← Back to Reviews
in
Bram Stoker's Dracula Francis Ford Cappola1992
I remember enjoying this a lot when I was younger. I'm a fan of the vampire genre and all the excessive blood and theatrics use to entertain me. But apparently not so much anymore or maybe I'm just use to better quality effects. Maybe it has just aged badly, it was released in 92'. Some of the magic has definitely worn off.
Dracula was a Christian knight when he was a man, fighting in the name of God. He renounces his faith after the death of his wife Elisabeth and becomes a vampire. Four hundred years later he finds a woman who could be a reincarnation/bares a close resemblance to his love and he falls in love with her. She happens to be the wife of a law firm clerk who's visiting him to sell him property.
This is a much more passionate and perverse story as far as vampire stories go, it is like most vampire stories because it does follow the basic vampire story guide lines, vampire seduces girl, vampire is hunted etc. The delivery of the story is where I find problems, some scenes didn't flow and felt as if they were cut up and re-arranged too often, although I enjoyed the story itself.
Anthony Hopkins presence over shadows the rest of the cast. A charming, intelligent and gritty Van Helsing, he could have been a vampire he was so other worldly. Gary Oldman comes in second as Dracula, but only just. His performance was passionate and made for a believable four hundred year old vampire. I couldn't stand Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves, I don't like to make such harsh judgments, but every line sounded forced and after a while they became boring and hard to watch.
All of the make up, props and scenery are excellent. A lot of time and effort went into all the small details. Dracula as an old and young man look the part perfectly, other worldly and charming. As a monster, bloody and gruesome. The only complaint I have is some scenes didn't work as I believe they were intended to. Such as over-the-top waves of blood and corny scene transitions like eyes turning into moons, didn't work for me and looked out-dated or not done right. If they were intended to add theatrics, they might have, if they were timed better or done with better technology.
If you can look past some corny effects, Keanu and Winona's poor acting and a few disjointed scenes this is a rich and passionate version of Dracula that is worth seeing.
Bram Stoker's Dracula Francis Ford Cappola1992
I remember enjoying this a lot when I was younger. I'm a fan of the vampire genre and all the excessive blood and theatrics use to entertain me. But apparently not so much anymore or maybe I'm just use to better quality effects. Maybe it has just aged badly, it was released in 92'. Some of the magic has definitely worn off.
Dracula was a Christian knight when he was a man, fighting in the name of God. He renounces his faith after the death of his wife Elisabeth and becomes a vampire. Four hundred years later he finds a woman who could be a reincarnation/bares a close resemblance to his love and he falls in love with her. She happens to be the wife of a law firm clerk who's visiting him to sell him property.
This is a much more passionate and perverse story as far as vampire stories go, it is like most vampire stories because it does follow the basic vampire story guide lines, vampire seduces girl, vampire is hunted etc. The delivery of the story is where I find problems, some scenes didn't flow and felt as if they were cut up and re-arranged too often, although I enjoyed the story itself.
Anthony Hopkins presence over shadows the rest of the cast. A charming, intelligent and gritty Van Helsing, he could have been a vampire he was so other worldly. Gary Oldman comes in second as Dracula, but only just. His performance was passionate and made for a believable four hundred year old vampire. I couldn't stand Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves, I don't like to make such harsh judgments, but every line sounded forced and after a while they became boring and hard to watch.
All of the make up, props and scenery are excellent. A lot of time and effort went into all the small details. Dracula as an old and young man look the part perfectly, other worldly and charming. As a monster, bloody and gruesome. The only complaint I have is some scenes didn't work as I believe they were intended to. Such as over-the-top waves of blood and corny scene transitions like eyes turning into moons, didn't work for me and looked out-dated or not done right. If they were intended to add theatrics, they might have, if they were timed better or done with better technology.
If you can look past some corny effects, Keanu and Winona's poor acting and a few disjointed scenes this is a rich and passionate version of Dracula that is worth seeing.