wazzzarov
As my hero, Dracula was portrayed fairly in this movie.
sinthemix-49649
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.
Rupert Munn
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.
David del Real
-------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.
AD
