This movie is a hot mess! Was it considered as such when it was first released?
Eldergays, tell me about Bram Stoker's Dracula
by Anonymous | reply 116 | July 3, 2020 12:35 PM |
no. everyone ate it up when it came out. i was like, 18, when it came out. i went and saw it upon it's opening weekend with my friends. we laughed at dracula's braided-buns.
by Anonymous | reply 1 | October 5, 2015 1:28 PM |
I think it had pretty mixed reviews, was considered uneven, and while not an outright bomb did not bring in the box office they were hoping it would. I think the impression of the movie then are pretty similar to how it is viewed now.
by Anonymous | reply 2 | October 5, 2015 1:38 PM |
Bram Stoker had the ability to scare the living hell out of people who read his books. The movie adaption was horrible. Too bad they couldn't carry that feeling of fear over to the big screen.
by Anonymous | reply 3 | October 5, 2015 1:48 PM |
Keanu was laughed off the screen. I think it was this movie that most people realized what a lousy actor he was.
by Anonymous | reply 4 | October 5, 2015 1:54 PM |
I don't think it's a hot mess, I think it's an excellent film. The art direction, the score, the melodramatic Victorian performances.
Why would OP start a thread in such a negative direction? Why are people so negative today? Why would you start a thread about a movie that is in YOUR OPINION a hot mess?
by Anonymous | reply 5 | October 5, 2015 2:30 PM |
I remember liking it. It was theatrical and looked gorgeous. I vaguely remember people appreciating Gary Oldman's make-up and his performance. R4, it's true that Keanu was very flat in his role, but he was beautiful and that was enough for most. Him being a limited actor didn't really come as a surprise to anyone. I guess people just thought he was miscast.
The film was not viewed as a joke at all and I can see it's still got 7.5 rating at IMDb. I don't quite remember all the films that came out around that time but at least Interview with the Vampire didn't come out until two years later. The huge influx of supernatural creatures in tv and film wasn't on yet at the time. Buffy the Vampire Slayer film came also out 1992 but it would be years until vamps and werewolves would reach their current status, or the status they had a few years ago.
The film had a beautiful romantic feel to it. It wasn't really horror and I guess anyone expecting that would've been disappointed. But really, most people knew what to expect after seeing Annie Lennox's theme song music video.
Was it a hot mess? No, I wouldn't say so. It did however leave me a bit cold even if I could clearly see all the hard work that had gone into making it.
by Anonymous | reply 6 | October 5, 2015 2:31 PM |
I thought negativity was a required to start a thread.
by Anonymous | reply 7 | October 5, 2015 5:25 PM |
Keanu's accent was considered hilarious but the movie was relatively well received for its production design, which was pretty sumptuous to be fair.
It was the first adult film I saw at the cinema, on a double bill with Candyman (which was far better). Our local cinema was having a film marathon as it had just re-opened after refurbishment, which also included a new bar. It was also the first time I was served alcohol in a licenced premises (I think we were either 15 or 16). So it has a special place in my heart for those reasons.
by Anonymous | reply 8 | October 5, 2015 5:33 PM |
DID WE NOT DISCUSS THIS JUST YESTERDAY OR SO FOR CRISSAKES PROGRAM MAJOR BOOK RESALE TROLL MUST I USE CAPS TO BREAK THROUGH YOUR FREAKING THICK SKULL?
by Anonymous | reply 9 | October 5, 2015 5:45 PM |
[quote]Candyman (which was far better)
Not sure I agree with you on that. As a horror Candyman wins but otherwise...
by Anonymous | reply 10 | October 5, 2015 5:58 PM |
[quote] Why would OP start a thread in such a negative direction? Why are people so negative today? Why would you start a thread about a movie that is in YOUR OPINION a hot mess?
Bitch, please. The movie is shit. It was shit then, it's shit now, it'll always be shit. OP didn't just pull that opinion out of his twat. The movie was laughed off the screen at the time.
by Anonymous | reply 11 | October 5, 2015 6:00 PM |
FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, R9 !
THERE, I FIXED IT FOR YOU !
by Anonymous | reply 12 | October 5, 2015 6:04 PM |
There was a HUGE buildup to the release, tons of publicity and constant ads on MTV, even a coffee table book. There were so many cool shots in the film that it made for a spectacular trailer. It had a huge opening for the time - $30 million - but audiences hated it. One of those rare movies where critics were more favorable towards the film than viewers.
Usually an opening like that would have guaranteed a gross well over $100 million but it topped out at $82 million, meaning 37% of its gross came from opening weekend. Today's opening weekends are frontloaded like that, but back then, movies had "legs". Movies couldn't open much more than $10K per screen since theaters only got 1 or maybe 2 prints, unlike today where a Marvel movie can take over half the screens at a multiplex. Word of mouth on DRACULA was poisonous. I think it had a memorably low cinemascore.
