SummaryIn Bram Stoker's Dracula, Francis Ford Coppola returns to the original source of the Dracula myth, and from that gothic romance, he creates a modern masterpiece. Gary Oldman's metamorphosis as Dracula who grows from old to young, from man to beast is nothing short of amazing. Opulent, dazzling and utterly irresistible, this is Dracula as...
SummaryIn Bram Stoker's Dracula, Francis Ford Coppola returns to the original source of the Dracula myth, and from that gothic romance, he creates a modern masterpiece. Gary Oldman's metamorphosis as Dracula who grows from old to young, from man to beast is nothing short of amazing. Opulent, dazzling and utterly irresistible, this is Dracula as...
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]
Interestingly, Coppola has eschewed state-of-the-art special effects in favor of a panoply of archaic film-school tricks -- reversing the film, multiple exposures, playing with the shutter speed -- that give his Dracula a stylized, almost hyper-real clarity and a wonderfully singular weirdness.
Dracula revisited ... and revalued.
This film tells the story of Dracula, the notorious vampire created by the imagination of Bram Stoker, based on the life of the king Vlad Tepes of Wallachia. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, James V. Hart has script and the participation of Gary Oldman (Dracula), Winona Rider (Mina Murray and also Elisabeta, first wife of Count), Anthony Hopkins (Van Helsing), Keanu Reeves (Harker, Mine groom) and Monica Bellucci (one of vampire brides of Dracula).
The film seeks to tell the story faithfully Dracula to Stoker's novel, which is obviously one of the main attractions of the film. Indeed, Dracula's character has never been well treated by cinema: we almost only see this character in trash or low-budget films, unless the laudable exceptions of the Bela Lugosi's movie (1931) and some (few) movies with Christopher Lee. In this film, the gloomy atmosphere is stilted for photography and soundtrack, written by Wojciech Kilar. Make-up is also wisely used in various situations, highlighting some of the changes that the Count suffers, assuming grotesque shapes. The sensuality is also present in various scenes and characters. We cannot forget that, thanks to traditional bite in the neck, Dracula is one of the horror characters more directly linked with sexuality and lust.
I don't feel able to make negative comments. The little that could be bad is well compensated by many highly positive characteristics. For all this, that is one of the best vampire movies of recent years and the best film about Dracula in decades. An opportunity to revisit and upgrade the character, giving him again a seriousness that he had lost, and that was very well used by Coppola.
I saw this in theaters when I was twelve and it just blew me out of my seat and opened my young **** mind up to fantastical, set design, glorious costumes, dramatic performances, a wonderous score and very sexy and talented Gary Oldman. A more faithful adaptation of the classic novel than ever before. The film chronicles the tragic, grotesque and beautiful love story of Vlad the impaler and his live Mina whose been played by a stunning and passionate Winona Ryder. The film also stars a slightly goofy Keanu Reeves, Cary Elwes, Sadie Frost and a fierce Anthony Hopkins as Vam Helsing. Brilliantly creative, darkly romantic and dripping with seductive passion the film stands as near perfect and the best vampire masterpiece ever created. Budget: $40m
Box Office: $215m
9/10
Francis Coppola's ambitious 1992 version brings back the novel's multiple narrators, leading to a somewhat dispersed and overcrowded story line that remains fascinating and often affecting thanks to all its visual and conceptual energy.
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.
Francis Ford Coppola's take on the Dracula legend is a bloody visual feast. Both the most extravagant screen telling of the oft-filmed story and the one most faithful to its literary source, this rendition sets grand romantic goals for itself that aren't fulfilled emotionally, and it is gory without being at all scary.
There was so much potential, yet when it came down to it, Coppola made his Dracula too old to be menacing, gave Keanu Reeves a part and took out all the action. So all we're left with is an overly long bloated adaptation, instead of what might have been a gothic masterpiece.
Shots of blood and naked bodies clash bizarrely with Coppola's more quaint and engaging notions; the result may be intended as a dialectical encounter, but seems more like a head-on collision.
Beautiful, encapsulating, meticulous, haunting, memorable yet not without its flaws...
B S Dracula is a fantastic gothic dreamscape which takes you on a pretty heavy audio visual journey of lovers seperated by time and reincarnation. Each time I see this movie it inspires and moves me with its creativity and invention especially knowing the visual effects were all achieved using in camera techniques which in UHD have aged far better than most of the CG effects used around 90's cinema. Only the accents of certain actors (if youve seen it you know!) have the power to take me out of the movie at times but even then Coppolas direction pulls me back in. Great movie.
Despite the above average directing, the generally good acting performances, the impressive set pieces, the great practical effects and a very well made last hour, the movie's plot was too convoluted to be entertaining all the way through and the first hour or so of the movie is very confusing and at times even boring. If you like vampire movies you might appreciate this one, if not, you're better off watching something else.
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 **** 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.
Very disappointing movie for me after having listened to the audiobook. The original novel was very feminist, and this movie totally destroys the two female characters. They basically go the rest of the movie with no agency of their own and with nothing more on their minds but sex. I couldn't understand what Gary Oldman was saying most of the time due to his strange accent. Keanu Reaves turns Jonathan Harker's character into the most boring piece of white bread, so I guess it's not surprising that Mina starts falling for Dracula instead.
It's a visually stunning movie and still lives up in comparison to films nowadays but my lord, This has to be one of the worst acted movies I've ever seen. If it's not over-acting by the lead talent, It's the junk performance by Reeves that really drives it home. It's a hard film to finish because it's so laughably bad at times.