Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

I love this movie so much

it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Caught this on Netflix the other day and donno what audiences at the time felt, but in 2018 this feels pathetic. Watching Gary Oldman in the first scene, I thought this was definitely a parody and then when I heard Keanu Reeves, was sure this was gonna be a hoot. Nope. Not even close. It is also not dark or intriguing. Looks like the actors signed on to work with the famed director and paid no attention to the script and totally hammed it up in whatever horrible acents they could do. A large part of the blame must go to the adapter of the novel - you cannot just throw in your own fantasies and gratuitous sexual content (like writhing women in silk à la Ghostbusters only with loads of women whose tops are off, beasts in disgusting acts). Adding explicit sexual content or meaningless "layers" to characters that are not in the original (like making Dracula some sort of hot bad boy that women are attracted to), you are only cheapening the source material, not making it contemporary. When you add something to existing source material, it should be in tone with the rest of the content, respect the characters for what they are and also be in tune with the time period. In this film, Dracula is reduced to a poor confusing joke and Mina - what is really going on with her? Don't even get me started on Van Helsing.With a runtime of 2+ hours, it is way too long for this borefest but still seems like everything was rushed. For a big studio film, couldn't they atleast spend some money on getting the blood right?

Where do I start. The actress playing Lucy, although beautiful, had one mode. Sound like she's orgasming in every scene. When you're that ill and/or dying you don't sound like you're being pleasured. What the hell was the hairy weir beast raping her on a slab of concrete? The male actors except E Grant and Hopkins were all useless. The British Accents were utterly abysmal and there was no tension or creepiness whatsoever from Oldman. Just dreary boredom. Ryder's performance was so depressingly terrible. That same tired rasping noise when she heavy breaths in every scene. There are child actors with more depth than this "actress". I have enjoyed some of her movies such as Beetlejuice, Heathers, Alien Resurrection. However she and Keanu are so painfully bad at British accents. The story in this was a total butchery of Stokers and it's quite shockingly bad for a producer of Coppola's calibre.

Absolutely horrifically awful. I've given it as much as 3 because I did at least make it to the end, though I regretted doing so. The script is horrendous, rendering every character as a hammy caricature - this is not helped by a a great deal of overacting, and such delights as Keanu Reeves' 'English' accent. The cinematography would be interesting if it were consistent, but the changes in tone are too drastic to allow it to become atmospheric, meaning itoften feels gimmicky. The cartoon sexiness, whilst a valid angle to take on the story, is unintentionally hilarious, and really destroys any sense of menace in the vampire scenes, especially when combined with the bizarre wolfman form of Dracula, which is a strange idea even without the terrible costume. Some of these flaws would be excusable if this film was its own animal, but when your title is 'Bram Stoker's Dracula', you must expect some form of comparison to be drawn. This isn't even remotely similar in tone, characterisation, atmosphere, anything. It rushes at breakneck speed through events where the book, admittedly a slow burner, builds suspense superbly - this pushes the film's story into the realm of pastiche, and in failing to take enough care to make anything really matter, fails to justify its ending in the way the book does. There is no suspense whatsoever, and neither is there any real horror. To be fair, they gave a little more agency to the women, and a little more circularity to the plot, corny and nonsensical as it was, but beyond this there is nothing to recommend this mess. A great disappointment.

Movie Review: "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992)Marking the picture's 25th anniversary of Director Francis Ford Coppola, given full creative freedom at Hollywood Major Columbia Pictures, to fulfill a life-time's dream of adapting the classic Gothic tale of Count Vlad Dracul from 1897 written by author Bram Stoker (1847-1912), brought to the screen in extraordinary enriching visuals, tension-tweaking sound design and emotional-perfectly received score by composer Wojciech Kilar (1932-2013) of further splendid production design by Tom Sanders (1953-2017) accompanied by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus (1935-2017) best work of light and shadow.The cast in its striking resemblance with actor Gary Oldman as Count Dracula, ranching from a young ranging warrior in middle ages wars with the Ottoman Empire in the deepest region of Eastern Europe, defeated armies in back-lit red ambiance of the epic epilogue to an unnaturally old age with Academy-Award winning make-up effects; powers due to his uncompromising love to princess Elisabeta, innocently-convincing performed by actress Winona Ryder at the age of 20, who's character ends her life due to false notice of the enemy of her husband's death, which makes Count Vlad Dracul renounce his belief into the Christian church to become Count Dracula for the centuries to come.The suspense has nothing lost of its initial stroke with supporting characters as real estate agent Jonathan Harker, portrayed no less convincing Keanu Reeves, who fills the spot of an older real state agent, already in a mental institution due to his encounter with Count Dracula and his brides of terror, here given face by acting-talented musician Tom Waits. Further cast members as late-arriving actor Sir Anthony Hopkins, performing as notorious Professor Van Helsing, steals the scene with utmost of ease and professionalism in his performance as vampire hunter, leading the avenging party of confronting Count Dracula in classical-set London in times of industrialization at the turn of the 20th century.The love story between reincarnated Elisabeta into the character of Mina Murray, financée to Jonathan Harker, goes on a journey toward a coming-of-age by falling for the rejuvenated Count Dracula on a busy London street; continuing followings into a movie-projecting etablissment, where Director Francis Ford Coppola unfolds the strongest scenes of a gently-growing relationship with leather gloves in color forces of overall dark green and red between an unless menacingly-hurt and power-drunken as to say demon-forced man, who finds his emotions uncovered to embrace instead of kill another human being, before the price of the encountering bliss becomes an highly accelerated showdown back to breeding grounds of Transylvania in this timeless tale of Horror and beauty to redeem a forfeited life in death.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)