Metascore
57

Mixed or average reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 17
  2. Negative: 3 out of 17
  1. Indeed, it is a uniquely dreamlike, lushly romantic, highly erotic and prototypically Coppolaesque version of the story - a movie that does for the vampire genre what "The Godfather" did for the gangster saga, and what "Apocalypse Now" did for the war movie: raises it to the level of grand opera. [13 Nov 1992, p.5]
  2. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    88
    Francis Ford Coppola's lavish version of Bram Stoker's classic novel is a visual cornucopia, overstuffed with images of both beauty and grotesque horror.
User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 66 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 11
  2. Negative: 2 out of 11
  1. Oct 30, 2010
    4
    This Dracula is a bit of boring one. The ultra-theatrical bits (while sometimes very unique) are insanely annoying, the screenplay is terrible, the acting is poor and the effects are hilarious. Full Review »
  2. Jul 11, 2014
    10
    Dracula has amazing visual effects and a strong storyline. The movie won 3 oscars and Coppola did
    a brilliant job on the movie. The cast is
    also very well known and every actor is well cast in their roles,
    A+.
    Full Review »
  3. Sep 27, 2013
    8
    Coppola does pretty well with this movie, and includes all he original Dracula elements into this on, except he makes it even more enticing and dramatic. Full Review »