1) Coppola shot the film using only the camera tricks available in the silent movie era. A lot of the "cool" shots in the trailer lost their novelty when you could look at them for more than a second. Other shots just looked silly (like the toy train tracks). All the pieces didn't fit together as shots (or as a narrative)
2) It's not an easy fit for modern audiences...Dracula isn't really a thriller and the storyline was very disjointed. Dracula is the one with the goal but Mina is the central focus of the film. There's very little flow from scene to scene. The adaptation was somewhat faithful and too long at 2hrs 10 minutes. They didn't rework the story to make it work as a feature film in the post-modern era.
3) The film still took in a huge amount of money worldwide and on video and was very profitable so they pushed Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN into production...but audience response to Dracula was so tepid, it hurt FRANKENSTEIN (which was a huge bomb).
by Anonymous | reply 13 | October 5, 2015 6:18 PM |
Sure Keanu was mostly terrible in his role, as every time he opened his mouth he ruined a scene, but he was actually great as long as he kept his trap shut.
The scenes where he's molested by Dracula and his wives are terrific, sensual and creepy and genuinely hot! They're probably why he was cast.
by Anonymous | reply 14 | October 5, 2015 6:45 PM |
I love it for being over the top, yet for making multiple cinematic references to Murneau's "Nosferatu" and other gothic styles. And the costumes!
Saw it totally stoned with a bunch of theatre queens. We loved it, and nearly got kicked out of the theatre for giggling and gasping at al the great shots and costumes.
by Anonymous | reply 15 | October 5, 2015 6:51 PM |
The character Jonathan Harker is simple man and also a bit of a sacrificial lamb until he finally gets some backbone. Also truly loves Mina but is bland milquetoast. I thought bland Keanu was one of the post-modern touches Coppola put in, wink wink, young dumb full of cum, and he did his role as expected.
by Anonymous | reply 16 | October 5, 2015 6:54 PM |
One of the gouls in bed with Keanu is Tatiana Von Furstenberg.
by Anonymous | reply 17 | October 5, 2015 6:59 PM |
Keanu was fine but he should have been naked...they showed plenty of boobage but no naked guys, fuck Frances.
by Anonymous | reply 18 | October 5, 2015 7:18 PM |
it was a beautiful film and we probably owe most of that to Coppola's son.
by Anonymous | reply 19 | October 5, 2015 7:21 PM |
yes despite its flaws, it is eye candy for film fanatics.
by Anonymous | reply 20 | October 5, 2015 7:23 PM |
Coppola was still considered a major director back then, and this was supposed to be his rebound from the critically savaged "Godfather 3".
After that, not so much...
by Anonymous | reply 21 | October 5, 2015 7:24 PM |
[quote]but audiences hated it.
Hate is a way too strong word to use here. Sure some people hated it but that happens with every film. Did big masses hate Dracula? Not to my knowledge.
by Anonymous | reply 22 | October 5, 2015 7:41 PM |
R11, first off, you're a real jerk. Second, it's got a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're some sort of god.
by Anonymous | reply 23 | October 5, 2015 7:41 PM |
It was on late Sat and that's why I posted about Winona's beauty and chemistry with Gary O. Babyghey must have been watching too, why else post about it again?
by Anonymous | reply 24 | October 5, 2015 7:56 PM |
[quote] [R11], first off, you're a real jerk. Second, it's got a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're some sort of god.
Actually, it does.
by Anonymous | reply 25 | October 5, 2015 9:18 PM |
i saw it in a theater when it came out, i absolutely loved it but i was 16 yo. Maybe i should watch it again now, but i remember it was stunning, a feast for the eyes. Oh, it's Monica Bellucci's american debut too!
by Anonymous | reply 26 | October 5, 2015 9:25 PM |
I saw it in like 98, when I was 11 and I loved it because I was obsessed with old creppy things with monstrous power over the mortal world. I got a tingle of excitement at Dracula's sacrilegious opening. It was so much sexier than the "I vant to suck your blood" crap that was TV and other films. Plus Wojciech Kilar's score is hauntingly gorgeous. The string climaxes in the Love Remembered theme just keep knawing at you throughout the film. It reminds me of the Red Violin that I saw in the same time frame. Gorgeous haunting themes for monstrously beautiful movies. The setting was also fantastic. I love period movies like Dracula, Wolfman, etc. where I can just drown myself in old London.
by Anonymous | reply 27 | October 5, 2015 9:52 PM |
[quote] I saw it in like 98, when I was 11 and I loved it because I was obsessed with old crappy things
Fixed that for you.
by Anonymous | reply 28 | October 5, 2015 11:19 PM |
This is one of those rare movies that has much more to entertain critics and educated audiences than the masses.
The word of mouth on DRACULA was terrible. I remember it having a shockingly low cinemascore. I am now remembering a bit more...(sorry, took me some time to jog the memory, this shit happened over 20 years ago...I got my numbers from Box Office Mojo...)
