Bram Stoker's Dracula

1992 "Love Never Dies."
7.4| 2h7m| R| en| More Info
Released: 13 November 1992 Released
Producted By: Columbia Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

In the 19th century, Dracula travels to London and meets Mina, a young woman who appears as the reincarnation of his lost love.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Columbia Pictures

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.
Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.
Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.
Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.
cricketbat Dracula was disappointing. The filmmakers spend so much time focusing on visual effects (which were impressive), that other areas of the movie suffer. Most of the performances are either flat (*cough*Keanu*cough*) or over the top, and the film itself seems disjointed. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer Tod Browning's Dracula or F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu to Coppola's attempt at Bram Stoker's novel.
zed-stronger this was a complete disgrace to the novel by bram stoker . story 1/10 cast 3/10 the movie 1/10 or less . the original novel was not sexual at all.all the characters were noble and respectable.it's like a parody or something close to it . i really wish if they remake a new one
Joshua Belyeu 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.
tomasdavisd In giving an image to a story written on a book, I suppose there's a very complex difficulty with interpretation. Everyone has a different conception of characters as described in books: we all build the image that best suits the given description by the author, using as many resources as we possess.But in Coppola's film, it is just too extravagant, too excessive. If looked through the filter of Bram Stoker's novel –considering the title of the movie itself declares to be loyal to the author's name, I don't find other filters to be more accurate–, the image portrayed by Coppola is a disgrace.I must say that the story-line is quite complete and does not contain unnecessary changes such as in Browning's version (1931) or in Herzog's (1979), regarding who leads the actions. What these two lack in story-line, Coppola's lacks in image (or exceeds in it and takes it off track). Characters like Jonathan Harker, Quincey Morris and Abraham Van Helsing in Coppola's version are quite well-made; while Lucy Westenra is a complete disaster.