Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). Need some feedback on this movie (1 Viewer)

[Joseph Young]

Wow, it's nice to see some constructive feedback on this movie. I agree that there are good points (imagery, Tom Waits, Hopkins, nudie scenes

) and bad points {some of the accents, the vague character motivations and acting).
I own the SuperBit version of the DVD, which IMO is the ony one to own! The sound is great and the picture looks stunning! The movie never sinks into 'utterly horrible' territory and is consistantly visually engaging.
Joseph

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Despite its flaws, this is my favorite vampire movie, hands-down. I was deep in the throes of Ryder-mania when this film was released, and despite the fact that she (along with virtually every other non-Brit in the cast) appears to be out of her depth, I was entranced.

the title of the movie trying to tell us the film would be more faithful to the book than previous Dracula efforts.

Frankly, I think Anne Rice's Dracula would be a more descriptive title, since the film more strongly reflects her sensibility, even if it retains much of Stoker's plot. Although the events of the book are reproduced in broad strokes, Dracula's backstory and the romantic interludes between Dracula and Mina (all inventions of screenwriter Jim Hart) alter the dramatic import of each scene/sequence in a profound way, transforming the story from a queasily erotic horror tale into a gothic/romantic melodrama.

Thus, if you're expecting a white knuckle horror movie, look elsewhere. Inevitably, when the vampire is essentially made into the main character, our sympathies lie with him, and the story ceases to operate on the level of a straight horror film. The movie is sexy, hypnotic, moving, and bloody, but never frightening (to me, anyway).

That said, I love it for what it is - the only must-see on Coppola's filmic resume since Apocalpyse Now (sadly).

--Jefferson Morris

P.S. Jean Cocteau's Dracula might also seem a better title, given the number of visual allusions to that director's Beauty and the Beast, including the final shot.

 

[Carlo_M]

Ah, just realized I didn't post my thoughts on the movie (keanu notwithstanding).

I think it succeeds in spite of his performance. Oldman and Hopkins are great, and I don't think Ryder was bad at all. Elwes has a bit part, but does what he can with it. The setpieces are great, and the ambience created by Coppola's direction are fantastically eerie.

And yes, the Superbit version is the way to go. The original was a barebones release so you're giving up nothing when going over to SB.

 

[paul_v]

I read an interesting tidbit as to why it was called "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and not simply "Dracula". The movie studio that made the original Dracula actually owns the copywrite to the title "Dracula" so Coppola had to add "Bram Stoker's" to it.

I believe I read this in Roger Ebert's review of the film.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

We just watched the Superbits version of this movie over the weekend. I love the visual style of the film, and Oldman, Hopkins and Waits all give fine performances. While this was not one of Ryder's best efforts, she does not detract from the film. I'm not a big Keanu fan, either, and think better casting could have been done here.

This is one of my favorite horror films. Enjoy seeing it on the big screen, Carlos.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Ryder's performance is not the problem. The "re-imagining" of the Mina character is for the reasons I touched on above and which Jefferson described even better. There is a lot to like about the production, but it sabotages itself dramatically by still trying to keep the novel's "race against time" climax which is undermined by Mina's complicity in her fate. The intent appeared to be to reinvent the story as a tragic romance, but they did not change the plot enough to acheive this properly. They also changed it just enough that it no longer works as gothic horror, either, although the first 2/3 of the film is very promising.

To sum up once more: Flawed but very interesting film.

Regards,

 

[Simon Massey]

Great film, and Oldman's performance was brilliant,
BUT
"I know where the baarstaard sleeps!!!"
Keanu Reeves was awful in this. I like him in other roles but he could not nail an English accent at all - it was just embarrassing to watch.

 

[Vickie_M]

Jefferson Morris:

- the only must-see on Coppola's filmic resume since Apocalpyse Now (sadly).

I'll fight you on that one. One From The Heart is a brilliant film! It's a gem that was unfairly tarred and feathered by all the critics upon release. It was ignored, overlooked and undervalued by the people who would most love it, and it fell into oblivion, dragging Zoetrope along with it. It's a Fantasy Romance Musical for adults, and lord knows the director of all those big Macho movies had no beeswacks going and making a movie like that!
Coppola got SO MUCH flack for this film! He was criticized while making it, though many of the techniques he used (such as also shooting on videotape to see immediately what the shot would look like) are commonplace today. His use of sets to build a stylized time and place, in this case, Las Vegas, foreshadowed Moulin Rouge's Paris. The cast is great! Frederic Forrest, Terri Garr (who for once got to be sexy and dance!), Nastassja Kinski, Raul Julia, Lanie Kazan, Harry Dean Stanton, Allen Garfield...it doesn't get a lot better than that. The use of music as a character is also brilliant! The soundtrack by Tom Waits (singing duets with Crystal Gayle) is flat-out wonderful. The whole movie is a treasure and will get its due, someday. Hopefully.
I also dearly love The Cotton Club, so there!
Vickie

 

[JonZ]

I love this movie but Winonas HATE the voice over at the end.