Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)'s comments

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Zevango

Gimme a break it's far from being terrible. Not even close, with that kind of astonishing acting.

9 years 6 months ago

Keanu's attempt at a English accent is hands down the most distracting endeavor at delivering dialog I think I've ever watched, and that made it a chore to get through. Such a wacky movie that doesn't quite follow the book and the camp is an odd blend of horror and Rocky Horror Picture Show which just leaves you perplexed.

2 years 5 months ago

crazy_bitch

Considering the great director and all the astounding previous adaptations, both of the vampire legend in general and Stoker's work in particular, I find this film very disappointing. It comes across as boring and ridiculous - in my opinion, Mel Brooks' "Dracula - Dead and Loving It" is to be taken more serious than this film (in addition to be being more true to the source material's vision).
There's nothing bad to be said about the acting (though several casting decisions are rather questionable), but the characters themselves aren't really convincing - most notably the original motivations for Vlad Țepeș to just wish himself into becoming the first vampire and haunt the living are absurd [minor spoiler - if you can call it that]: To get back at the christian church (that generally disapproves of suicide), because the muslim Turks tricked his wife into killing herself, by nonchalantly proclaiming that Țepeș had died in battle? Did I get that right? It's a cute idea to bring elements from "Romeo and Juliett" into the story, but this just makes no sense. By this film's logic, every third teenager wtih a heartache should turn into an vampire to get back at the world.
Well, just my opinion; watch it, if you're interested, but don't miss out on better films like "Nosferatu" or the 1931 film with Bela Lugosi. The best thing this film has going for it is the music by Wojciech Kilar.

8 years 2 months ago

nowhereman136

Its trying to balance tradition horror camp with legitimate story telling and scares. In the end, its just a film of its time and hasnt aged very gracefully. The effects are dated, acting over the top, and additional backstory just not needed.

6/10

4 years 2 months ago

Petrux

This movie makes me love even more 1979's Herzog's Nosferatu.

6 years 5 months ago

krista_krumina

The movie is so differnet from the novel, there are so many parts left out. It was ok, but not what i expected.

10 years 11 months ago

Diamond05

Soundtrack by Kilar is the best part of the movie- Although I enjoyed the story, costumes, and bad accents winona! it seems to be pieced together and jumps around too fast- hopkins carries the flick- keanuu still in his bill/ted stupid mode..... ugh!

12 years 1 month ago

Malena

Gary Oldman at his best!

12 years 3 months ago

adrieorchids

Brilliant! The love story is epic. The way Ryder and Oldman come together and continue the tale, even while he is being hunted is masterpiece. The Romeo ending is absolutely priceless. Will definitely watch this again.

13 years ago

Scream1008

The best Dracula movie I've seen. Winona Ryder is fantastic; you can clearly see that Natalie Portman and Keira Knightley were inspired by this performance.

13 years 6 months ago

Tidorith

Very slow, and a bit weird. But good. Low 3.5.

This is in the top 100 of theyshootzombies.com greatest 1000 horror. It feels like this must be a meme, but I can't quite figure out how.

11 months 1 week ago

Siskoid

Saw (Coppola's) Bram Stoker’s Dracula in theaters back in the day, but all I remembered was the independent shadows (something it owes to Vampyr, I now realize) and Keanu Reeves getting bit in the junk. Oh, and that I didn't particular like it. Today, I can appreciate the closer adaptation of Stoker's book, but I still don't think it particularly works. I'll lay that down at the feet of three people. First, the Harkers (Winona Ryder and Keanu) struggling with their British accents is only a small part of their bad acting. They are miscast to say the least. And then there's Coppola himself, who uses far too much camera trickery. Sometimes it works, sometimes it really doesn't, but regardless, he pushes on that too hard, too early. There's no build-up, whatsoever. And while I understand the psycho-sexual underpinnings of vampire lore, this one goes to some distasteful extremes, whether it's Van Helsing humping a cowboy's leg or poor Lucy always shown with a breast uncovered and not a single Victorian trying to cover her up. Come on, now. I should like this a lot more. I mean, Mike Mignola and Jim Steranko worked on the look of it! I've loved other horror acid trips! But Coppola's Dracula feels overwrought and uneven, and while it did bring new iconography to Dracula's cinematic iconography, I have a very hard time enjoying it for any length of time.

4 years 9 months ago

NourNasreldin

A film about the power of a love that transcends centuries. It celebrates modernity in the context of a film belonging to the horror genre.

One really does feel for the monster here.

Religion is a powerful aid in the film but love remains the most powerful and favourable aspect of it.

This is a revisionist horror film that redefines the horror. genre

9 years 5 months ago

IreneAdler

Liked it. Some scenes were really well done and spooky... nice film, good actors!

9 years 12 months ago

krisflushednemo

Fucking ridiculous.

11 years 7 months ago