1. KirsiM.

   10

   Mistitled but a feast of interesting and stunningly beautiful images (this is, after all, a motion PICTURE), creating a dream-like atmosphere of period and fantasy. Mina and Lucy and their costumes look fabulous, albeit Stoker probably was spinning in his grave: one of his heroines was a vampires lover, other was a nymphomaniac! In Stokers novel, Lucy was the feminine ideal of " unequalled sweetness and purity" , the vampires were strong, sluttish and punishable, - yes, vamps. In this late 20th century version, red-haired firecracker Lucy, albeit clean like dewy rose in the world of crap called modern horror, is too uniinhibited to be Stokers weepy virgin. Violence and sex are stylized, never gross, and score is gorgeous. And Oldman? Much better than overrated Christopher Lee (who was never more than laughable sex fantasy) and actually quite good. Not Stokers Dracula, but great vampire flick.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     1 of 1 users said yes
2. ERG1008

   5

   Francis Ford Coppola's take on Bram Stoker's Dracula. Even though it has a fantastic cast, it's all a bit shallow. Anthony Hopkins & Tom Waits come away with decent performances but the rest of the cast are a bit like cardboard cutouts. I saw this at the cinema when it first came out & thought it was average then. Gary Oldman is my favourite actor but this film doesn't do him any favours & the less said about Keanu Reeves & Winona Ryder the better. Considering it's a love story, you don't feel for any of the lead characters at all.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     0 of 0 users said yes
3. DavidM

   1

   The worst film I've seen, read the book, it's much better.

   • Helpful?

     0 of 1 users said yes

See all 8 User Reviews