This film should be praised for its similarity with the book, it owns the right to bear Stoker's name in the title. Besides following the actual main story and events of the 1897 novel, it manages to get the gothic/romantic vibe on. The ostensive language presented in the classic book (representing great concern with artistic form) is translated in to gorgeous photography, impeccable makeup, proper soundtrack, and astonishing costume design (Eiko, we love you!).
There is evidence to the theory that Bram was inspired by theater and by the work of the actor Sir Henry Irving to create his masterpiece, people also believe that he intended the book to be portrayed on stage. That did happen for some years, and it is truly beautiful to see that the language of dramatic theater was studied and represented by the intentional overacting of this beautiful cast. The sassy and scandalous drive Lucy Westenra received is hilarious. Her 3 candidates are just as characteristic and over the top as I pictured while reading.
Winona Ryder and Gary Oldman look beautiful together, even though I do not personally enjoy their melodrama, one of the picture's few downers. I understand that, at the time, there was an urge to insert some humanity into Drac (there had already been too many just-naturally-evil nosferatus in the XX Century), but the way Mrs. Harker fell in love with him goes too far for me. After all, she is supposed to be a woman of brilliant wit and fiber, instead of the frivolous and distracted girl she turns out to be throughout the movie.
Of course, cinema always needs to be situated in time, and some of the film's elements may remain hostage to its conception in early 1990's. Due to timeline proximity, sometimes it looks like a hybrid of satire and hommage to the over-sexualized vamps of the 80's. Besides that, we can see an urge to follow Anne Rice's revitalization of the blood-sucking creatures' image: after the publication of "Interview with the Vampire" (which would receive its own adaptation less than 2 years after), the undead portrayed - more than ever - a philosophical and beautiful analogy to our suppressed animal impulses, making the monsters less monstrous and giving them the privilege of our identification, pity and complacency. This impression is an attribute that was present and marked by Mina's goddess-like character in the original book, but almost ignored throughout XX Century's countless Draculas. Such look upon the Count makes this very film even more remarkable.
Finally, I believe it's a complete and respectful adaptation because it does not neglect the previous images created by other movies. It seems to summarize some of the richest portrayals of Stoker's creation: the decrepit old man, opulent ghost, hopeless romantic, cruel womanizer, gory werewolf, disgusting transmorph, and more. It is versatile and shows many of Oldman's faces. Unfortunately, the first minutes referencing the popular belief that Count Dracula is Vlad Tepes is one of the disappointments that Francis Ford Coppola brought to the screen. At the same time, it does not give much space for a try on the iconic image we all know, which is a great choice. Trying to add anything refreshing to the eternal looks of Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee could have been a miss that Coppola happily avoided. I believe that staying out of the ultimate stereotype in a Dracula picture is one of the vampiresque 1990's directors' best choices.

Before going into this, the majority of what I had heard about the film revolved around Keeanu Reeves' terrible accent, and lackluster performance.

Little had I heard about the impeccable performances from Anthony Hopkins, Winnona Ryder, and Sadie Frost. Gary Oldman is also very good in his role as the titular Dracula, but some scenes leave a bit to be desired, and I also don't much care for his Transylvanian accent, though it's not as bad as Reeves' English one.

Aside from all of that, the most striking part of the film for me was the atmosphere it sets. With astounding set pieces lit by otherworldly hues, framed in such a manner to evoke a feeling that these were not sets that were photographed, but instead surreal gothic oil paintings brought to life by some unearthly means.

This feeling is cemented even further by Wojciech Kilar's gloomy and unnerving score, lending a sense of dread to the film, yet also has a feeling of mysticism to it.

I must also mention the astounding special effects, most of which are practical in nature, and, alongside the rest of which I have mentioned, add to the overall art direction and atmosphere of the film.

This atmosphere is, however, occasionally interrupted by the script, which has some bits of typical Hollywood comic relief that does not feel out of place in a film from the early-90s.... but can certainly feel a bit out of place when compared to the setting and tone of the film. Still, this is a minor complaint, all things considered.

All in all, Francis Ford Coppola does a fantastic job adapting the story of Dracula to the screen, and this version is well worth seeing for anybody who is interested in gothic horror films.

This Seductive, Thrilling, love story has some Bite! Based from the book and is a true masterpiece. Gary Oldman plays Dracula and simply makes this movie. His obsession with Winona Ryder characters is relentless and heart chilling. Don't worry Keanu Reeves doesn't ruin it, he actually did a great job. Anthony Hopkins plays the role of Dr. Van Helsing. We all know his story now thanks to Hugh Jackman. Some brief nudity and a HOT scene with Winona as she runs though the garden in her PJ's. Not only do I gave Bram Stoker's Dracula 5 stars, BUT I rate it in my Top 10 all-time. MUST SEE!

The script is an unevenly good adaptation of the novel. It resolves better Dracula's aims and motivations through the love story. Also, it provides a more understandable glue to join the 4 men chasing Dracula from a XXth century point of view and removes unimportant characters having a more "round" story.

However, due to some changes certain parts are now incoherent since they were not properly adapted to the other changes. In addition, other parts are totally impossible to follow due to the amount of details only commented quickly along the movie.

Costumes and general artistic work is superb but it drives the movie to some extreme stravaganza that, in the case of the actors' performances make some parts of the movie completely overacted.

In any case, I think this is an iconic movie worth watching more than once.

Although it certainly won't make you easily forget earlier interpretations of the seminal horrific character by Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Sir Christopher Lee or Klaus Kinski, Gary Oldman definitely finds a way under your skin. As well, the resoundingly sumptuous cinematography will sweep you off your feet--unless you're dead to begin with... =)