Mixed or average reviews - based on 17 Critics What's this?

User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 101 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: In Bram Stoker's Dracula, 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 you've never seen him. And once you've seen Bram Stoker's Dracula, you'll never forget it. (Sony Pictures) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 17
  2. Negative: 3 out of 17
  1. 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]
  2. 78
    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.
  3. Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, is decadent, overpoweringly erotic campiness coupled with soft-core pornography - blood, breasts, buttocks and big teeth. It's daring and those with a taste for the sexily sanguine will find it delightful. But it's not for the prudish. [13 Nov 1992, p.C1]
  4. 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.
  5. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    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.
  6. The director has dressed up a classic tale in mesmerizing visual overkill without coming close to its dark heart. [13 Nov 1992, p. 56]
  7. 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.

See all 17 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 15
  2. Negative: 2 out of 15
  1. Jul 11, 2014
    Dracula has amazing visual effects and a strong storyline. The movie won 3 oscars and Coppola did
    a brilliant job on the movie. The cast is
    also very well known and every actor is well cast in their roles,
  2. Sep 26, 2014
    A masterfully made horror movie that has breathtaking visuals and a superb cast of popular actors.
  3. 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 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. Collapse
  4. Sep 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. Expand
  5. Apr 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: 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 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
  6. Jan 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 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. AtticusD
    Apr 10, 2009
    Easily on of the worst movies I have ever seen. Keanu Reeves seriously needs to learn how to act.

See all 15 User Reviews