Dracula
User Score
7.3 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 45 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 45
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 45
  3. Negative: 2 out of 45

Review this movie

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

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 »