Customer Reviews

Bram Stoker's Dracula (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)

5 star:		(143)
4 star:		(76)
3 star:		(47)
2 star:		(33)
1 star:		(30)

 

 

I received this DVD in excellent condition, it arrived well within the timeline estimated. I am entirely satisfied in every aspect. It's a super movie within top drawer special features.

This film won a ton of technically oriented Oscars, and it's obvious why. The cinematography and special effects are mind-bending. Finally, we actually get to watch all the creepyness of the Dracula story without the campiness of seeing all the wires and smoke machines. This is Transylvania, not Stage 42. The costumes are lush, the atmosphere eerie.

Gary Oldman is repulsive and attractive at the same time, which is a remarkable feat of theatrics that any vampire would be proud of. Anthony Hopkins is excellent as usual, but seems to know, deep down, that he and Oldman are the only members of the cast taking this thing seriously.

Unfortunately, everything else undermines whatever good the creepily excellent special effects or Gary Oldman could have done. The plot veers bizarrely away from the original story, but instead of hightening the interest in the characters, it diminishes it.

You could care less about Lucy and Mina, who are both stupid and oversexed and don't seem to have motives for anything they do. Winona Ryder just doesn't do anything for me. (You spend a good deal of the film wondering why the heck she's with Keanu Reeves!)

The guy who plays Renfield is creepy and wonderful, but the movie doesn't really establish him like the book does, and if you don't know the book well, you're likely to become confused.

Oldman creates an amazingly sympathetic Dracula, despite all of these awful plot problems. The choice to make Mina a sort of reincarnation of his dead long-lost love was probably a bad one. It confuses the original issues and makes Dracula more of a Lloyd-Webber-Phantom-Adaptation-Character than anything else.

Keanu Reeves proves in this movie, more than in any other, just what a terrible actor he is. It's amazing that this guy, who has apparently no redeeming dramatic qualities, continues to remain popular. Everyone seems to agree that he stinks. Maybe we just like feeling superior to movie stars now and then. I, on the other hand, think that we could easily have foregone Reeves' insipid, bland, exhausting Jonathan Harker quite easily. And what kind of accent is he trying to DO, anyway? Does he actually think that's a BRITISH accent?!

So the plot (and Keanu) sucessfuly undermine this film altogether. Also, the way they adapted the book (so specifically stating that it is BRAM STOKER'S Dracula) is abridged to a fault. Instead of maintaining the integrity of a thorough adaptation by keeping the script, this watered-down version makes me long for a good script writer who had the guts to say "forget abridging something that's already good by itself. Let's just write something original and forget the book!" Unfortunately, in an attempt to follow Stoker's orginal work, this movie has destroyed it, and placed the poor author's name right there in the title for him to cringe at from beyond the grave.

It's lucky Bram Stoker didn't become a vampire, because I can think of quite a lot of people involved in this film who deserve to get bitten.

This film is so far off the book it can barely be called the same thing, and how they managed to incorporate the author's name in the title is beyond me. Keanu Reeves is laughable trying to mimic a posh British accent, and the high amount of sex thrown in at any slow point (none of which occurs in the story) is enough to put you off entirely. The performances are pablum, and even Anthony Hopkins, who has saved other movies in his time, could not pull this one out of the dung pile for me or anyone I know. All I can say is thank God Coppola did The Godfather, because without that, where would he be with films like this? There are much better Draculas out there, notably the original, silent German film Nosferatu, which actually FOLLOWS THE BOOK, a concept apparently lost on the makers of this film.

One of the worst movies on the subject ever made. A shocking script and terrible performances all round make this a laughable installation to the Dracula legend. Gary Oldman is at his usual over-acting worst, and Keanu Reeves is shocking as Jonathan Harker, effecting the worst English accent in the history of cinema. Winona Ryder bored my packet off; the exchanges between her and Reeves were sickening along with the rest of the script, Harker: We can be married when I return.
Mina: Oh Jonathan.....Jonathan....Oh Jonathan.....

I'm sorry if I seem harsh, but please try and avoid this movie lest you like it. And of course we had to have a big American, with a big moustache and a big knife because obviously Mr Coppola thought our interest could not be aroused without an American charater. Balls, pure balls.

