Dracula (1992)

Dracula (1992)

Gary OldmanWinona RyderAnthony HopkinsKeanu Reeves
Francis Ford Coppola


Dracula (1992) is a English,Romanian,Greek,Bulgarian,Latin movie. Francis Ford Coppola has directed this movie. Gary Oldman,Winona Ryder,Anthony Hopkins,Keanu Reeves are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1992. Dracula (1992) is considered one of the best Horror movie in India and around the world.

This version of Dracula is closely based on Bram Stoker's classic novel. Young barrister Jonathan Harker is assigned to a gloomy village in the mists of eastern Europe. He is captured and imprisoned by the undead vampire Dracula, who travels to London, inspired by a photograph of Harker's betrothed, Mina Murray. In Britain, Dracula begins a reign of seduction and terror, draining the life from Mina's closest friend, Lucy Westenra. Lucy's friends gather together to try to drive Dracula away.


Dracula (1992) Reviews

  • Oldman is the Best Dracula Ever!


    This is the best rendition of Dracula ever captured on film. Gary Oldman's dark and sensual personae outshines any other vampire who ever dare put on a cape. To me Gary Oldman is the most talented and underrated actor ever. He becomes who he is playing, however in this role... Dracula became him... Oldman set the bar so high it is untouchable even to Bela Lugosi. Winona Ryder's delicateness suited the role of Mina/Elisabeta nicely and Keanu Reeves played the unsuspecting and naive Jonathan with satisfaction. However the whole movie comes together because of Gary Oldman's intoxicating essence. He draws the viewers into his darkness and passion and guides them through until the end. This film is drastically romantic and hauntingly captivating- just like a real Dracula movie should be. The cinematography deserved Oldman's phenomenal performance and perfectly created a true vampire realm. Francis Ford Coppola is brilliant. This is the spirit of the vampire.

  • Coppola's Dracula Is An Atmospheric Masterpiece That Falls Just Short Of Greatness


    Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic vampire story is unlike any other film I have ever seen. A beautifully crafted Gothic horror romance, Bram Stoker's Dracula is infinitely rich in haunting atmosphere, but a conventional love story prevents it from becoming truly great. Bram Stoker's Dracula is a mostly faithful adaptation of the original novel, telling the story of Dracula's quest to find his long lost love through four characters, Keanu Reeves' lawyer Jonathan Harker, who experiences Dracula first-hand after being imprisoned in his castle, Harker's fiancé Mina Murray played by Winona Ryder, the subject of Dracula's affection, Van Helsing the vampire hunter, played by Anthony Hopkins, and the man himself, Dracula, played with intensity by Gary Oldman. All four principle actors do well in their parts, lending a heightened drama to the fantastical story. Reeves is comfortably quiet as the straight man in the story. Ryder is an attractive presence on screen, wisely dialing back on the melodrama that may have infected her performance. Conversely, Anthony Hopkins gives a delightfully over-the-top turn as a man obsessed with killing Dracula. And speaking of the Count, Gary Oldman's irritating habit of wildly over-acting is actually channeled here into something incredibly watchable. Dracula is a fascinating presence every time he's on screen, especially when he's wearing Eiko Ishioka's brilliant costumes or sporting some of the most convincing creature makeup I have ever seen. The problem with the narrative in Bram Stoker's Dracula is that it spends too much time on an somewhat standard love story. Winona Ryder's character is well written and her arc works well enough, but at a certain point, the erotic love scenes only carry so much weight. I was far more interested in Dracula's point of view, and aesthetically, I simply wanted to spend more time in his castle. The first chunk of the film is so consistently engaging, both visually and thematically, that it is a pity that the rest of the movie never manages to get back to that level. I can't say I have a real problem with the love story. Like the rest of the film, it's well written, crafted, and acted, but the Dracula point of view as well as Van Helsing's vampire hunt were both more interesting story lines than the conventional love story, and I wish they would've gotten more screen time in comparison. Even with nagging problems regarding the story, I can't deny the power Coppola infuses into this film atmospherically. The costumes, music, sets, and special effects are uniformly amazing and they work together seamlessly with Coppola's direction to create a final product that is uniquely Coppola and uniquely Dracula. From the first shot of the film, Dracula is constantly surprising as a audio/visual experience. The first 45 minutes in particular showcase some of the most captivating visuals ever put on film. The opening flashback sequence alone is masterfully designed, composed, and shot. There is a heightened reality to the sequence, a storybook detachment that had me transfixed on the screen from the first second, and it didn't let up. The time spent in Dracula's castle is the highlight of the entire film, with the vast corridors of the castle illuminating with eerie shadows in some of the most daring and artistic cinematography I've ever seen. Dracula himself is a haunting creation, as he glides and coils about in an unsettlingly alien manner. The film never gets back to the same level of atmospheric intensity after we leave the castle, and that is a real shame, but still, Coppola continually shows us new visual tricks and inventive effects throughout the film. As a sensory experience, everything works. Coppola gives the film a breathtaking visual signature, utilizing age old camera tricks and special effects to create something that puts you in another world. It's not just unique locations we're treated to, it's a unique method of filmmaking. Wojciech Kilar's music is similarly special. Big, bold, haunting, and dramatic; the soundtrack here is exceptional. The same can be said for the costumes and makeup. There is a boldness to every technical department here. In Bram Stoker's Dracula, Francis Ford Coppola has created something daring, ambitious, and different in the best way possible. Unfortunately, the movie's best section is its first, and the story lingers too long on it's least interesting story line. While those complaints keep the film from being truly great, they don't stop Bram Stoker's Dracula from showcasing a master filmmaker's unique vision. This is a special film, an extraordinary sensory experience, a 2 hour journey to a dark, foreboding dreamworld that I won't soon forget. 85/100

