Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

That was an excellent one.

Absolutely Fantastic

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Ok , so I read the book, and found it not as scary or mysterious as the movie.In my oppinion those who read the book and say it was way better than the movie, are actually hipsters.The book was not scary at all...could read it inside a cemetery in pitch black darkness.

this was a complete disgrace to the novel by bram stoker . story 1/10 cast 3/10 the movie 1/10 or less . the original novel was not sexual at all.all the characters were noble and respectable.it's like a parody or something close to it . i really wish if they remake a new one

A fantastic cast, a fantastic director, a fantastic story. Coppola's Dracula is for me one of the best versions of Bram Stoker's bloodthirsty antihero, the Count Dracula - the imagery of the movie is just magic and true to its bone "gothic" and I dare to say that Bram Stoker would be very pleased by this adaption: as Dracula is a Gothic horror novel the movie is a Gothic horror movie.Last but not least, the whole cast is just well picked: Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves and even the actors of the minor roles just play superbly.Bram Stokers Dracula, Interview with a Vampire, Byzantium, Let me in (both), and Polański's The Fearless Vampire Killers (I know its a comedy) are some of my most favorite vampire movies ever. But this one for sure is a classic of modern movie-making with a unique visual imagery - a movie worth your time, like contemplating a painting of one of the old maestros.

In giving an image to a story written on a book, I suppose there's a very complex difficulty with interpretation. Everyone has a different conception of characters as described in books: we all build the image that best suits the given description by the author, using as many resources as we possess.But in Coppola's film, it is just too extravagant, too excessive. If looked through the filter of Bram Stoker's novel –considering the title of the movie itself declares to be loyal to the author's name, I don't find other filters to be more accurate–, the image portrayed by Coppola is a disgrace.I must say that the story-line is quite complete and does not contain unnecessary changes such as in Browning's version (1931) or in Herzog's (1979), regarding who leads the actions. What these two lack in story-line, Coppola's lacks in image (or exceeds in it and takes it off track). Characters like Jonathan Harker, Quincey Morris and Abraham Van Helsing in Coppola's version are quite well-made; while Lucy Westenra is a complete disaster.