise.

???
I honestly cannot fathom the reason as to why this film is called 'Bram Stoker's Dracula', when it hardly resembles his infamous book. I was.. disappointed, to say the least, when I first saw this movie. The cast was dreadful, the acting appalling, the story-line way too dramatically changed. Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were just.. too young and amateur to play their parts convincingly. Reeves managed to look cute and innocent on screen, but also very wooden; and what on earth was with the so-called 'English' accent?! Anthony Hopkins put himself across as a mad, disturbingly perverted old Van Helsing. The parts of Lucy Westenra and the mentally instable Renfield were played rather well; in fact, they were the only redeeming aspects of this film. Dracula himself.. was done quite admirably, in essence. But portraying Gary Oldman as a tragic romantic hero, was not a good move; it just doesn't work.
What I am annoyed about, is the inappropriately named title. It is NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula, it is Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. C'est tout.
With my criticisms in mind; for the viewer that has been untainted by any former knowledge of the original Count Dracula, it is a rather good film. But for me, Dracula is not just the fictions of a demented Irishman.

Good Except For Winona's Laughable Attempts at an English Accent! 3 1/2 Stars!
This was mostly a good movie and most of the actors were very good, especially Gary Oldman who was an outstanding Dracula but I was disappointed with Winona Ryder's performance. She is normally a great actress but she was not convincing as Mina and her attempts at a British accent was horrible and very cringe-worthy. Much worse than Keanu Reeve's attempts at an English accent!

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Next Page