This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Caught this on Netflix the other day and donno what audiences at the time felt, but in 2018 this feels pathetic. Watching Gary Oldman in the first scene, I thought this was definitely a parody and then when I heard Keanu Reeves, was sure this was gonna be a hoot. Nope. Not even close. It is also not dark or intriguing. Looks like the actors signed on to work with the famed director and paid no attention to the script and totally hammed it up in whatever horrible acents they could do. A large part of the blame must go to the adapter of the novel - you cannot just throw in your own fantasies and gratuitous sexual content (like writhing women in silk à la Ghostbusters only with loads of women whose tops are off, beasts in disgusting acts). Adding explicit sexual content or meaningless "layers" to characters that are not in the original (like making Dracula some sort of hot bad boy that women are attracted to), you are only cheapening the source material, not making it contemporary. When you add something to existing source material, it should be in tone with the rest of the content, respect the characters for what they are and also be in tune with the time period. In this film, Dracula is reduced to a poor confusing joke and Mina - what is really going on with her? Don't even get me started on Van Helsing.With a runtime of 2+ hours, it is way too long for this borefest but still seems like everything was rushed. For a big studio film, couldn't they atleast spend some money on getting the blood right?

-------Dracula.-------A 9.6 but not a 10++.I am giving ten well deserved stars to this version of Dracula as it is without any doubt the best adaptation of the Abraham (Bram) Stoker´s book to the big screen. Nonetheless, it´s a 9.5 or 9.6 star movie that become ten when you round and not a 10+ or 10++ because if this movie has any defect at all is that in the moments when Dracula does not appear, the tension falls dramatically, which is also applicable to some moments when Dracula appears in his human form during daytime; and it is actually a defect that it maybe shares with the book it came from. Nevertheless, I think that this wasn´t necessarily a defect 100 and something years ago when Stoker wrote his novel, as life was slower in those days and there was no TV, movies or internet. Actually if you ever read the first chapter of the original Bram Stoker´s Dracula, you will be amazed how in some few pages, the author teaches you a little bit of many things at the same time that he tells you the first part of the story. He teaches you a little bit of gastronomy, a little bit of geography, a little bit of mythology and even a little bit of German and other languages. Nonetheless, when the story advances you keep wanting less details and more action.Thanks for reading.IMDb Review written by David del Real.2018.

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.

This movie is both easy to describe, and yet difficult as well. I say this because while I like many of the design elements, the music, and some of the performances...the story and most scenes are outright horrible. They're far too explicit compared to the novel, and many scenes in this film have no place in Stoker's work at all. As I understand it, Francis Ford Coppola placed the author's name in the title to avoid either confusion or a lawsuit with Universal Pictures, owners of the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi. Nonetheless, this film represents Coppola's desire for a Dracula story much more than Stoker's...so the director should have used his own name instead.How to criticize this film beyond the title - oh, let me Count the ways (pun fully intended). First, Dracula's existence as a vampire is shown to be the result of him renouncing God after his wife commits suicide, and driving his sword into a large Christian cross...which gushes blood that Dracula then drinks. He even tells the priests in that scene, "I shall rise from my own death, to avenge hers with all the powers of darkness." That's some seriously messed up spirituality to begin with, and it appears nowhere in Stoker's book.Second is the depiction of Mina Murray, as a reincarnation of Dracula's wife centuries later. Coppola's version of Dracula is motivated completely by this, in spite of the fact Stoker never wrote it either. More changes include Dracula's beast form attacking and having sex with Lucy, and Dracula giving his brides an innocent baby...presumably to eat or defile sexually. The writers were sicker with these inventions than Stoker ever was, and Coppola's a fool for supporting it.Another element in the film is very common to adaptations of the story, yet it appears nowhere in the novel. That element is the idea of Dracula being an undead or cursed Vlad Tepes, a 15th-century prince of Wallachia. This is a very popular myth which has persisted thanks to Hollywood, but again Stoker never equated Dracula with Vlad.Aside from the excessive sexual, Satanic, and gory elements in the movie, there's actually a very talented cast in it. Gary Oldman has done phenomenal work through his career, as has Anthony Hopkins. Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were fairly well-known in 1992, but had not yet reached superstar status. Billy Campbell's main role prior to this film was "The Rocketeer" for Disney, a perennial favorite of mine. Cary Elwes had done "The Princess Bride", which remains his most popular role 30 years later. But all these fine actors were wasted on a tale that, in spite of bearing Stoker's name, has only the slightest commonalities with the book.If you're going to adapt someone's work, and use their name in the title...keep your film as close to the source as possible. This movie is a violation of Stoker's book in so many forms, the title being the least one. There's so much here that is absolutely horrendous; I'm surprised Stoker's estate didn't sue Coppola and American Zoetrope.