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

Bram Stoker's Dracula Customer Reviews (7 - 9 of 84 Reviews)

Horro/Romance/Drama
Based on Bram Stoker's classic 1897 novel, this film from Francis Ford Coppola and screenwriter James Victor Hart offers a full-blooded portrait of the immortal Transylvanian vampire. The major departure from Stoker is one of motivation as Count Dracula (Gary Oldman) is motivated more by romance than by bloodlust. He punctures the necks as a means of avenging the death of his wife in the 15th century, and when he comes to London, it is specifically to meet heroine Mina Harker (Winona Ryder), the living image of his late wife. Anthony Hopkins is obsessed vampire hunter Van Helsing, while Keanu Reeves takes on the role of Jonathan Harker, and Tom Waits plays bug-eating Renfield. Bram Stoker's Dracula was the winner of three Academy Awards.This is a movie a horror/drama/romance fan should check out.If you like Dracula, you might like this one.



IN A WORD CRAP!
This is such a travesty of a film that i wondered afterwards if he was meant as a spoof, a sort of glossy version of 'love at first bite' but no, as per usual Frances Ford Coppola decides that he can do better than any previous versions and give a 'modern' slant by making Gary Oldman look like some physchedelic vampire in top hat and mirror sunglasses. They call this the closest to Bram Stoker's vision but the description of Dracula as some refugee from Haight Ashbury doesn't appear anyway. Keenu Reeves attempt at an English accent is plain cringworthy and the so called 'special effects' look like cardboard cutouts from kid's t.v. There is no atmosphere and it goes on endlessly. Take my advice stick with the original Nosfertu or the Bela Lugosi version. Coppola could take more than a few lessons about filmmaker from Todd Browning.

What's all the hub-bub, bub?
Having just finished reading the novel itself, I figured it would be a great time to introduce myself to Coppola's version of the film. Now I already was curious how the film would go, since to stay true to the book would actually mean often times to bore the audience, because of the 'journal'-istic style of writing Bram used (pun intended). At the same time though, to be original might be to skew too much the story. So I figured they would have to walk a thin line.

At first my fears were alleviated, especially since I believed that Hopkins and Coppola would carry the film. However, not too far into the movie all that was dispelled, as they messed up in both originality, and staying true to the story.

For instance, there is no dead wife/resurrected wife bit in the book. I'm sorry, but it's just not there, which would be fine if it had added value to the movie. However, I didn't think it did, and Jonathan's journal writings being used at the beginning of the story (although this time very true to the book) also took away from what should have been an exciting opening.

Did I mention how silly Dracula was? The least we should do is not laugh at seeing him, especially old-Dracula; while the most we should do is actually understand the characters fear. But, with all of the actors, including Hopkins (who had the best part still), there was little to really care about.

Ultimately, Coppola's rendition seemed more like a rush-job then anything. I mean it is very sad to see that the best film work parts are when the director re-hashes a sequence from his early days, specifically the end of Godfather 1. This is shown in the juxtaposition of the Dracula and Mina sequence, while Dr. Hellsing is ceremoniously destroying the boxes of earth.

So, to say this is a disappointment is an understatement, but if you think Coppola can never go wrong then I guess this is your film.

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