Pssst, want to check out Dracula in our new look?
- Bram Stoker's Dracula
- 128 min.
Francis Ford Coppola
- Rating *
- Votes *
* View IMDb information
See all comments
Its trying to balance tradition horror camp with legitimate story telling and scares. In the end, its just a film of its time and hasnt aged very gracefully. The effects are dated, acting over the top, and additional backstory just not needed.
Considering the great director and all the astounding previous adaptations, both of the vampire legend in general and Stoker's work in particular, I find this film very disappointing. It comes across as boring and ridiculous - in my opinion, Mel Brooks' "Dracula - Dead and Loving It" is to be taken more serious than this film (in addition to be being more true to the source material's vision).
There's nothing bad to be said about the acting (though several casting decisions are rather questionable), but the characters themselves aren't really convincing - most notably the original motivations for Vlad Țepeș to just wish himself into becoming the first vampire and haunt the living are absurd [minor spoiler - if you can call it that]: To get back at the christian church (that generally disapproves of suicide), because the muslim Turks tricked his wife into killing herself, by nonchalantly proclaiming that Țepeș had died in battle? Did I get that right? It's a cute idea to bring elements from "Romeo and Juliett" into the story, but this just makes no sense. By this film's logic, every third teenager wtih a heartache should turn into an vampire to get back at the world.
Well, just my opinion; watch it, if you're interested, but don't miss out on better films like "Nosferatu" or the 1931 film with Bela Lugosi. The best thing this film has going for it is the music by Wojciech Kilar.
Saw (Coppola's) Bram Stoker’s Dracula in theaters back in the day, but all I remembered was the independent shadows (something it owes to Vampyr, I now realize) and Keanu Reeves getting bit in the junk. Oh, and that I didn't particular like it. Today, I can appreciate the closer adaptation of Stoker's book, but I still don't think it particularly works. I'll lay that down at the feet of three people. First, the Harkers (Winona Ryder and Keanu) struggling with their British accents is only a small part of their bad acting. They are miscast to say the least. And then there's Coppola himself, who uses far too much camera trickery. Sometimes it works, sometimes it really doesn't, but regardless, he pushes on that too hard, too early. There's no build-up, whatsoever. And while I understand the psycho-sexual underpinnings of vampire lore, this one goes to some distasteful extremes, whether it's Van Helsing humping a cowboy's leg or poor Lucy always shown with a breast uncovered and not a single Victorian trying to cover her up. Come on, now. I should like this a lot more. I mean, Mike Mignola and Jim Steranko worked on the look of it! I've loved other horror acid trips! But Coppola's Dracula feels overwrought and uneven, and while it did bring new iconography to Dracula's cinematic iconography, I have a very hard time enjoying it for any length of time.
to see which of your friends have seen this movie!
In 6 official lists
View all lists this movie is in
This movie ranks #104 in TSZDT's The 1,000 Greatest Horror Films
This movie ranks #273 in Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life
This movie ranks #639 in TSPDT's 1,000 Greatest Films: 1001-2000
This movie ranks #671 in Box Office Mojo's All Time Adjusted Box Office
This movie ranks #748 in Box Office Mojo's All Time Worldwide Box Office
This movie ranks #877 in Jonathan Rosenbaum's Essential Cinema