Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

It's such great eye candy I can forgive its many trespasses. I've also found it to be something the ladies seem to enjoy.

If you want to see a great version of the Dracula tale check out the 1977 BBC version with Louis Jordan. Surprisingly effective, even with cheesy video effects.

Used to be a time I could watch this movie any day of the week, now I have a little too much trouble sitting through the whole thing. There is so much I love about this film, visually its amazing and has some truly nightmarish images unfortunately it has a few laughable ones too. The disjointed narration gets to me, and Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder always take me out of the movie. Mostly, I have warm feelings towards this movie and I usually trot it out this time of year for a viewin'.

It's a good lead performance, good production values, good score, and a good prologue... but still a bad movie.

And of course Hopkins distracts. His over the top is so ridiculous it almost makes you forget Keanu is even worse. It'd probably be his worst performance if Legends of the Fall didn't exist.

Maybe I'm alone on this, but I like Hopkins over the top performance. I find the film too damn self serious without him.

It's FULL of terrible performances. Amazing looking film, heart's in the right place, but those performances kill it. Wish I'd seen more Tom Waits.

And for all the "faithful to the novel" shit, the reincarnated love thing was lifted from either TV's Dark Shadows or Karloff's The Mummy.

Love Hopkins in this too. I seem to recall hearing that Coppola shot a lot of footage, and put together several different cuts. The theatrical release was the 'Romantic' version. Have always really wanted to see the 'Horror' cut.

As for the Keanu & Winona criticism-I think you can blame their failing performances on bad direction and exhaustion.

Still, they ensure the movie will have a long life on the camp factor alone.

The love story is what kills it for me. It's just such an unnecessary addition.

It's probably one of my favorite movies on a purely visual level though.

Word to this. I like the movie, but it botches the whole conceit that Dracula is a horrible disease of a creature and not some pansy-ass, lovesick, Anne Rice-inspired prat who occasionally kills people.

Classic example of score>movie it originated from.

My favorite aspect of the film is how Dracula is presented as a potent and terrifying supernatural force, more than just a dead guy who drinks blood (with all due respect to Schreck, Lugosi, Lee, etc). He's completely unnatural, and the only pieces of humanity left to him are national pride and pining for his lost love.

The film is so different from previous adaptations that it stands out as something special, even if it fails in other departments (like acting). And I still want to fuck Lucy's brains out.

This is the first film I ever watched stoned. Love this like an ex girlfriend you still think is hot but embarrasses herself every time she opens her mouth. Keanu's "Is the castle far?" line is one of the worse delivered things I've ever come across.
Great film to watch after midnight while wasted with the lights off but jesus it's flaws can sink it if you are not in the right head space to enjoy it.
Thought Sadie Frost was the hottest thing going when I saw this. Also notable because it was my first exposure to the Belluci.

I've seen this film a bunch of times, even own it on Blu-Ray, but this is just not a good film. Phil hits it on the head regarding the performances, and after Jonathan escapes from Dracula's castle the film drags horribly.

I was so amped for this - Coppola said all the right things in an HBO "First Look" that I watched over and over. The interviews were candid and real, and everyone seemed to think they were making something special. I tried liking it for years.

I love that Oldman was apparently in full-on method actor with this, while also being a full-on alcoholic. Must have been amazing and/or awful on that set.

Keanu is so bad(or miscast) in this that... well, I don't have the words. Wasn't Depp up for the role, but not considered enough of a box-office draw at the time, or am I misremembering? Hopkins adds some much-needed levity, I dig him in this. And yeah, visually, the movie rocks. Same goes for the score.

I still dig it, but I have to admit I haven't seen it in like 5 years or so.

I like the origin of Dracula opening sequence and the chase during sunset leading up to the final moments between Mina and Dracula. I just wish there were a better film/characters/performances to be found in between those sequences so that there could be a payoff to what is promised by that opening, and a feeling of truly having earned the emotions those final moments are trying to elicit from the viewer.

