UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Horror >

Bram Stoker's Dracula

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

November. 13,1992
|
7.4
|
R
| Horror Romance

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

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Noutions
1992/11/13

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

More
Baseshment
1992/11/14

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

More
Humaira Grant
1992/11/15

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

More
Zlatica
1992/11/16

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

More
goreilly40
1992/11/17

When comparing this adaptation to Stoker's novel, it is more faithful than others but the story has an added element to it, that of romance and love over time. This element along with the back story at the beginning and the explanation as to why Dracula is the way he is, makes him a more complex character, you think of him more as a tragic hero, and as such puts him in a more sympathetic light than his pure evil counterpart in the book. Gary Oldman as the title character is brilliant as he displays the Count's many different faces, from the tragic hero, to the monster to the charming seductive younger version, so much so you almost pity him when he meets his demise at the end. The rest of the cast, with one exception are all very good as well, Anthony Hopkins as the legendry hunter Van Helsing in particular is excellent. The only downside was Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker, his performance, accent included was very unconvincing and wooden. Winona Ryder in her duel role as Mina/Elisabeta is another one who stands out, her performance was really convincing as someone who was at first terrified, then falls for the Count. The movie portrays both 1897 London and Transylvania perfectly, it is also well paced, you feel gripped by it and the chase at the end is very exciting and makes for a good ending.The actual story, like the title character is more complex with added elements that make it fascinating and the changes don't adversely affect it. If your a fan of the original novel, then this is an adaptation you'll really appreciate and enjoy, just be prepared for a different and more complex but not a weaker story.

More
Rupert Munn
1992/11/18

Absolutely horrifically awful. I've given it as much as 3 because I did at least make it to the end, though I regretted doing so. The script is horrendous, rendering every character as a hammy caricature - this is not helped by a a great deal of overacting, and such delights as Keanu Reeves' 'English' accent. The cinematography would be interesting if it were consistent, but the changes in tone are too drastic to allow it to become atmospheric, meaning itoften feels gimmicky. The cartoon sexiness, whilst a valid angle to take on the story, is unintentionally hilarious, and really destroys any sense of menace in the vampire scenes, especially when combined with the bizarre wolfman form of Dracula, which is a strange idea even without the terrible costume. Some of these flaws would be excusable if this film was its own animal, but when your title is 'Bram Stoker's Dracula', you must expect some form of comparison to be drawn. This isn't even remotely similar in tone, characterisation, atmosphere, anything. It rushes at breakneck speed through events where the book, admittedly a slow burner, builds suspense superbly - this pushes the film's story into the realm of pastiche, and in failing to take enough care to make anything really matter, fails to justify its ending in the way the book does. There is no suspense whatsoever, and neither is there any real horror. To be fair, they gave a little more agency to the women, and a little more circularity to the plot, corny and nonsensical as it was, but beyond this there is nothing to recommend this mess. A great disappointment.

More
DanLCL
1992/11/19

Ok , so I read the book, and found it not as scary or mysterious as the movie.In my oppinion those who read the book and say it was way better than the movie, are actually hipsters.The book was not scary at all...could read it inside a cemetery in pitch black darkness.

More
cinemajesty
1992/11/20

Movie Review: "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992)Marking the picture's 25th anniversary of Director Francis Ford Coppola, given full creative freedom at Hollywood Major Columbia Pictures, to fulfill a life-time's dream of adapting the classic Gothic tale of Count Vlad Dracul from 1897 written by author Bram Stoker (1847-1912), brought to the screen in extraordinary enriching visuals, tension-tweaking sound design and emotional-perfectly received score by composer Wojciech Kilar (1932-2013) of further splendid production design by Tom Sanders (1953-2017) accompanied by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus (1935-2017) best work of light and shadow.The cast in its striking resemblance with actor Gary Oldman as Count Dracula, ranching from a young ranging warrior in middle ages wars with the Ottoman Empire in the deepest region of Eastern Europe, defeated armies in back-lit red ambiance of the epic epilogue to an unnaturally old age with Academy-Award winning make-up effects; powers due to his uncompromising love to princess Elisabeta, innocently-convincing performed by actress Winona Ryder at the age of 20, who's character ends her life due to false notice of the enemy of her husband's death, which makes Count Vlad Dracul renounce his belief into the Christian church to become Count Dracula for the centuries to come.The suspense has nothing lost of its initial stroke with supporting characters as real estate agent Jonathan Harker, portrayed no less convincing Keanu Reeves, who fills the spot of an older real state agent, already in a mental institution due to his encounter with Count Dracula and his brides of terror, here given face by acting-talented musician Tom Waits. Further cast members as late-arriving actor Sir Anthony Hopkins, performing as notorious Professor Van Helsing, steals the scene with utmost of ease and professionalism in his performance as vampire hunter, leading the avenging party of confronting Count Dracula in classical-set London in times of industrialization at the turn of the 20th century.The love story between reincarnated Elisabeta into the character of Mina Murray, financée to Jonathan Harker, goes on a journey toward a coming-of-age by falling for the rejuvenated Count Dracula on a busy London street; continuing followings into a movie-projecting etablissment, where Director Francis Ford Coppola unfolds the strongest scenes of a gently-growing relationship with leather gloves in color forces of overall dark green and red between an unless menacingly-hurt and power-drunken as to say demon-forced man, who finds his emotions uncovered to embrace instead of kill another human being, before the price of the encountering bliss becomes an highly accelerated showdown back to breeding grounds of Transylvania in this timeless tale of Horror and beauty to redeem a forfeited life in death.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

More