The opening weekend was originally reported as $33 million. It had to be revised downwards to $30 million once the actual numbers came in because the falloff from Friday to Sunday was much larger than anticipated. Grosses at that time were rough estimates and it took a while to get a real number. My newspaper used to print the previous weekend's top 10 on Wednesday, today you get a full estimate by Saturday morning.
The film dropped by 50% during weekend 2. Today, that's somewhat normal, back then it was eye-opening. It fell off another 63% between weeks 3 and 4--and that's at a time when hit movies played in theaters for up to 4 months.
at the time, $30 million was one of the top grossing weekends ever. (Both Ghostbusters 2 and Indiana Jones 3 opened at $29 million, but Batman was the record holder). the $30 million weekend topping out at $82 million domestic was completely unprecedented, (but in this case, audiences hated the movie.) Remember, the opening weekend for this film was $12,000 per screen--theaters had no available seats. Lots and lots of people showed up opening weekend and were turned away or it sold out while they were in line. So there was often built in demand for weekend 2 tickets. Not in the case with Dracula.
As an audience member, I remember being terribly disappointed and bored. Today, as someone who works in film, I have a lot of appreciation for it as a piece of art.
by Anonymous | reply 29 | October 5, 2015 11:20 PM |
OP, go feed yourself to the third bride.
by Anonymous | reply 30 | October 5, 2015 11:22 PM |
R28, don't come for Dracula just because you still don't trust color cinema.
by Anonymous | reply 31 | October 5, 2015 11:30 PM |
sorry, but trying to pretend this is a good movie is like trying to pretend men in wigs and dresses and penises are women.
by Anonymous | reply 32 | October 5, 2015 11:33 PM |
It had Sir Anthony Hopkins, for goodness' sake! It was alright, not great, but alright surely. Wasn't anyone else supremely creeped out by Lucy carrying that baby back to her tomb? HER TOOOOMB!
by Anonymous | reply 33 | October 5, 2015 11:38 PM |
A campfest and an annual Halloween season view!
by Anonymous | reply 34 | October 5, 2015 11:45 PM |
I saw it on video when I was about 13. I kept rewinding the part where wolfman Dracula has sex with Lucy on the tomb. That scene was super hot to me, even though I knew it shouldn't be. I felt kind of pervy for liking it, but I kept on rewinding!
And I liked Draculas purple sunglasses and tophat. He looked so stylish.
by Anonymous | reply 35 | October 6, 2015 12:05 AM |
It should have been called "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula" because it sure as hell wasn't "Bram Stoker's Dracula." The movie bears precious little to the novel. Dracula as a lovesick boob? Mina in love with Dracula, who is depicted in the novel as a repulsive, repellent monster? Lucy as a red haired, panting, moaning slut? Jonathan in a threesome with the vampire brides? Van Helsing as a lunatic raving about "the devil's concubine!?" You're damned right this thing was a hot mess!
The movie was really stupid, but its fans LIKED stupid, so they loved it. My guess is that the fans of this movie had never read anything written by Bram Stoker.
The acting, by and large, was VERY bad. Anthony Hopkins hammed it up like you wouldn't believe. Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were hilariously bad as a proper young English couple. The only one who gave a good performance was Sadie Frost as the hot to trot sex bomb Lucy.
What was good about it? Well, the score was well done. And the costumes were striking and inventive but mostly bore little resemblance to fashions worn in that time and place. That get-up Dracula is wearing when Jonathan first meets him is funny as hell, as is his two-balls-of-wool hairstyle. And no Victorian bride ever wore anything that even remotely looked like the elaborate get-up that was Lucy's wedding dress.
It's one of those entertaining bad movies. And it WAS bad.
by Anonymous | reply 36 | October 6, 2015 12:25 AM |
When this came out in 1992, I was 75 and I took my grandkids to see it. After it was over, they were so cute. Those munchkins said I looked just like the older Dracula.
The film, overall, wasn't bad, but not great. That young man from Bill and Ted was in it and that completely took me out of the whole film. Gary Oldman was fantastic, however. The costuming in this film was the most memorable. Gothic and beautiful.
Speaking of which, it was just on cable a few days ago and I fell asleep in the opening credits! It was one of those films where seeing it once was enough.
by Anonymous | reply 37 | October 6, 2015 12:36 AM |
So is the Program troll also the "Eldergays, tell me about..." troll?
I wish they'd both go away.
by Anonymous | reply 38 | October 6, 2015 12:57 AM |
So is the Program troll also the "Eldergays, tell me about..." troll?
I wish they'd both go away.
by Anonymous | reply 39 | October 6, 2015 12:57 AM |
It's the only movie I ever decided to walk out on, but my S/O misunderstood my intention, so we stayed 'til the bitter end. Sorta glad I saw the whole thing, as it confirmed my opinion that it wasn't worth staying for.
by Anonymous | reply 40 | October 6, 2015 1:16 AM |
i really hope R37 is parody
by Anonymous | reply 41 | October 6, 2015 1:37 AM |
No, R41.
by Anonymous | reply 42 | October 6, 2015 1:42 AM |
Never seen it but I love the haunting "Love Song for a Vampire" by Annie Lennox.
by Anonymous | reply 43 | October 6, 2015 1:54 AM |
I love this version of Dracula. Gary Oldman was superb and so was the rest of the cast. Winona looked wonderful. But I must say that my other favorite Dracula was the one with Frank Langella and Kate Nelligan. Now HE was a sexy Dracula. You could sort of understand how he hypnotized her into surrendering to his lust for blood.
