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.

-------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.