Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Dracula
User Score
7.1 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 31 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 31
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 31
  3. Negative: 2 out of 31

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. KirsiM.
    Nov 18, 2007
    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
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  2. AtticusD
    Apr 10, 2009
    0
    Easily on of the worst movies I have ever seen. Keanu Reeves seriously needs to learn how to act.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  3. DavidM
    Oct 4, 2009
    1
    The worst film I've seen, read the book, it's much better.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  4. vgmkyle
    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.
  5. ERG1008
    Aug 23, 2010
    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
  6. johnmilas
    Jan 14, 2012
    7
    This film may have one goal of being closer to the source material than previous adaptations, but it still deviates in a way that turns it into a completely different story even if it retains the overall mood. Does this film want to be a horror film, a love story, a gothic period piece? Someone looking for these specific types of films individually may not be satisfied with this adaptation as well as someone looking for a faithful Dracula adaptation may not be completely satisfied. In the same way that Lynch's Dune is overblown, this film touches on that offense as well, but things turn out to be a bit less muddled, though still a little convoluted.… Expand
  7. j30
    Jan 26, 2012
    6
    Even though the movie stays some-what true to Bram Stoker's classic book, the movie fails to bring any suspense or surprises to the table (Keanu Reeves still sucks at acting). It is hard, however, to look away from the brilliant costumes, make-up, and set designs. The film is great to look at, but the chilling mood from the book is still absent.
  8. RegOz
    Apr 6, 2012
    8
    I loved it! I would think of it as a 'romantic-horror- although is not very terrifying. It doesn't follow the same lines of other Dracula movies but it is good in its own way. So similar to the book! The big flaw of the movie: Keanu Reeves...I think they could have picked someone better to play his part for he was a bit stiff. The best: Gary Oldman!..and Wynona Rider? she doesn't do much for me anymore, but she did okey! Lucy, was the real star there! The vestuary and Photography are absolutely stunning too, perfect! I can't believe some people are giving this movie a score a 0 for this movie...it means they don't find anything good about it...c'mon, even if you don't like the story line, there are great elements there! The Aesthetics! ...Delightful, truly delightful! ...By the way, seeing Monica Bellucci as a female vampire was fantastic! Great choice, even if it was just a minor role!… Expand
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
57 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 17
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 17
  3. Negative: 3 out of 17
  1. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Vincent Canby
    70
    Dracula has the nervy enthusiasm of the work of a precocious film student who has magically acquired a master's command of his craft. It's surprising, entertaining and always just a little too much.
    Read full review
  2. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    75
    Oldman and Ryder and Hopkins pant with eagerness. The movie is an exercise in feverish excess, and for that if for little else, I enjoyed it.
    Read full review
  3. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Hal Hinson
    60
    Dracula, which also stars Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves and Anthony Hopkins, is an evocative visual feast. But the meal is spectral, without the dramatic equivalent of nutritional value.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »