Maybe not entirely Bram's, but an excellent adaptation...
Added 10/23/2009
I was excited back in the day when this film was released; one of my best friends and I were ardent horror fans back then, and had both often talked of someone doing "Dracula" as it was written...I had seen Franco's "Count Dracula" on late-night television, but was anxious to see a big budget, and hopefully even more faithful, adaptation of Stoker's work.
I wasn't disappointed, per se, although I did have a major issue (more on that in a minute), but overall, I very, very much enjoyed the movie. The pageantry and scope of the scenery was marvelous. I was spellbound by the cinematography, and the eerie shadows and unearthly feel of the film, especially the sequences in Castle Dracula. I was a little put off by the red, Oriental-appearing garb that the Count wore in the beginning (although I understood the symbolism), but all in all Coppola's style and techniques made the film a very well-woven tapestry of dread and gothic style.
As far as performances go, I thought all of the acting was very well done (although I'm not a fan of Keanu Reeves' wooden style), but the standout to me was Anthony Hopkins. I dare say that his portrayal of Professor Van Helsing is the DEFINITIVE version...I take nothing from Peter Cushing, but from the book, I always pictured him as more of a swashbuckling, mystical man, one who spoke his mind and was perhaps a bit irreverent in his conviction...in short, EXACTLY as Hopkins performed him.
Now, for my issue: I was disappointed with the whole "reincarnation of lost love" theme that Coppola went with. Not only is this an old trick, but had no place in the novel at all. The only love story in the book is the love of the men who would sacrifice all to save a virtuous woman from the blackest of evil. I had looked forward to a monstrous and menacing Dracula as he was in Stoker's story, and while Oldman did a brilliant job, I was chagrined at the character being so sympathetic and played as a romantic lead. Whereas it did the movie in and of itself justice, to proclaim to be "Bram Stoker's Dracula", the addition of this element flew in the face of that claim. While I know this was done to draw a larger audience, the movie could have been as well done and beautiful without this contrivance.
A very good movie, in every way, and I highly recommend it...would have been a five-star rating if not for that one glaring departure from the story.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
"The blood is life . . . and it shall be mine."
Added 10/17/2009
The original novel by Bram Stoker is definitely the ultimate vampire story. And this film is the definite adaptation. Dracula is everything that you can ever find in a tale about vampires. The gothic settings, the excellent performances (even Keanu does a good job here!), the blood, the music, the pacing, the cinematography, the dark humor, I mean everything about it is done right. Don't get me wrong about the legendary original 1931 film; it's a classic and still stands on its own. But I'm more for the remake. It has big-time actors such as Gary Oldman playing Dracula himself, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, and Winona Ryder as Mina. Francis Ford Coppola has created another masterpiece, even though it isn't even in the same league as The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now. Avoid Twilight as much as possible: Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one that must be watched (and read).
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Awesome visuals ....but .....
Added 10/10/2009
This movie has some of the best horror cinematography I have ever seen. (And I have seen them all). It shows photography work that has never been seen before- nor since. This is by far the best Dracula "visual" ever! My main complaint is the story is mostly a visual and lacks certain elements of the acting style that we have been accustomed to in the 21st century. For example when Johnathan Harker spends all the time in Draculas castle, he sees strange things and he does not react to them. From mirrors breaking, to seeing Dracula climbing the castle walls and the weird shadow play - Harker acts like nothing is out of the ordinary.
That is by far the films worst downfall. THe story line is pretty much the basic Bram Stoker story. But I will emphasize- the visuals are stunning and horrifying in this movie!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
What Makes It Better
Added 10/8/2009
I have seen the movie so I don't need to read a synopsis about it. What I want to know is what is included on the Collector's Edition. What is on the 2 disc set and is this version better than the original DVD which I own. Is it worth buying the Collector's Edition? Is there a featured commentary, deleted scenes, etc? What makes this better than the original?
*I am rating the movie, not the Collector's Edition because I do not own the Collector's Edition*
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Great Cast and production for Dracula fans!
Added 10/5/2009
A classic film for all lovers of Dracula with a much loved cast.
One to keep in your library for a dark dreary night. There have been many Dracula films made and this is one that I would recommend if you are a fan of this famous tale.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Maybe not entirely Bram's, but an excellent adaptation...
Added 10/23/2009
I was excited back in the day when this film was released; one of my best friends and I were ardent horror fans back then, and had both often talked of someone doing "Dracula" as it was written...I had seen Franco's "Count Dracula" on late-night television, but was anxious to see a big budget, and hopefully even more faithful, adaptation of Stoker's work.
I wasn't disappointed, per se, although I did have a major issue (more on that in a minute), but overall, I very, very much enjoyed the movie. The pageantry and scope of the scenery was marvelous. I was spellbound by the cinematography, and the eerie shadows and unearthly feel of the film, especially the sequences in Castle Dracula. I was a little put off by the red, Oriental-appearing garb that the Count wore in the beginning (although I understood the symbolism), but all in all Coppola's style and techniques made the film a very well-woven tapestry of dread and gothic style.
As far as performances go, I thought all of the acting was very well done (although I'm not a fan of Keanu Reeves' wooden style), but the standout to me was Anthony Hopkins. I dare say that his portrayal of Professor Van Helsing is the DEFINITIVE version...I take nothing from Peter Cushing, but from the book, I always pictured him as more of a swashbuckling, mystical man, one who spoke his mind and was perhaps a bit irreverent in his conviction...in short, EXACTLY as Hopkins performed him.
Now, for my issue: I was disappointed with the whole "reincarnation of lost love" theme that Coppola went with. Not only is this an old trick, but had no place in the novel at all. The only love story in the book is the love of the men who would sacrifice all to save a virtuous woman from the blackest of evil. I had looked forward to a monstrous and menacing Dracula as he was in Stoker's story, and while Oldman did a brilliant job, I was chagrined at the character being so sympathetic and played as a romantic lead. Whereas it did the movie in and of itself justice, to proclaim to be "Bram Stoker's Dracula", the addition of this element flew in the face of that claim. While I know this was done to draw a larger audience, the movie could have been as well done and beautiful without this contrivance.
A very good movie, in every way, and I highly recommend it...would have been a five-star rating if not for that one glaring departure from the story.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
"The blood is life . . . and it shall be mine."
Added 10/17/2009
The original novel by Bram Stoker is definitely the ultimate vampire story. And this film is the definite adaptation. Dracula is everything that you can ever find in a tale about vampires. The gothic settings, the excellent performances (even Keanu does a good job here!), the blood, the music, the pacing, the cinematography, the dark humor, I mean everything about it is done right. Don't get me wrong about the legendary original 1931 film; it's a classic and still stands on its own. But I'm more for the remake. It has big-time actors such as Gary Oldman playing Dracula himself, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, and Winona Ryder as Mina. Francis Ford Coppola has created another masterpiece, even though it isn't even in the same league as The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now. Avoid Twilight as much as possible: Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one that must be watched (and read).
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Awesome visuals ....but .....
Added 10/10/2009
This movie has some of the best horror cinematography I have ever seen. (And I have seen them all). It shows photography work that has never been seen before- nor since. This is by far the best Dracula "visual" ever! My main complaint is the story is mostly a visual and lacks certain elements of the acting style that we have been accustomed to in the 21st century. For example when Johnathan Harker spends all the time in Draculas castle, he sees strange things and he does not react to them. From mirrors breaking, to seeing Dracula climbing the castle walls and the weird shadow play - Harker acts like nothing is out of the ordinary.
That is by far the films worst downfall. THe story line is pretty much the basic Bram Stoker story. But I will emphasize- the visuals are stunning and horrifying in this movie!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
