-
Fact: For every ounce of awesome that is Gary Oldman in this film; Keanu Reeves is the polar opposite. He's painfully bad in this. Oldman though is on such fine form that he's like pure electricity when on screen. Whether he's slaughtering Turks or licking cut throat razors he's just all kinds of amazing.
I've had a massive crush on Winona Ryder for as long as I can remember. Even as the, on the surface, uptight Mina she is irresistible. Perfect casting in my opinion.
There's a delightfully theatrical feel across this movie, sets are grandiose and stylised.
I just enjoy watching this. -
---
-
If I had to describe this film with a single word, I think that word would be: excessive. And I mean that in the best way possible.
-
I loved this movie as a young teen but my appreciation has decreased as I've grown. I'm still fascinated by Coppola's choice to use old-school theatre trick special effects. It makes the overall look of the movie in keeping with its time period. I could have done without Keanu or Winona but I love Sadie Frost in this (and that is the last time you will ever hear me say that).
-
Weird and fun
-
Flawed genius. Proper film-making.
-
This is probably one of the most beautiful movies ever made. Every shot looks amazing. The sets are beautiful. The make up is absolutely astounding. If this movie were made five years later, the film would probably have a lot of cg effects and look dated now, but being made in 92, when practical effects in films were at their pinnacle, the creature effects are amazing. If Dracula in his bat/human form doesn't knock your socks off and give you…
-
Es excesiva, barroca, pero fascinante. Y tiene una banda sonora genial.
-
Coppola's DRACULA is a lavishly produced but woefully misguided film. The production design and attention to detail are outstanding and many of the aesthetic choices - such as old timey footage, in-camera effects, and homages to NOSFERATU - are used well.
However the arrogant self-assertion that this film is in fact BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA is wildly, belligerently inappropriate. Coppola's film completely misfires by making the God-damned villain the lovelorn protagonist. He is not. Nor does he have the tragic romantic…
-
It's the most expensive Roger Corman film that Roger Corman had nothing to do with directly.
-
This movie somehow survived Keanu Reeves horrible performance. Felt a bit too long but a decent adaptation.
-
In my opinion, this movie is the closest visualization to the events described in Bram Stoker’s famous novel, from its characterizations to the structure of the narrative. However, Francis Ford Coppola did make some adjustments to the original novel. The first is, including the prologue, which tells the origins of the vampire as a guide for the audience of who is Prince Vlad the Impaler (Gary Oldman), his love for Elisabetta and its relation to the character of Mina Harker…