Gotta say, the makeup of Oldman in full bat-person mode is really excellent. That scene is one of the few scenes where Dracula was a genuine loathsome creature.

I loooove this flick, flawed (and miscast) as it is. I love the old-school approach they took with the FX (everything was done in camera by Coppola's son & crew). I love its surreality, and its operatic bombast. I think Hopkins' hammy performance is great. It's got beautiful and simplistic production design, unusual costumes and killer makeup, and a score so iconic that it's been borrowed countless times for other movie trailers. Plus, it did wonders for Oldman's career (not to say his talent wouldn't have been enough); so we can thank DRAC for that.

Who can hate a Dracula flick with Tom Waits as Renfield? Or a flick with a naked Bellucci?

Count me in for any "Redux" version Coppola might put out. (you never know, he did one for The Outsiders not long ago) Whether it makes the movie better or worse, I don't care.

I love this movie to death, but I admit it's more due to nostalgia and the amazing score than anything else. This might be one of the best scores I've ever heard. Like, top 10 or something. That's the quality of this film score.

I feel like there was a masterpiece in here somewhere -- the definitive Dracula film. Between the cast and some of the more eccentric touches, it was lost. But Oldman is the best Dracula on film, for my money.

Does this come in a special edition dvd that you can watch with only the score track turned on? Because that would be better.

I was just about to say that this film would probably play exceptionally well with just the score and the visuals.

It would have been one helluva silent film.

I keep hearing the best Dracula is actually the fairly recent ballet one. Anyone know anything about it?

I used to watch this all the time as a kid, I think my mom let me watch it for the first time when I was like eight or nine. So naturally it had a massive impact on my cinematic upbringing and it kind of hampered my appreciation of horror films, because I just expected all horror films to be baroque, and flashy and weird. This is probably why I gravitated towards the likes of the Nightmare on Elm Street and Hellraiser rather than typical slasher films.

Rewatching it as an adult just reveals how wrong headed and weird the entire film is. It's not just the performances, which are all kind of bad in their own particular way, but stylistic decisions which just seem utterly odd. Scenes go on for a beat too long or stuff is added which take you completely out of the film. A perfect example is the Demter montage which is incredibly well done, but it has these moments which are just utterly inexplicable (the Lucy/Mina kiss, the werewolf dracula just chilling/crying after the rape of Lucy) and that does a lot more damage than Ryder and Keanu's underwhelming performances.

It is utterly beautiful at times, but it feels like an over funded student movie.

I wanted to like this so much more.

In the making of documentaries, it seemed a bit like Coppola was forced to cast a lot of people based on what Winona Ryder wanted. Maybe that was just his way of getting out of casting Keanu, though. We know Coppola has made his share of missteps in the past in regards to casting.
The effects in this movie are just outstanding. I watched it with Coppola's commentary and it was much better. The undead Sadie Frost vomiting blood on Hopkins always freaks me out. The costume design in this movie is pretty amazing, even if it's a little over the top. I imagine a lot of costume designers design shit like this for movies but get told to "tone it down," but Coppola clearly said no such thing.
And Oldman didn't seem method on the docs. Drunk, yes. It was kind of amusing actually, seeing him speak in his Brit accent, yelling at Coppola wearing full bat makeup or the Old Dracula make up.

The completely wrong-headed love story angle sunk an otherwise beautiful film.

There was nothing wrong with Stokers story, to change it that significantly and still have the gumption to put Stokers name above the title is something few would get away with - but who was going to say that to Francis Ford?

I love the phony, handmade look of all of it. The opening prologue is terrible, then the movie's kind of too weird and ambitious to hate all through Harker's journey and visit to Transylvania. Like nearly every other Dracula movie, it kind of shits the bed after that.

For all the hype of it being the "definitive" adaptation of Stoker's novel, it was quite bullshit to then invent half the story. Big let down in that department. Those Oldman/Ryder love scenes bring the movie to screeching halt . . . twice. The only saving grace is that in one of the scenes Winona's nightgown is pretty transparent. That helped a little.

