Bram Stoker's Dracula

Pros: Oldman, Hopkins, costumes and sets, enjoyable enough.
Cons: This is not Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Somehow, Dracula had eluded me. Oh sure, I’d seen the classic thirties Universal version with an unforgettable performance by Bela Lugosi. Who hasn’t? But somehow, I never managed to see the latest version, 1992’s Bram Stoker’s ...

Pros: Coppola's Direction, Script, Cinematography, Look, Score, & Cast led by Oldman.
Cons: Keanu Reeves' Wooden Performance & Stuff Cut from the Adaptation of Book.

The story of Count Dracula by Bram Stoker has been a very popular story among horror fans. Cinematic versions were done since 1922's Nosferatu by F.W. Murnau and since then, there have been many versions. Some were good and some were bad. In ...

Pros: Won Three Oscars. Brilliant, beautiful and creepy.
Cons: Not really Bram Stoker's.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Screenplay by Jack V. Hart, There have been many vampire movies over the years, but periodically, we return to the source, Bram Stoker’s immortal epistolary classic. Some, ...

Pros: Heavy on style: Great sets, costumes, photography.
Cons: Light on substance: Miscasting, campy performances hurt an otherwise great film.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

You want style? We got style. OK, the one thing this movie has plenty of is style. Gobs and gobs of style. Style dripping off it...

Francis Ford Coppola is a stylish director -- there is no other...

Pros: Fantastic visuals and production design
Cons: Awful performances from Ryder, Reeves, and Hopkins and the script turns a Victorian horror novel into a romance

Bram Stoker’s Dracula: American Zoetrope/ Columbia Pictures Corp.
Rating: USA: R/ UK: 18

I can sum up director Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 version of Bram Stoker’s Dracula in two words: Eye candy. For those of...

Pros: Excellent costumes, sets and soundtrack.
Cons: Poor English accents, bad acting.

It is a timeless tale. Good verses evil. The pure verses tainted. Based on the title Dracula alone it is at least worth one viewing. To say the acting is poor is being generous.

Keanu Reeves couldn't carry an English accent if it were...

Pros: Lavish sets, rich colors, great cast ...
Cons: ALOT of rich colors, lavish sets ...

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is not your run of the mill, typical vampire flick. It is instead, a romantic tale that portray the count as a tormented being with emotions that (just like his physical self) never die. And as is legend, even in his...

Pros: a pleasant retelling of his oldie
Cons: ..

THE PLAYERS:
Dracul - Gary Oldman
Elisabeta/Mina - Winona Ryder
Jonathan Harker - Keanu Reeves
Van Helsing - Anthony Hopkins

In a twist to this timeless tale, we are finally given a peek into the background and...

Pros: Cinematography.
Cons: Some acting feels..well...forced and haunted.

Dracula had everything a 14 year old could want. Blood, violence, loud music, nudity, sex, and above all – cool teeth (especially if you had braces like me at that age!) Enough to draw a seemingly innocent child, to the midnight showing without...

Pros: Interesting camera work, production design. Gary Oldman has his moments. Tom Waits.
Cons: Keanu Reeves. Occasional script holes.

Normy and I have been ensconced at Chateau Maine for over a week with no new entertainment offers coming in and we've been going a little stir crazy. Normy decided to head off incipient boredom by practicing his chip shots from the rose garden, but I ...

Pros: Gary Oldman makes evil look sexy and inviting.
Cons: He died in the end.

From the opening scene to the end, Bram Stokers Dracula is exciting, thrilling and strangely inviting. The casting was excellent and the acting was sufficient. This movie had everything a woman could ask for...romance-the old fashioned kind, excitement,...

Pros: Gary Oldman's oft-revered performance is at times engaging and genuine
Cons: Awful and cheap production values. Wooden cast. Lazy directing. Dire script.

Oh, how the once mighty have now fallen! Point in reference once enigmatic and untouchable powerhouse director Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola’s supposed genius went to his head amidst a flurry of sex, drugs and expectation resulting in his grandiose ...

Pros: good costumes, good sets, when it follows the book it's right no target
Cons: a really bad love story that is tacked on.

I got Bram Stokers Dracula the movie a little while ago, when I was reading the book Bram Stokers Dracula. Well I have watch the movie after finishing the book and well to say one thing the movie is interesting but the real title should have said Francis ...

Pros: the costumes and scenery, some fine acting by Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins
Cons: a special effects fiasco, directing gone mad

Francis Ford Coppola's film "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992) subtitle is "Love Never Dies". This is a true sentiment, but it seems out of place as a description of this movie's theme. This film dies because the director ruins it with...

Pros: Closest film adaptation yet of the classic novel, gorgeous costumes and lavish sets.
Cons: Keanu Reeves could have stood a little more accent coaching.

For at last bringing to the screen all the major players from the classic novel producer/director Francis Ford Coppola deserves applause for this adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula. And although it does not keep altogether true to the original's romance...