I just have one question:
Is it true that Francis Ford Cuppola and Gary Oldman used Princess Anne as their role model for Dracula's look? Because I always felt Gary Oldman's Dracula was vaguely familiar.
by Anonymous | reply 44 | October 6, 2015 2:18 AM |
[quote]When this came out in 1992, I was 75 and I took my grandkids to see it. After it was over, they were so cute. Those munchkins said I looked just like the older Dracula.
So this means you're 98 years old now? Are you Datalounge's eldest Elder Gay? Seriously, if you're for real you should start a thread about your life and experiences.
by Anonymous | reply 45 | October 6, 2015 2:19 AM |
I barely remember the movie but the visuals were very iconic at the time. Must have been all the promotion. The Simpsons spoofed it hilariously in one of their early Treehouse of Horror episodes.
by Anonymous | reply 46 | October 6, 2015 2:23 AM |
[quote] Is it true that Francis Ford Cuppola and Gary Oldman used Princess Anne as their role model for Dracula's look? Because I always felt Gary Oldman's Dracula was vaguely familiar.
LMAO!!
by Anonymous | reply 47 | October 6, 2015 4:24 AM |
Also sick of the 'Eldergays, tell me about...' shit. Go to the fucking library, you little bitch.
by Anonymous | reply 48 | October 6, 2015 4:24 AM |
Oops! Here. I meant to post one of Gary/Dracula and one of The Princess Royal.
by Anonymous | reply 51 | October 6, 2015 4:03 PM |
I thought it was an allegory for Keanu's Hollywood experience.
by Anonymous | reply 52 | October 6, 2015 5:06 PM |
R52 ww
by Anonymous | reply 53 | October 6, 2015 5:09 PM |
"The film was not viewed as a joke at all"
I remember it kinda was. Not scary or thrilling enough tho it was released around Halloween, laughable performance from Keanu Reeves, lovely but pretentious and wrong-headed art direction including some ludicrous looks for Dracula, pretentious shit about the birth of cinema that was totally wrong for a mainstream film and a dumb backstory-love plot involving Winona Ryder. Audiences laughed, reviews were mixed.
by Anonymous | reply 54 | October 6, 2015 5:19 PM |
I loved it. Mainly due excessive style points. I loved how Gary Oldman float/walked, extremely creepy!! He was a great Dracula!
by Anonymous | reply 55 | October 6, 2015 5:23 PM |
Anyone who thinks this movie was taken seriously when it was released wasn't actually there.
by Anonymous | reply 56 | October 6, 2015 5:23 PM |
R54 It is a great LOOKING film. I'll give them that. I sort of liked the overdrawn, melodramatic camp because Victorian horror was all about that. Some of it is creepy, in that they channeled that silent-film-set macabre look; in the garden, the crypt.
by Anonymous | reply 57 | October 6, 2015 5:24 PM |
It's a mixed bag as others have said. Everyone mocks Winona and Keanu (rightly so) but I think Oldham was pretty bad in this too. The costumes and scenery are top notch though. A visual triumph, but the acting is pretty bad.
by Anonymous | reply 58 | October 6, 2015 5:31 PM |
I have to laugh at people attempting to critique the acting in a Dracula movie. It was certainly better acted than any of the Universal or Hammer films.
Keanu gets the brunt of the criticism but we all know he's not suitable for costume dramas. His presence is just too jarring. Still, he's better in Dracula than in Dangerous Liaisons.
by Anonymous | reply 59 | October 6, 2015 6:18 PM |
"Gary Oldman was superb and so was the rest of the cast. "
Uh, no. Gary Oldham was campy. Anthony Hopkins was hammy. Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder were laughable. Sadie Frost's overheated performance was the most entertaining to watch.
BSD has some of the most hilariously bad dialogue in film history. Here are some of its howlers:
"I have crossed oceans of time to find you", or as Gary Oldman says it "I huff crust oh-shuns uff time to find you"
"Absinthe is the aphrodisiac of the self. The green fairy who lives in the absinthe wants your soul. But you are safe with me."
"We are dealing with forces beyond all human experience, and enormous power. So guard her well. Otherwise, your precious Lucy will become a bitch of the Devil! A whore of darkness!"
"Hear me out, young man. Lucy is not a random victim, attacked by mere accident, you understand? No. She is a willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower. I dare say, a devoted disciple. She is the Devil's concubine!"
"And may I say that Miss Lucy is hotter than a June bride riding bareback buck naked in the middle of the Sahara!"
"Last week he wanted to marry her. Now he wants to have her committed."
