Yar, you be here: Bram Stoker's Dracula > Customer Reviews

Bram Stoker's Dracula Customer Reviews (49 - 51 of 84 Reviews)

CONFUSED
This movie is cofusing as hell!
I had to watch the first 15 minutes about 5 times to actually understand what was going on. I was looking for more of a thrill and I didn't get it with this film. The acting is alright, though I wish they would've picked someone else besides Winona Ryder.
Save your money and get Queen of The Damned, or the Vampire Cronicles.

A Stunning (But Empty) Visual Feast
A castle brooding in the dark Transylvanian mountains. A blood-red cloak seductively billowing behind the ancient Count Dracula (Gary Oldman). That same Count seamlessly transforming from a misshapen demon to a swarm of rats. "Godfather" Guru Francis Ford Coppalas' creative jucies flow swiftly at the chance of visual possibility and he makes his version of the oft-told Dracula tale a cascade of ravishing gothic visuals. The stellar production is led by the triumphant production design of Thomas Sanders, who, with the aid of ace cinematographer Michael Ballhaus, turns the gothic trappings into works of art. Nothing in "Dracula" has never really been seen before, and nothing like it has been seen since. Theres' just one problem: Coppala and scribe James V. Hart forget to ravish our hearts as well has our eyes.

The film opens well enough. In 15 C. Wallachia, Vlad the Impaler (Oldman) is leading his armies against invading Turks, convinced he is on a holy crusade. But just when he's getting the hang of impaling mass quantities of his enemies, his wife commits suicide. Vlad curses himself and God for the act, and guess what happens? God truns Vlad into the first Vampire, the walking dead for all enternity.

Jump ahead for about four centuries. Dracula has beening living in solitude with three sexy wives, occasionally feeding on the living. Then an accontant named Johnathon Harker (a very wooden Keanu Reeves) comes to work out a real estate deal and he brings a picture of his fiance (Winona Ryder) with him. His finace bears more than a passing resemblance to Dracula's dead wife, and so the Count thinks she has been resurrected. His keeps Harker prison in his castel while he methodically moves to seduce and turn his new found first love.

What should be an enthralling update of Bram Stoker's grim tale is instead a slog. Despite Coppolas' best efforts, he can't overcome a script riddled with overwrought dialouge and half-baked scenes. There really isn't one moment in the film that feels complete or finished, and the acting reaches for operatic grandeur but arrives only at two-dimensional shallowness. Seeing Ryder and vampire hunter Anthony Hopkins tempt and torment each other late in the film tetters and soon falls into camp, as does much of the film. Coppola should know better. The meat of any film does not lie in visual artistry, but in strong characters and resonant themes. Coppola neglected that when he made "Dracula," and it seems he still doesn't really know it.

Great movie
I first saw this movie as a young lad not even into his eigth year of life, and i adored it. one of my favorite things about this movie is the portrayal of Renfield by musical genius and movie cameo superstar Tom Waits. I am a huge fan of both his musical and film work, and he plays the insane incontinent so well. This movie has a great deal going for it, it has a great story, stunning visuals for it's time, decent acting, except Keanu, when will someone tell him that he can't act? The biggest draw for me was Tom Waits, pure and simple, i will watch an otherwise dreadful movie just to see five minutes of Tom Waits.

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