Can't get enough of movies and television shows that scare up a good fright? Check out Scary Good, IMDb's Horror Entertainment Guide. Being terrified was never so much fun.
Related lists from IMDb users
Title: Dracula (1992)
Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.
| Cast overview, first billed only: | |||
| Gary Oldman | ... | ||
| Winona Ryder | ... | ||
| Anthony Hopkins | ... | ||
| Keanu Reeves | ... | ||
| Richard E. Grant | ... | ||
| Cary Elwes | ... | ||
| Billy Campbell | ... |
Quincey P. Morris
(as Bill Campbell)
|
|
| Sadie Frost | ... | ||
| Tom Waits | ... | ||
| Monica Bellucci | ... | ||
|
|
Michaela Bercu | ... | |
|
|
Florina Kendrick | ... | |
|
|
Jay Robinson | ... | |
|
|
I.M. Hobson | ... | |
|
|
Laurie Franks | ... | |
This version of Dracula is closely based on Bram Stoker's classic novel of the same name. A young lawyer (Jonathan Harker) is assigned to a gloomy village in the mists of eastern Europe. He is captured and imprisoned by the undead vampire Dracula, who travels to London, inspired by a photograph of Harker's betrothed, Mina Murray. In Britain, Dracula begins a reign of seduction and terror, draining the life from Mina's closest friend, Lucy Westenra. Lucy's friends gather together to try to drive Dracula away. Written by Goth <brooks@odie.ee.wits.ac.za>
I was excited when I saw the previews for "Bram Stoker's Dracula". It was expressly marketed as the first movie to tell the story the way Bram Stoker wrote it.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Calling it "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is an insult to the author of this classic tale. It's not just that it doesn't compare to the book. That rarely happens with any screen adaptation of a great novel. However, Coppola completely changed massive amounts of important aspects of the story. I find it amusing that after going on and on about how it was going to adhere so strictly to the original story, they had to release a new novel of Coppola's version so people would "get it".
Most of the acting is terrible throughout. The nature of characters are completely different from Stoker's (most notably Van Helsing, Mina, and Lucy). The love story added in is lame (at one point reminiscent of a Monty Python skit), and some of the "imagery" is cheesy. There were some decent effects, though, which made about 1% of the movie interesting. Some of the costumes aren't bad, others aren't good.
After seeing an interview with Coppola, one really gets the sense that he believes this is the way the story "should have" or "would have" been told had Stoker been allowed to write openly about certain topics. That is, however, utter nonsense and arrogance.
Coppola has made some astounding films, but this ain't one of them. It's amongst the worst movies I've ever seen.