"I love you! Oh, God forgive me, I do!"
"I want to be what you are, see what you see, love what you love." "Mina, to walk with me you must die to your breathing life and be reborn to mine." "You are my love... and my life, always." "Then, I give you life eternal. Everlasting love. The power of the storm. And the beasts of the earth. Walk with me to be my loving wife, forever."
"Take me away...from all...this...DEATH!"
by Anonymous | reply 60 | October 7, 2015 1:57 AM |
I don't agree with R60, but "I huff crust oh-shuns uff time to find you" made me howl.
by Anonymous | reply 61 | October 7, 2015 6:49 AM |
remember that interview Winona gave when Dracula was released? She said Coppola used to scream insults to her to get her reactions. But when the scene was done he always ran to her and hugged her and told her he was sorry. I thought it was crazy.
by Anonymous | reply 62 | October 7, 2015 11:47 AM |
I remember Sadie Frost getting excellent reviews from the critics for this film.
by Anonymous | reply 63 | October 7, 2015 11:56 AM |
Sadie Frost was excellent, she deserved a bigger career. I loved it but I was quite baked when I saw it. It was like a fever dream. Highly recommend watching while stoned.
by Anonymous | reply 64 | October 7, 2015 12:04 PM |
Well, I thoroughly enjoyed it for what it was, even though I find Frank Langella's Dracula the hottest, sexiest Dracula, and I infinitely prefer Lord Olivier to Antony Hopkins in that role. I love Winona. Kate Nelligan was never believeable to me. She seemed too smart and too strong to fall for Drac's flirtatious bullshit.
by Anonymous | reply 65 | October 7, 2015 2:03 PM |
The Dracula with Frank Langella was also a bad movie. But I thought there was one good thing about it. Van Helsing (for some strange reason, Mina is his DAUGHTER in this movie) and Seward go to the grave of Mina, who had died quickly and rather mysteriously.. Her coffin has an opening in it that leads the local mines. They go there to investigate; Van Helsing carries a cross with him. Startled by something he dropped the cross into a pool of water; he is unable to find it, but sees the reflection of someone in the water: Mina. According to vampire legends vampires don't cast reflections. But interestingly enough, another legend says that since a cross was dropped in that water that enabled Mina's reflection to appear. At any rate Mina is the most ghastly looking vampire I've ever seen in any vampire movie, and I've seen quite a few a them. She is beyond hideous. Whoever did the makeup job should have won an Oscar. She looks like a rotting corpse; greyish-white, her teeth coated with blood, her dainty slippers covered in filth, her lacy funeral gown, also filthy, iin shreds. She walks towards her father, arms outstretched and says something that roughly translates: "Papa...come with me. We can rest together. Come with me." Seeing as how her father is frozen with fear: "then I will come to you." It's an amazingly effective scene of utter horror. I don't think anybody who saw it will ever forget the Undead Mina in this version of Dracula.
by Anonymous | reply 66 | October 7, 2015 3:47 PM |
I asgree with you R66 about Mina, & I remember her just as you describe her, but I don't think it was a bad movie. I really like the Frank Langella Kate Nelligan version.The sets and the cinematography were really excellent. Olivier was a very good Van Helsing.
by Anonymous | reply 67 | October 7, 2015 6:08 PM |
I was a teenager & my friends & I nearly got thrown out during the scene where Dracula turns into a bear, we were laughing so hard.
It reminds me of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." The American actors think they're making a masterpiece and give terrible performances and the Brits understand they're making a glorious cheeseball and ham it up accordingly. Anthony Hopkins was hammy perfection!
by Anonymous | reply 68 | October 7, 2015 6:34 PM |
If you go to the real Dracula's castle in Transylvania (in Romania), they have all this centuries-old furniture and other antique historical items just lying around where you can touch them, but a prop necklace from the movie in a locked case.
by Anonymous | reply 69 | October 7, 2015 11:13 PM |
"I thoroughly enjoyed it for what it was, even though I find Frank Langella's Dracula the hottest, sexiest Dracula."
Dracula was NOT supposed to be "hot" and "sexy!" In the novel, he is described like this: a tall old man, clad entirely in black, with a long white mustache. He's not bald; he has a lot of gray hair, receding at the temples. He's very pale, has pointed teeth and pointed ears and massive eyebrows that almost constitute a uni-brow. His hands are broad, with squat fingers; he has long nails that are cut to a sharp point and hair growing in his palms. When Dracula touches Jonathan with those hands Jonathan notes in his diary: "I could not repress a shudder....it may have been that his breath was rank, but a horrible feeling of nausea came over me, which, do what I would, I could not conceal." No, Bram Stoker's Dracula was NOT a sex symbol. He was a repugnant monster.
The vampire Dracula had a horrific power to hypnotize his victims into submission. When he attacked Mina she later said "strangely enough, I did not want to hinder him. I suppose it is part of the horrible curse that such is, when his touch is on his victim." She wails "and oh, my God, my God, pity me! He placed his reeking lips upon my throat!" No, the Dracula Bram Stoker created was NOT someone that any woman would want to be kissed by or made love to.
