Bram Stoker's Dracula - Yea or Nay?

[Brandonv]

I have seen this movie twice now, and my thoughts on it are mixed.

First, what I don't like. I think the love story between Dracula and Mina feels out of place. It is like we are supposed to feel sorry for Dracula, but I just can't. If he had started out the movie as a likable character then maybe, but even before he became Dracula he was Vlad the Impaler, a man who committed many atrocities. I also find myself a bit bored during some stretches of the film.

Despite these problems, the directing, cinematography, atmosphere, and special effects all win me over. Even during the parts of the movie that are boring I can't take my eyes off the screen because I find the movie to be so well done visually. I like how the special effects all have an old fashion conventional look to them - it really helps set the atmosphere. Gary Oldman delivers a solid performance, and Anthony Hopkins - one of my favorite actors - is always a pleasure to watch.

Overall, I would say the good outweighs the bad. I am still not sure exactly how I would rate the movie though.

I would be interested to read what everybody thinks of this movie.

[USS KG5]

I really like it, the atmosphere and tweaks to the story are refreshing. It also is very funny, occasionally intentionally (with Hopkins totally OTT Van Helsing) and more often than not unintentionally (check out Keanu saying "I know where the bastard sleeps" in one of the most unconvincing English accents ever put to screen).

Few Dracula adaptations have quite as much fun with the story and concept as this one, Lucy is correctly portrayed as a little slut, and Mina as almost jealous of this and her confidence, Dracula is a bit TOO sympathetic for a mass-murderer but hey, at least not one-dimensional.

[CorporalClegg]

I thought this was about the book...

[davejames]

Haven't seen it in awhile, but I remember being disappointed by it. There was too much focus on the style and visuals over the story or characters.

[caisson2delta]

I loved the movie and just saw it again, not all that long ago. Compared to the other vampire flicks coming out in the same time frame as this, it was top notch. It was a step above "Interview with the Vampire" and many of the other B and C vampire movies riding on the shirt tails of this time frame.

[Too Much Fun]

It just reinforced the opinion I started forming after I started investigating Francis Ford Coppola's films other than the first two "Godfather" movies that he's just not very good. Other examples: "The Outsiders", "Jack", "Apocalypse Now", "The Conversation". Those last two are so boring and pointless, I can't imagine why they're considered classics. His "Peggy Sue Got Married" is very nice, though.

This is one of those movies that is beautiful to look at, but just hollow (like "Blade Runner"). The cinematography, production design, costumes, make-up, and special effects are all excellent (style/aesthetic qualities), but the story and characters were terrible. Gary Oldman is deliciously over-the-top, but everybody else in the movie sucks. Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves are way out of their league (Keanu should never be in period pieces...he was the only blotch on the otherwise perfect "Much Ado About Nothing")

[ManOnTheWave]

Yea. It was closer to the book than any other adaptation I'm aware of. It used the special effects of the era in which the book was written, and the tragic love story element made thematically consistent with a lot of the older, better Universal monster movies. It was also beautiful to look at. Considering Dracula will be remade again and again, I'd call this one a very clever one off.

[MeanJoePhaser]

I remembering first watching the edited for t.v. version and the entire character of Renfield was cut from it.

It's kinda hard to sympathize with Dracula after he delivers a live infant for his vamp bitches to feast on.

[davejames]

caisson2delta wrote:

---

I loved the movie and just saw it again, not all that long ago. Compared to the other vampire flicks coming out in the same time frame as this, it was top notch. It was a step above "Interview with the Vampire" and many of the other B and C vampire movies riding on the shirt tails of this time frame.

I honestly don't get why more people don't love Interview. I've always thought it was a beautifully made movie, with tons of really badass moments and characters in it.

Coppola's movie was just far too campy and over the top for my taste.

[caisson2delta]

I enjoyed Interview as well, it is just a completely different style of the genre. I agree with one of the earlier posts that Dracula was much more in line with the book. Having read both prior to seeing the movies, I was don't want to say disappointed, but felt that Interview could have been better. I just felt that it was too far removed from the book version.

[Gaith]

I also loved Hopkins' performance, and agree that trying to humanize Dracula was a boneheaded move. He's a nonhuman monster, for Pete's sake; the fact that he can smile politely doesn't detract from that.

There's a fan edit of the film I haven't gotten around to seeing that purports to follow the book much more closely by cutting 25 minutes. I don't know if the cuts are enough to give it a proper suspense-thriller feel, but I might check it out someday...

[broberfett]

I enjoyed it except for Dracula's huge-ass bun of steel hairdo. I mean, WTF was that?

[Turtletrekker]

The book, yea. The movie, nay.

[DarKush]

I don't remember much about it. Though the visual style was very impressive. I loved the costumes, particularly Dracula's red armor at the beginning. I also loved the make-up/FX for Dracula-particularly the bat and wolf/beast forms. From what I can recall of the story, I thought it was okay. I also remember Lucy being pretty hot. This question now has got me wanting to dig in my crates and try to find it to watch it again.

[species5618]

I thought it was a great film--with the notable exception of Keanu Reeves' performance, particularly his atrocious English accent.