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.

Where do I start. The actress playing Lucy, although beautiful, had one mode. Sound like she's orgasming in every scene. When you're that ill and/or dying you don't sound like you're being pleasured. What the hell was the hairy weir beast raping her on a slab of concrete? The male actors except E Grant and Hopkins were all useless. The British Accents were utterly abysmal and there was no tension or creepiness whatsoever from Oldman. Just dreary boredom. Ryder's performance was so depressingly terrible. That same tired rasping noise when she heavy breaths in every scene. There are child actors with more depth than this "actress". I have enjoyed some of her movies such as Beetlejuice, Heathers, Alien Resurrection. However she and Keanu are so painfully bad at British accents. The story in this was a total butchery of Stokers and it's quite shockingly bad for a producer of Coppola's calibre.

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.

Yours truly grew up during the early 90s and thus my first encounters with the classic and immortal horror sagas where the contemporary large-budgeted and bombastic blockbusters of prolific directors that starred a bunch of Hollywood icons. Kenneth Brannagh modernized "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", Francis Ford Coppola revised "Bram Stoker'"s Dracula" and, to a lesser extent, there were also Mike Nichols' "Wolf" (the updated "Wolf Man") and Stephen Frears' "Mary Reilly" (basically "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" from a different viewpoint). They're all fine films and I still consider them as essential contributors to my love for the horror genre, but somehow, I wish that I started chronologically with the Universal horrors starring Lugosi, Karloff, Chaney, etc...This completely personal and irrelevant trivia note aside, Coppola's ambitious and prestigious retelling of "Dracula", which remains incredibly faithful to the original Bram Stoker novel, still stands as an overwhelming cinematic achievement. The film is 25 years old already in the meantime, but the decors, costumes, photography, make-up and special effects are still breathtaking even by today's high and sadly digitalized standards. "Dracula" is undoubtedly a pure work of art to behold, but putting the emphasis on the vampire count's romantic traumas and his pitiable craving to be reunited with his 15th Century's wife Elizabeta obviously didn't do the horror impact a lot of good. Count Dracula, once a bloodthirsty warrior who turned against God because his beloved wife killed herself, imprisons young attorney Jonathan Harker in his Transylvanian castle after he sees a picture of his fiancée Mina. She seemingly is the reincarnation of Elizabeta and thus Dracula travels to his recently purchased Carfax Abbey in Britain to reclaim her. Mina's best friend Lucy, and then Mina herself, immediately fall for Dracula's hypnotizing charms and mystical powers, but Lucy's three (!) lovers fight back and even call upon the help of the infamous Dr. Abraham Van Helsing. There's a good reason why Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee are eternally reckoned for their respective roles as Count Dracula; - namely because they depicted him as an evil, invincible and relentless horror monster! Although Gary Oldman still remarkably succeeds in making his Dracula performance somewhat menacing and creepy, the script introduces the lead character as a grieving and immortal widower. Long white fingers, weird hairdos and diabolical laughter aside, this vampire isn't frightening. Gary Oldman is always great, even when the role is really difficult, but apart from him only Tom Waits puts down a memorable performance as Renfield. Anthony Hopkins is quite pompous as Van Helsing and both Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder are too immature for their roles. "Bram Stoker's Dracula" nonetheless remains a must-see for every self-respecting horror fan (and even every film fan in general) if it were only for the lavish sets and stunning decors, the enchanting soundtrack (Annie Lennox' "Love Song for a Vampire" is a classic), the sublime photography and subtle display of eroticism (including a young Monica Belluci as a bride!) and the few but notably atmospheric moments of true horror (like the sequences inside Lucy's tomb)