Dracula as a hot lover is pretty absurd. But that's what vampires have become now, in books and movies and tv. It's a shame. Vampires were much more interesting when they were monsters.
by Anonymous | reply 70 | October 7, 2015 11:56 PM |
Movie critics and audiences were pleased.
TOMATOMETER
79%
Average Rating: 6.5/10
Reviews Counted: 47
Fresh: 37
Rotten: 10
Critics Consensus: Overblown in the best sense of the word, Francis Ford Coppola's vision of Bram Stoker's Dracula rescues the character from decades of campy interpretations -- and features some terrific performances to boot.
AUDIENCE SCORE
80% liked it
Average Rating: 3.6/5
User Ratings: 257,874
This luscious film restores the creature's nobility and gives him peace.
Full Review… | October 20, 2009 Richard Corliss TIME Magazine Top Critic
Overall, this Dracula could have been less heavy and more deliciously evil than it is, but it does offer a sumptuous engorgement of the senses. Full Review… | September 26, 2007 Todd McCarthy Variety Top Critic
A somewhat dispersed and overcrowded story line that remains fascinating and often affecting thanks to all its visual and conceptual energy. Full Review… | September 26, 2007 Jonathan Rosenbaum Chicago Reader Top Critic
This lack of a convincing central dynamic leads to the occasional sense that the film is little more than a spectacular edifice, but you'll be too spellbound to resist seduction. Full Review… | January 26, 2006 Time Out Top Critic
With Dracula it's apparent that Mr. Coppola's talent and exuberance survive. Full Review… | May 20, 2003 Vincent Canby
by Anonymous | reply 71 | October 8, 2015 1:29 AM |
I love every fucking thing about this film
by Anonymous | reply 72 | October 8, 2015 2:11 AM |
The performances were terrible, the dialogue was terrible, but it was interesting to watch due to the lavishness of the costumes and sets and makeup. That doesn't really constitute a "good" movie.
by Anonymous | reply 73 | October 8, 2015 2:44 AM |
I would never go see a movie Dracula who was grey bearded and had long greying hair or whatever. We have homeless men running around who look like that. I want my Dracula to be sinister, evil, and seductive.
by Anonymous | reply 74 | October 8, 2015 3:11 AM |
It's on tonight at midnight (13 mins, EDT) on one of the non-premium movie channels. Let's all tune in!
by Anonymous | reply 75 | October 8, 2015 3:47 AM |
I also liked how he was called Dracul and not Dracula.
by Anonymous | reply 76 | October 8, 2015 11:55 AM |
Bram Stoker's not Dracula. Bram Stoker's Bram Stoker.
by Anonymous | reply 77 | October 8, 2015 2:29 PM |
The only actor who came somewhat close to the Dracula in the novel was Christopher Lee. I always thought he was the best Dracula.
by Anonymous | reply 78 | October 8, 2015 3:06 PM |
I prefer the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror parody, "Bart Simpson's Dracula."
by Anonymous | reply 79 | October 8, 2015 3:26 PM |
[quote]The performances were terrible, the dialogue was terrible,
Yeah, it's kind of link watching a "Godfather Part 3" in which all of the roles are portrayed by Sofia Coppola.
by Anonymous | reply 80 | October 8, 2015 4:06 PM |
link = like
(Thanks Obama)
by Anonymous | reply 81 | October 8, 2015 4:07 PM |
R71 If they liked it, fine: I didn't.
by Anonymous | reply 82 | October 8, 2015 4:50 PM |
R71, you do realize Rotten Tomatoes (and the internet) didn't exist when this film was released, so any audience score is completely fabricated. And most of the reviews aggregated on RT were from bloggers.
by Anonymous | reply 83 | October 8, 2015 4:54 PM |
[quote] you do realize Rotten Tomatoes (and the internet) didn't exist when this film was released, so any audience score is completely fabricated. And most of the reviews aggregated on RT were from bloggers.
No you're kidding. From what I remember about the release the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are a pretty accurate representation of how the film was initially received.
[quote] Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 79% of 47 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review, with an average rating of 6.5/10; the consensus is: "Overblown in the best sense of the word, Francis Ford Coppola's vision of Bram Stoker's Dracula rescues the character from decades of campy interpretations — and features some terrific performances to boot." Vincent Canby described the film as having been created with the "enthusiasm of a precocious film student who has magically acquired a master's command of his craft." Richard Corliss said, "Coppola brings the old spook story alive ... Everyone knows that Dracula has a heart; Coppola knows that it is more than an organ to drive a stake into. To the director, the count is a restless spirit who has been condemned for too many years to interment in cruddy movies. This luscious film restores the creature's nobility and gives him peace." Alan Jones in the Radio Times said, "Eerie, romantic and operatic, this exquisitely mounted revamp of the undead legend is a supreme artistic achievement...as the tired count who has overdosed on immortality, Gary Oldman's towering performance holds centre stage and burns itself into the memory."