  • Stunning


    First of all, sorry for my English: I'm Italian and I don't know if I am able to express not in my language my thoughts with the proper terms. Anyway, I loved this movie, even if I agree that the title should have been F.F.Coppola's Dracula. In fact it is a very personal read of the original script. So, I can understand, but not agree, with all critics about important differences to Bram Stoker's masterpiece. It's a movie you can love or hate, there is no midway, as all comments prove. Personally, I loved the way Coppola reviewed the classic tale, giving Dracula a reason to be what he became after the loss of his wife e to search in England the reincarnation of his lost love. Gary Oldman is absolutely fantastic, lavish, romantic,chilling, in particular as he plays an old Dracula in the beginning of the movie. Definitely the best character of his career until now (let's see how he portrays Churchill in the Darkest Hour). Winona Ryder is so sweet and adorable that I forgive the fact she hasn't been the best choice to play Mina. The other actors (except for Keanu Reeves, completely outcast and unable to act) are all good choices. The music is wonderful, as cinematography, art/set direction, make up and costumes (who cares if Dracula wears John Lennon style sunglasses...). This Dracula is seductive as no other movies ever showed and as no other actor was able to portrait the dark prince. By the way, the choice of Keanu Reeves and some screenplay bad errors and holes don't allow to give a 10. But at the same time I can understand it's not a movie for all tastes. As I already written, you can love or hate it.

  • Visually striking, but Coppola's storytelling eccentricities are ill suited for the story itself


    "Apocalypse Now" worked due to its hazy, surreal vision of a hellish world. Coppola returned thirteen years later and created a similarly haunting and poetic so-called "masterpiece," a supposed truthful adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula tale - when, in fact, the truth is that this movie is no more faithful to Stoker than the (superior) Universal Pictures original. The hazy film-making is visually satisfying, and some of the special effects are - simply put - amazing. Coppola's backlighting and use of shadows is creative and unique. But, unfortunately, after a while his emphasis on style over content begins to eat away at the film's other strengths - the relationship between the heroine (Winona Ryder) and Dracula (Gary Oldman) is weak. Many story links are completely nonsensical and people appear and disappear at whimsy. The heroine's fiancée (Keanu Reeves) writes to her from Transylvania, asking her to depart at once to marry him; in a matter of one or two scenes she has suddenly traveled a vast distance and is standing at the alter prepared to wed. It seems like Coppola loses a grip on his characters and plotting very early on. Oldman gives a chilling performance but isn't given very much to do, because he's set aside and the special effects take over. The opening scenes of his battle and his motivation to become the King of the Undead is very enthralling - if Coppola had maintained this mixture of style and content the movie would have been far better. The casting of the weak Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder in leading roles harms the impact of the film as well. Reeves sounds like a Californian pothead imitating a Brit; Ryder treats the material as if it is a dramatic, over-the-top theatre rendition; every line she speaks is sickeningly cheesy. Anthony Hopkins turns in a disappointing performance as the utterly forgettable Van Helsing, who is given very little to do in this particular film apart from show up when convenient and sprout fancy little one-liners, most of them dramatic closers to scenes (e.g. "We are dealing with a demon!", then a cut-away to another scene.) Overall, "Dracula" is a good film and is worth seeing for its visuals alone. It is not, however, the strongest adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel; given the hype surrounding its release in 1992, the completed effort is rather lackluster in the story department.

  • One of Coppola's Best


    Though I did not read the book and can't compare it to the movie, I found Bram Stoker's Dracula quiet excellent. The costume design, lighting, camera work, make-up-fx are all very good and make for a very atmospheric movie. There are some truly outstanding things in this film. 1, the editing... excellent, I love the way they worked with dissolves, the hypnotic feel they created with the careful editing. Every frame flows in the other, the whole style grabs you and never lets you go... I simply could not turn my eyes off the screen. 2, the acting... Gary Oldman is THE Dracula, IMO. Seductive, strong, bad and scary in his own distinctive way, yet really romantic. Hopkins is funny as Van Helsing and quiet ironic. Winona is a great Mina. Beautiful, innocent. She looks great in these Victorian costumes. Keanu Reeves is not as bad as many of you think. He makes the best of his underwritten character. 3, the Score... haunting, romantic, scary. It works beautiful with the pictures. I think this movie is a great cinematic achievement and very underrated. It's a shame they don't make movies like that any more. 10/10


Hot Search