I really don't know how any true Dracula fan could recomend this insipid vastly overrated waste of film. Every thing about this miserable version is objectionable, from the crass and misleading title that implies a faithfulness to the original source material (though actually this film disregards the original Bram Stoker story in favor of a hoary long lost "love" romance theme!?) to the uninspired acting and ill concieved production design. This film has no mood or ambiance (not to mention scares!)at all but is chock full of trite Mtv style flash filmmaking technique that completely works against the depiction of victorian era England (which is not convincingly evoked at all!} In fact some of the depictions in this thing are hilariously ludicrous (Vlad "impaling a victim single handedly,his "crazy" shadows, Drac's head sticking out of dirt on the boat!). A true failure and disapointment especially coming from the man who directed the Godfather and Apocalypse Now! Stick with the old lugosi/Lee classics or better yet check out Murnau and Herzog's Nosferatus and Polanski's Fearless Vampire Killers (or the BBC production with Louis Jordan). Coppolla's Dracula doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as these films, even the Frank Langella version is better!

Horrible. This is the worst version of Bram Stoker's classic. Hell, even Mel Brook's movie is more acurate! Mina in love with Dracula? He's a monster, not a womanizer. What was that tiger part? Probaly the worst film of everyone involved. And finally, why does Dracula turn into a Sasquatch?

I know I'm pretty much alone in saying this but I really didn't like this movie. This movie really feels like it fails to go anywhere. This movie doesn't know what ideas it wants to convey or who it wants it's characters to be. Is Dracula a bad guy or a tragic figure? We'll never know for sure except well... when he looks ugly he's evil and... it's scary... isn't it??? This movie trys to scare you and trys to show you romance and as if it weren't bad enough it couldn't make up it's mind... well it fails at both. The creatures in this movie are more corny than scary such as Dracula in a very fake looking bat-form. Characters are so undeveloped, we have no insight into any of their personalities (except Lucy) and the performance by Keanau is flater than usual and Anthony Hopkins gives us a huge disappointment. His character is as goofy and senseless as this whole movie. The "beautiful" scenery and photography can't even save this film, even if it truly was beautiful.

By the title, I expected a straight forward adaptation of Bram Stoker's original all-time classic. But don't be fooled as I was; this tragic piece of sex-and-gore falls flat in the end, and exploits Bram Stoker's good name.

The acting by Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder are very good, actually, but Keanu Reeves' performance as Johnathon Harker is one of his all-time worst. Anthony Hopkins is the only relief, who seems to be having a blast as the eccentric scientist/vampire killer Abraham Van Helsing, and is very entertaining to watch.

There's just too much emphasis on sex and cool photograpgy, rather than spending time trying to scare you; it's NOT SCARY!

You wanna see good Dracula? Then go see the 1958 Hammer verion (it's great!), or even the Mel Brooks spoof of it! Anything's better than waisting your time with this poor excuse for a horror film!

No, no, no. This is just awful. I swear that there is no way that anyone involved in this movie actually bothered to read the book! The only thing that does shine through is Dracula's lush sensuality. At least that was done well. But the rest of the movie is a mockery of Bram Stroker's vision.
I mean come on! Dracula and Nina Harker in love? This undead creature is a blood sucker! While women are sexually attracted to him, they are still afraid of him. At the end of the book, Stroker really wanted you to understand how brave the men and women were who stood up to Dracula's demonic power. It ends with the thoughts that all the men who risked there lives did so because they all loved Nina. The fact in the movie that she loves the count is a twisted mockery of the true story.

One star! Ha! I would give it -5 if I could! Granted the book may not be the easiest to read, but at least you are getting the writer's true vision.
Now I know how you are trying to defend this movie. You might think that this is cinema. And has to be changed to actually entice an audience to watch it. Well guess what? I already know that! Take the Count of Monte Cristio. That movie is vastly different from the novel. But the difference between the two movies, is that in Monte Cristo they are still able to stick to the basic storyline. It enhances the book, it doesn't try to rewrite it!
Now as far as the acting, costumes, special effects, and sheer horror go, you have a really good movie here. But even in this it doesn't make up for it's faults! I recommend Dracula 2000 over this movie. At least in that movie there are some interesting plot twists!

... You people that have rated this film 5 stars need your heads examined. Yes, I do agree with the fantastic color,the special effects, breathtaking costumes,the surround sound effects, but what else is there for peep sake!!. The story is twisted, girls are getting raped by Satan himself, Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves acting is out of place. The only person that fits in this movie is anthony Hopkins, at least his british accent is authentic. This movie is so twisted that even Count Dracul looks like he belongs in one of the Star War films and not to mention Dracula's slave who craves insects and cats.
Not only is this film offensive, but a tremendous dissapointment to all Dracula film lovers.