Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 13, 1992
8.9
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 259 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
226
Mixed:
26
Negative:
7
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
9
SpangleSep 18, 2017
A truly horrifying descent in Dracula lore and superstition, Francis Ford Coppola's take on Dracula is far longer than the original 1931 version, yet so much more terrifying to watch. Demonstrating the backstory to Dracula (Gary Oldman) andA truly horrifying descent in Dracula lore and superstition, Francis Ford Coppola's take on Dracula is far longer than the original 1931 version, yet so much more terrifying to watch. Demonstrating the backstory to Dracula (Gary Oldman) and providing the vicious vampire with more depth and emotional connection than in the original, Coppola allows his central monster to be felt as an extremely human character who only turned to evil as an expression of his incredible pain. With all of the classic characters from Bram Stoker's Dracula popping up throughout this film, Coppola's bloody descent into the very depths of hell set in Transylvania is one that lingers in the air like a dense, blue or green fog. Chilling to one's very soul, Coppola's take on Dracula may be infamous for the poor acting of Keanu Reeves, but it is so much more than anticipated.

With Gary Oldman portraying the titular monster, Coppola's take on Dracula is one laced with menace from the very beginning. Sinister, morose, and sadistic, images of Dracula's demonic horde of women seducing Keanu Reeves' Jon Harker or consuming a baby for strength are seared into the very fabric of this film. However, comes after revealing what has sent Dracula into this hellish descent into sin with Satan as his tour guide. Renouncing God and stabbing a crucifix after learning that his enemies had deceived his bride Elisabeth (Winona Ryder) into believing he was dead, which caused her to kill herself, Dracula turns his back on the Lord rather violently and becomes a vampire. Capturing souls for Satan via the seduction of spiritually vulnerable women such as Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), Dracula's discovery that Jonathan is set to marry Mina (Winona Ryder) who is a spitting image of Elisabeta is one that sets him on a course for London. Roping her into his world of sin and evil, Dracula is a man who is intent on mending his broken heart and delves into sin, immortality, and violence, as a method of soothing this ache in his now-dead soul. A shockingly tragic figure who, along with his minions, commits abhorrent violence, Dracula is a man who instills fear into the hearts of all those who hear of him and his ways. Yet, through his anguish, he becomes a man who is sympathetic in the sense that he was once a force for good who, through loss, let his soul and sword be used a weapon of Satan.

It is through this that the film's demonic exploits work in spite of the controversy surrounding them and why the film's "love conquers all" finale is so powerful. Tempting and using sin as a weapon against their targets, Coppola shows the bare-breasted demonic concubines seducing Jonathan by sliding through his spread legs and presenting themselves for his pleasure. Seducing him into lusting after them and committing a sin of the flesh, the women secure Jonathan's soul via this method. The disorienting camera work from Coppola and the decision to end the scene by showing the women swarm around a baby to drink its blood make the scene one that sends chills throughout the viewer's entire being. Yet, together with the characterization of Lucy as a sinful, worldly, and intensely sexual seductress of the men in her life, the film demonstrates the path by which one's soul is corrupted. Giving into this temptation leaves them open to sin, one which Lucy fully embraces and one that Jonathan stands strong and resists.

This descent into hell and corruption of good is demonstrated in Mina as well. At the beginning, she is envious of Lucy. Well-mannered, strict, and hardly a seductress, Mina is shocked to see nude images in a copy of Arabian Nights. When Lucy sees these images, however, she explains to Mina what is going on, giggles, and puts deviously sexual thoughts into Mina's head and expresses her own. Planting these seeds of sin, Mina is set up perfectly for the arrival of Dracula. Unleashing her inner sexual being, he gives her the carnal pleasure she so desires in the scene in which he takes turns her into a vampire. With Jonathan - her husband - unwilling to go into such sexuality even with his wife, she turns to Dracula as the only possible source of this pleasure and the one who makes her feel most in touch with her most forbidden desires. Demonstrating the immediate ecstasy and pleasure garnered from giving into temptation, Dracula quickly shows the downside with Mina expressing immediate regret and guilt over her sin when she collapses into Jonathan's arms after Dracula leaves.

It is through this necessary hellish descent into sin that Coppola expresses the soul of Dracula. A torn, broken, and hideously sinful man, he resents God so he corrupts those that would belong to Him. Putting sin, lust, and deceit, into their hearts due to the wrongs that he perceives to have been done to him, Dracula brings the hellish hurt and anguish of his soul onto the Earth in order to spread the pain, hunger, and forbidden lust that he feels in his soul. He is a man who cannot suffer
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
JP32Jun 17, 2017
The film never gets back to the same level of atmospheric intensity after we leave the castle, and that is a real shame, but still, Coppola continually shows us new visual tricks and inventive effects throughout the film. As a sensoryThe film never gets back to the same level of atmospheric intensity after we leave the castle, and that is a real shame, but still, Coppola continually shows us new visual tricks and inventive effects throughout the film. As a sensory experience, everything works. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
talisencrwMar 6, 2016
Although it certainly won't make you easily forget earlier interpretations of the seminal horrific character by Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Sir Christopher Lee or Klaus Kinski, Gary Oldman definitely finds a way under your skin. As well, theAlthough it certainly won't make you easily forget earlier interpretations of the seminal horrific character by Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Sir Christopher Lee or Klaus Kinski, Gary Oldman definitely finds a way under your skin. As well, the resoundingly sumptuous cinematography will sweep you off your feet--unless you're dead to begin with... =) Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
LoRevisorJan 28, 2015
Um gênero chato de assistir romance de vampiros,porém é bem executado. E Ainda temos Gary Oldman arrasando na atuação como o mito Drácula,Anthony Hopkins também é ótimo,Winona Ryder faz um bom trabalho e Keanu Reeves dar uma medianaUm gênero chato de assistir romance de vampiros,porém é bem executado. E Ainda temos Gary Oldman arrasando na atuação como o mito Drácula,Anthony Hopkins também é ótimo,Winona Ryder faz um bom trabalho e Keanu Reeves dar uma mediana performance. O Filme tem suas cenas marcantes,mas não é nada demais. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
MovieGuysSep 27, 2013
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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
9
ILHMFeb 2, 2013
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 singleFrancis 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
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
8
RegOzApr 6, 2012
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: KeanuI 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
7
johnmilasJan 14, 2012
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 aThis 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
10
KirsiM.Nov 18, 2007
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 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 found this helpful