[quote] Roger Ebert awarded the film 3/4 stars, writing, "I enjoyed the movie simply for the way it looked and felt. Production designers Dante Ferretti and Thomas Sanders have outdone themselves. The cinematographer, Michael Ballhaus, gets into the spirit so completely he always seems to light with shadows." Ebert did, however, voice criticisms over the film's "narrative confusions and dead ends".Jonathan Rosenbaum said the film suffered from a "somewhat dispersed and overcrowded story line" but that it "remains fascinating and often affecting thanks to all its visual and conceptual energy."Tom Hibbert of Empire was unimpressed. Awarding the film 2/5 stars, he said, "Has a film ever promised so much yet delivered so little?...all we're left with is an overly long bloated adaptation, instead of what might have been a gothic masterpiece." Geoffrey O'Brien of the New York Review of Books also had reservations: "The romantic make-over of Dracula registers as little more than a marketing device designed to exploit the attractiveness of the movie's youthful cast...it rolls on a patina of the 'feel-good' uplift endemic in recent Hollywood movies."
by Anonymous | reply 84 | October 8, 2015 8:29 PM |
wow, 6.5 out of 10. 65%. In school, that's a borderline failing grade. But keep trying to sell the myth, honey.
by Anonymous | reply 85 | October 8, 2015 8:32 PM |
I would say it was probably worth a C+ or B- grade. I enjoyed it when I say it in the theater on the big screen. When I saw it the next year on video, the flaws were more apparent on repeat viewing and the visual positives were not as strong on the small screen. I will say they did try some different things artistically. I just wish they would have jettisoned the whole reincarnated wife angle. It was not well acted or written and did defuse a bit of the tension and horror when it came to Mina and the sense of urgency that the novel had a the end.
I am kind of tempted to re-watch it after reading this thread.
by Anonymous | reply 86 | October 9, 2015 12:38 AM |
"Roger Ebert awarded the film 3/4 stars, writing, "I enjoyed the movie simply for the way it looked and felt."
That's just it: it was a flashy movie, appearance-wise. And it had an effective soundtrack. But the rest of it was SHIT. Bad acting, overblown story that had nothing to do with the novel, florid. laughter inducing dialogue. It was crummy in a lot of ways.
by Anonymous | reply 87 | October 9, 2015 1:23 AM |
[quote] wow, 6.5 out of 10. 65%. In school, that's a borderline failing grade. But keep trying to sell the myth, honey.
Obviously, you just want to argue and this, my friend, is so not worth arguing about.
by Anonymous | reply 88 | October 9, 2015 1:33 AM |
R84 If they liked it, fine: I still don't.
by Anonymous | reply 89 | October 9, 2015 2:20 AM |
R3, you're absolutely right. I read the book over the summer when I was 13 or 14. I'd read it at night. I was terrified that I'd give the vampire permission to enter my window and then he'd turn me into a vampire.
by Anonymous | reply 90 | October 9, 2015 5:09 AM |
If you liked Dracula you might enjoy the Mystery of Rampo
by Anonymous | reply 91 | October 9, 2015 8:48 AM |
I remember how critics at the time stressed that the "vampiresque" contamination through blood was a metaphor for AIDS (that was before the anti-protease discovery and AIDS was still a letal diagnosis and was front and center in the media).
The best thing about the movie was the Artistic Direction: most images saturated in glowing red (i.e. blood).
Also, I think the movie was one of the first (if not the first) to feature Monica Bellucci.
Last but not least the credits song was "Love Song for a Vampire" by Annie Lennox, one of her best in my book. Annie Lennox was red hot at the time, esp. in the gay community.
That's all.
by Anonymous | reply 92 | October 9, 2015 9:11 AM |
[quote]we laughed at dracula's braided-buns.
Uh?
by Anonymous | reply 93 | October 9, 2015 9:46 AM |
We didn't have American Horror Story back then. So this had to suffice.
by Anonymous | reply 94 | October 9, 2015 10:21 AM |
[quote] wow, 6.5 out of 10. 65%. In school, that's a borderline failing grade. But keep trying to sell the myth, honey.
[quote] Obviously, you just want to argue and this, my friend, is so not worth arguing about.
No argument, dear. It just fact. 65% is nothing to be proud of.
by Anonymous | reply 95 | October 9, 2015 4:48 PM |
Actually, taking numerical grades seriously in film criticism is nothing to be proud of. This isn't your 10th grade algebra test.
