User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 78 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 68 out of 78
  2. Negative: 3 out of 78

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 2, 2013
    9
    Francis Ford Coppola gives the ageless vampire a terrifying new update in 1992's DRACULA. Coppola uniquely adapts the letters and journal entries from the original novel onto the screen in this stylish retelling. DRACULA may be the single most horrifying film of the 90's. Its lavish set pieces drip Gothic allure while its abominable creature designs have escaped from a world of nightmares. Why, then, did Coppola decide to drag it through the mud by hiring such an inappropriate cast? Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder couldn't have been worse choices as Jonathan Harker and Mina Murray. Judging by the film, one might think that Dracula drains his victims of talent. Their despondent performances dispel the romantic fantasy that is unraveling all around them. The great Anthony Hopkins has his hands in the matter too, with a boisterous take on Professor Van Helsing that comes across as a drunken fool. Despite his dramatic overacting, Gary Oldman proves himself the actor of the bunch, and puts forth a performance that is chilling to the bone. Just one look at his withered old Count is enough to make the skin crawl, and the buxom brides that stalk his chambers are none less frightening. From a visual standpoint, Francis Ford Coppola has directed a masterpiece of Gothic cinema, but for all of its lurid style and grace, DRACULA lacks soul.

    -Carl Manes
    I Like Horror movies
    Expand
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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. 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.
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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.