I liked the vaudeville-esque performances of Hopkins and Waits, though. And Sadie Frost was the hottest thing on two legs there for a few months.

Oh, come on. I thought the prologue was the one point where the film's pseudo-operatic ambitions actually manifested something almost as interesting as it was inherently silly. Give me that and the stuff with old Drac, keep the rest.

Oldman is really really terrible in the prologue.

Pshaw, Phil. Fucking pshaw.

Hey, I know that yell. I remember it well. It's a great, "Oh shit, I just got turned into Dracula" yell.

The score saves the prologue.

I seem to remember if you look closely, you can see "dead" Winona swallowing at the altar.

Kilars score is so fucking good it actually deserves a better film with which to accompany it in my opinion, much like Morricones The Mission.

The Annie Lennox song at the end is pretty fucking beautiful as well.

Plenty to like about this movie. It's definately one where the quality fluctuates wildly throughout. But I also remember people wanted to fuck after watching it, so I'm not down on the love story. Oldman's great throughout, too.

Love the look, love the score, LOVE the coming to England sequence. Hate the acting except for Waits and pre-emo Dracula. And I detest the love story. It'is missing the book's point by about a fucking mile. One of my favorite parts of the book is the final quote by Van Helsing: "We want no proofs. We ask none to believe us! This boy will some day know what a brave and gallant woman his mother is. Already he knows her sweetness and loving care. Later on he will understand how some men so loved her, that they did dare much for her sake." It wasn't about some lovestruck count, it was about people coming together against evil to protect their loved ones. To call this Bram Stoker's Dracula and miss the point so much is frankly a little disingenuous.

Stel I've agreed with you many, many times around here through the years, but I've never been more on the same page with you as I am on this. The book is hands-down one of my absolute favorites and that quote sums up beautifully why and why the film couldn't have gotten it more wrong turning it into a tale of doomed love.

There is nothing romantic about Vlad as he is presented by Stoker - nothing.

Stoker portrayed him as purest evil, a horrific king of the monsters, the devil himself. This was not an Anne Rice vampire for chrissake.

I don't wish to derail, but Stelios' and Rain Dog's last posts have piqued my curiosity. Bearing in mind your take on Coppola's film, what thoughts do you two have on NOSFERATU? (Both the '22 and '79 films, if you wish, but I'm more curious concerning the Herzog version)

I'll be honest, Ive only ever seen Murnau's 1922 masterpiece, but Count Orloc is a hell of a lot closer to Stokers invisioning of Dracula in many ways than Coppolas love sick puppy dog.

My memory of the Herzog one is hazy at best but I have to agree with RD. In Murnau's film Orloc is closer to Stoker's Dracula in spirit than Coppola's. Herzog's film goes off in its own direction without much common with the book save for some names. In both cases though the book serves as merely a starting point for each director. I don't have the issues I do with Coppola's Dracula because both of them seem to acknowledge this. They don't present themselves as some sort of definitive telling of the story. In short if the movie was simply called Dracula or Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula I'd have less of a problem.

I saw this film when I was 16 and it was the first 18 film I ever snuck into.

I think that had a profound affect on me cos I love the hell out of it.

And yes the Annie Lennox song is amazing.

Just a quickie on this - in the prologue, is that Anthony Hopkins under a big beard playing the priest???

Yes. There's an inkling of the notion that the major players in that little opera at the beginning were destined to recur throughout time until it was set right. You get the sense that, just as Elisabeta was destined to come back into Drac's life, The Priest has always been after him.

The scene with Dracula licking the razor blade is perfect. I really enjoy this film but there are some horrendous performances that tackle it a little.

What an understatement. The performances pull out a gun and mow down the defense on its way to the end zone.

So the performances are Billy Blanks and the movie is the entire Cleveland Cats's defensive line? Got it.