Most serious critics hate star ratings. They're used for prople who are too stupid to read the entire review (and understand it)
by Anonymous | reply 96 | October 18, 2015 8:28 AM |
OH, SNAP!
by Anonymous | reply 97 | October 18, 2015 8:56 AM |
I remember the line was through the lobby and out the door to get in. Everyone in line was SOOOO excited to see it. You should have the comments of the people leaving the theater after it was over. The movie was horrible.
by Anonymous | reply 98 | January 14, 2016 5:37 PM |
In Richard E. Grant's WITH NAILs, he describes how a preproduction party ended with everyone wasted and the next day was a big fucking mess. Richard included, although he is a teetotler who abstains from drugs, but I guess he didn't want to get left out. Alcoholic Gary Oldman went around in tears to each crew member begging for forgiveness.
by Anonymous | reply 99 | February 12, 2016 1:37 AM |
I enjoyed this movie, and I think it is good. But it could have been great with a few changes. Reeves and Ryder seem miscast for their roles and have no on-screen chemistry. Some real British actors could have done a lot better. Oldman gives a great performance, but I don't find him sexy (since they wanted Dracula to be a romantic lead). Maybe they could have sent him to the gym for a few weeks before he had to do that scene with his shirt off? A fit, sexy, virile Dracula would have been cool to see. One of the worst things in the movie is how they botched Renfield, an important character who is supposed to inspire sympathy, and they made him ugly and unlikable. In televised versions of the film, Renfield is edited out completely and nobody notices, because he adds nothing to this film. In the book, Renfield is the one who connects Dracula with Mina.
by Anonymous | reply 100 | February 12, 2016 2:30 AM |
The idea that someone who saw a movie in 1992 must now be an "eldergay" is so ludicrous, I don't think this thread deserved a single response.
by Anonymous | reply 101 | February 12, 2016 2:57 AM |
Daniel Day Lewis was attached to the film at some point. Would've LOVED to see him in the role.
by Anonymous | reply 102 | February 12, 2016 2:58 AM |
Yeah, this film had flaws, but I loved it just the same. I wanted to be Hopkins' Van Helsing. I mean, the guy teleported himself, for God's sake. Or at least was skilled enough to make Seward think he did. Speaking of which, where's the love for Richard E. Grant in this? I thought he gave a great performance.
by Anonymous | reply 103 | February 12, 2016 5:31 AM |
Don't think I've ever seen it.
by Anonymous | reply 104 | April 26, 2020 3:30 PM |
Two things tanked this move...Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. The rest of the cast were great, the production was great, and the overall feel of the film was great.
by Anonymous | reply 105 | April 26, 2020 3:49 PM |
Bram Stoker was a daddy chaser that wanted Walt Wiltman’s daddy hole.
by Anonymous | reply 106 | July 3, 2020 11:06 AM |
I saw this movie twice in the theater and loved it. The costumes and design were top notch. To me one of the most beautiful gowns ever worn on screen was Lucy’s wedding gown. Sadie Frost was superb.
by Anonymous | reply 107 | July 3, 2020 11:48 AM |
by Anonymous | reply 108 | July 3, 2020 12:08 PM |
I was in high school from 1992 through 1996, and the movie was worshipped by the gothy drama kids in my school. I think they thought it was fine art of the highest degree.
The Victorian (Georgian?) costumes certainly stood out and were a tremendous leap stylistically from the old Dracula movies that my generation grew up with. This movie and Interview with the Vampire together re-made vampire schlock into sexual fantasy material for imaginative, depressed young people.
Keanu’s casting in this, in Much Ado About Nothing and other literary material never made any sense. He always brought movies down by pulling audiences away from the story and redirecting attention to his surfer dude speech and affectations until someone sorted out that he he as place in action movies as a kind of avatar for the audience, but he ain’t no kinda actor.
by Anonymous | reply 109 | July 3, 2020 12:08 PM |
R109 lays it out for you. The film "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was a big hit with a small sub-set of high schoolers.
The rest of the world was not so enthusiastic. Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder were roundly called out for their multitudinous inadequacies.
The film has an impressive visual style. Gary Oldman was firing on all pistons. The film, alas, was not.
by Anonymous | reply 110 | July 3, 2020 12:12 PM |
I loved it and thought it was a beautiful-looking film. I believe it won about four Oscars on the technical side.
by Anonymous | reply 111 | July 3, 2020 12:16 PM |
I still love this movie, despite its imperfections. I was going through a bad patch romantically at the time, and when Dracula implores Mina, “See me”, that hit home. And as so many have said, its gorgeousness never fades. The costume designer died a few years ago. She was brilliant. She had exceptional personal style, and at the Oscars that year she could have walked straight out of the film.
by Anonymous | reply 112 | July 3, 2020 12:21 PM |
Loved it when it came out.
Still one of the Dracula movies most faithful to the books by the way.
by Anonymous | reply 113 | July 3, 2020 12:27 PM |
*book
by Anonymous | reply 114 | July 3, 2020 12:28 PM |
Wow, 1992 was a great year for visually memorable, female-driven gothic horror stuff, from Dracula to Batman Returns to Death Becomes Her to Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me.
by Anonymous | reply 115 | July 3, 2020 12:33 PM |
Plus Basic Insinct, Candyman, Single White Female. Sleepwalkers.
by Anonymous | reply 116 | July 3, 2020 12:35 PM |