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

Bram Stoker's Dracula Customer Reviews (61 - 63 of 84 Reviews)

Not Entirely Faithful To The Book Like The Title Implies but Still Good!
Dracula is a great classic novel by Bram Stoker and after I read it I became interested in watching the movie adaptations and I bought several of them on DVD including this Francis Ford Coppola adaptation and though this is probably the most faithful film adaptation of the book it still took some major liberties some of which didn't make all that much sense but I still liked the movie and I think Gary Oldman was superb as Dracula and the rest of the cast is good too but like other reviewers I did find the character of Lucy to be very annoying in this movie!

A gothic valentine
I'll come right out and say it: This is not a horror movie. It's a supernatural love story. The fact that this is really about romance could have been a strength (the original book by Bram Stoker has a lot to do with Victorian sexuality) but was handled poorly and thus becomes a huge weakness for the effectiveness of the movie. Gary Oldman's Dracula has existed in a lonely bitter, blood gurgling rage for roughly 400 years and is sick with love for.....Winona Rider.

She's horrible! This might be her worst performance ever. Her squeaking, simpering Mina (an impressive character in the book) is so unappealing that you feel sorry for Dracula. Clearly, both the poor guy's eyesight and memory have failed him over the centuries.

The other leads are poorly treated. Lucy's three suitors are reduced to character types. Jonathan Harker is so dumb that you wish he'd just die and be done with it. I love Anthony Hopkins but his Van Helsing is mean and more than a little nuts. Lucy's been turned into a nymphomaniac. The only sympathetic person in the movie is the vampire.

There is no real tension, no jump in your seat moments and nothing to fear. You don't care about Jonathan or Lucy and Mina is clearly in no real danger. Dracula doesn't want to turn her into dinner. He wants his happy home restored. How he was planning on explaining his three lesser brides back at the castle to Mina is never dealt with but it would've been a hoot of a scene.

The movie is very pretty. The scenery, the costumes, the music are all well done. The date scenes are romantic and Harker's carriage ride to the castle is actually great but if you want a horror movie you'd be better off looking up Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee's work instead.

I'm a little confused...
I'm wondering if I saw the same movie as everyone else. I was forced by my girlfriend to watch this thing (still trying to figure out what I did) and while her taste in movies is notoriously bad it seems to be this film reaches new lows even by her standards. What amazes me is its credentials: Coppola, Ryder, Oldman? These are actual artists, so its baffling how they could have produced such a kitsch and pretentious piece of... work. The acting, except for Oldman, is seriously weak, dialog is ridiculous, Keen-o Reaves reaches new lows with an absurd "British" accent, sets are cartoonish (matte painting is especially amateurish), and overall it's just a huge bore. Gary Oldman, the one shining light in this travesty, looks like Angela Lansbury on a bad hair day. Ryder looks great, but what else is new? Certainly not enough to redeem this fiasco. The music is good, but if want to hear a soundtrack I'll turn on the stereo. After this ordeal I've decided to hide the DVD player.

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