Watched the 4K version and overall it's a good movie, would probably give 8 or 9 stars back on 90's, but for today audience it's a bit boring.

Eiko Ishioka's costume design is one of the reasons I chose to immortalize this horror-love movie in my iPhone 6 Plus, other than that Francis Ford Coppola is at his best.

Bram Stoker's Dracula

I was not a fan of this movie.
The majority of the characters were boring.
The accents were laughable.
The pacing was a drag.
It felt overly sexualised, for no good reason.
The thing I liked was the set design and gothic atmosphere.

5/10
#NicksMiniReview
https://t.co/PvFdPqCXhW

I was kinda bored for most of this. The monster effects were great though.

"Love never DIES"
Watching a great movie with my sweet VampLisa

I really like how similar this movie is to the book! I'm not a big fan of the romance between Mina and Dracula as there was nothing of that sort in the book, but overall I think this is one of my favorite movies

Anthony Hopkins plays the Van Helsing character big, but he has to just to keep up with Oldman's terrifically awesome Count Dracula. Winona Ryder is really good in this, too. Keanu Reeves...uh, not so much.

The visuals are amazing and the inserted shots of blood cells under the microscope, rapid sunsets, and sped up moments of flowers and plants wilting in the presence of Dracula are very effective. This movie looks great. I love the castle and the streets of London as presented here.

Francis Ford Coppola is known for not doing things halfway. Therefore, it is no surprise that "Bram Stoker's Dracula" contains many ideas that ensure that the film never gets boring. Especially on a technical level as well as from the overall visuals, it is entirely captivating. The costumes and makeup are truly phenomenal. Looking at the script and the actors, however, there is definitely some room for criticism. For instance, Coppola's approach to adapting the vampire novel can perhaps be described as poetic. But cheesy and corny would probably be just as accurate. The cast, on the other hand, is mostly good despite some overacting, with one major exception: Keanu Reeves is truly awful. As Jonathan Harker, he is perhaps the miscast of all miscasts. Fortunately, his character doesn't play that big a role after the first act. So I was able to enjoy Coppola's vampire movie nonetheless.

I just wached it again after 30 years. Aged very badly. It’s like a weak musical but without any songs.

I just finished watching the 30th anniversary version at Cinemark, it was good, and there was some extra scenes and extended cuts at the end. They upscaled the movie for the big screen which really made a huge difference in quality.

I was expecting something better. It follows more or less the original novel, but with many digression on sexuality between characters that do not add anything at all, and even make the plot more difficult to follow. I would have preferred a much drier representation of the classic.

>“I am the monster that breathing men would kill. I am Dracula."

This film starts off strong, then halfway through I was wondering if it was overrated and boring, then the third act is pretty awesome. The practical effects and demonic look were great, but definitely feels more like an art piece than anything else.

I appreciate this film more now that I'm older than I did before.
Keanu Reeves is barely in the movie.

No man will ever love me in a "I have crossed oceans of time to find you" way. That kinda sucks.

Francis Coppola's loyal translation of a classic piece of literature merely proves that many times some new wrinkles are necessary to interpret a printed property for the screen. Visually ambitious but thematically dreary, it often seems like a thin excuse to try out some of Hollywood's craziest ideas in wardrobe, set design, hairstyling and film editing.

I'll tip my hat to Coppola's dedication to his craft; his demands that the entirety of the film's effects be produced in-camera have given the picture an eerie look entirely its own. When they're working, their influence makes the whole picture seem hazy, uncertain and ghostly, like a foggy, lucid dream. When it all goes wrong, though - and this happens fairly regularly - the illusion shatters and once deathly-serious scenes become downright hysterical. A super-heavyweight cast can do little, if anything, with a script so overcooked and while I'll always welcome a healthy dose of indulgent sex scenes, they really don't seem to have a point here.

Director Francis Ford Coppola brings a new vision to the Bram Stoker classic, Dracula. Putting a reincarnation spin on the story, Dracula pursues his lost love across time and finally discovers her in Mina Harker. With a cast that includes Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, and Anthony Hopkins, the film has an interesting array of performances. Ryder gives a near perfect performance as Mina Harker, and Hopkins delivers one of most unique and entertaining interpretations of Van Helsing. The visual and directing style is distinctive and attempts to convey the unconventional nature of the original novel. However, the film’s visuals and storytelling are also problematic at times. While the film is remarkably faithful in some aspects, extraordinary liberties have been taken with others. Bram Stoker’s Dracula delivers a vivid new interpretation for a new audience, but is a far cry from the original novel.

It really felt more like a play than a movie to me. Very well crafted and acted film.

I do not know how close that is to the original material. To be honest, I have never read one of the classics. But this movie is worth watching for its atmosphere and acting, and I appreciate it now much more than 25 years ago.

Great revision of the vampirism classic.

Level "Excellent" • 8 :heart: • Recommended.

Francis Ford Coppola's vision of the iconic Bram Stoker novel is certainly a striking one. The aesthetic of this movie is fascinating and full of personality and is without a doubt the main selling point, along with an impressive soundtrack and a legendary performance by Gary Oldman.

However, I certainly didn't like the writing, which to my eyes was a weird mix of refined gothic sensibilities and rauncy, over the top scenes (like all the sex scenes). The movie can't seem to decide if it wants to be serious or campy and as a result the tone was all over the place for me. Some characters are downright absurd, or feel like a mockery of how they were in the original story.

Overall, I can see why this movie is loved, but it definitely wasn't for me. I can't deny its qualities, especially in the visuals and music, but they were not enough for me to rate it any higher.

Baroque and melodramatic like nothing else, but that’s exactly what I want from a Dracula film. Everything has been already said about the lush costumes and evocative art direction, but there are also some outstandingly elegant transitions and many symbolic scenes that almost look like paintings. Even though things get a little goofy towards the end, I think it’s still a valid rendition of the original story with all its strengths and weaknesses. If you don’t mind the Harlequin Romance edge, of course. I am pretty sure that the stilted acting and dialogues were intended, but it’s hard to keep listening to Keanu for more than five minutes without having a seizure.