sign in
register
Watch
MGM Plus fuboTV Epix Amazon Channel
+7
Dracula
Dracula
JustWatch
Your probable score
?
Dracula

Dracula

1992
Romance, Drama
2h 8m
The vampire comes to England to seduce a visitor's fiance and inflict havoc in the foreign land (imdb)

Directed by:

Francis Ford Coppola

Screenwriter:

James V. Hart, Bram Stoker

Starring:

Winona Ryder, Richard E. Grant, Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, Monica Bellucci, Cary Elwes, Tom Waits, Billy Campbell, Sadie Frost, Michaela Bercu, Florina Kendrick

Genres:

Romance, Drama, Suspense/Thriller, Horror

AKA:

Bram Stoker's Dracula

Country:

USA

Languages:

English, Latin, Romanian, Greek, Bulgarian
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

Dracula

1992
Romance, Drama
2h 8m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 53.28% from 5569 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(5597)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
beedubBeeDub
Rated 16 May 2018
82
50th
If The Nightmare Before Christmas hadn't come out the following year, this is the movie that would have driven Hot Topic sales for the rest of the '90s. Undeniably stylish, but oh my laws is this movie silly.
Rated 16 May 2018
kasperlKasperL
Rated 13 Jun 2014
75
77th
Not bat. Not bat at all.
Rated 13 Jun 2014
suldrupSuldrup
Rated 31 Dec 2010
85
91st
Coppola shows brilliant craftmanship and uses every bit of his mise-en-scène to create an eerie, erotic and strangely beautiful atmosphere, reflecting the love between Dracula and his beloved Elisabeta. What an interesting and complex love story. Twilight fans, this is true horror love! Also, this film is yet another proof of Keanu Reeves' poor, poor acting skills.
Rated 31 Dec 2010
pickpocketPickpocket
Rated 25 Feb 2010
6
55th
The performances are really bad, I mean reallllly bad. Keanu, of course, is the stand out as Harker. Watching him slip in and out of an English accent was sad and hilarious at the same time. Even Tom Waits was awful and he's never awful so I don't know what the hell was going on. Some odd directing choices and some poor writing keep this from being great, it looks beautiful but it was lacking. Also, nice job making Dracula look exactly like the emperor from Star Wars, real creative!
Rated 25 Feb 2010
terrymacterrymac
Rated 20 Oct 2020
72
64th
Keanu Reeves' accent and squirting nipple are possibly the highlights of this, and help set an expectation for the rest of the film. I dunno if it is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I think it helps to approach it on the assumption that it is. It does look splendid, however, and it's the fact that everything is so unsubtle that makes it so watchable. I can't recall the novel very well, but there's enough of it here to remind me of it...perhaps a fully accurate version would be a bit dry?
Rated 20 Oct 2020
eveeluneveelun
Rated 16 Dec 2010
61
24th
I had a hard time getting into this. I guess I can appreciate the lush cinematography and the melodramatic tone Coppola was aiming for. But even though I can appreciate his attention to the original source material, this adaptation seems absurd and excessive, almost parodic without any great scares I felt while reading the book.
Rated 16 Dec 2010
carpetgiantCarpetgiant
Rated 02 Nov 2014
78
21st
My parents wouldn't let me watch this adaptation when it first came out. Twenty two years later, on Halloween night, I noticed Coppola's Dracula was available on my cable provider's on-demand service. By which network, you might ask? ABC Family. That's right. I watched a heavily edited version that was suitable for a family channel with ten commercial breaks (limited commercial interruption my ass!) including one depicting a man using pliers to pull out his teeth. Seemed appropriate to me.
Rated 02 Nov 2014
mentaculusMentaculus
Rated 05 Jul 2017
90
89th
In my 30 years of living, I have never before finished this - I always turn it off somewhere, disgusted. After finally forcing myself through, I firmly believe this is one of the most vile and evil films ever made, hyperbole duly noted. The film's logic - as if in a fever dream of a terminal patient, or in the last involuntary synapses of a man dying mid-coitus - shuns all Good in service of Love. The film's "deficiencies", I think, are distractions for the subversive moral. It's mad genius.
Rated 05 Jul 2017
joshstew06JoshStew06
Rated 14 Aug 2007
30
12th
Completely over-wrought, and way way too long, with some pretty bad acting by Winona Ryder, and especially Keanu Reeves. However, it does have its moments, and the settings are pretty great.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
paxtonPaxton
Rated 14 Feb 2014
90
90th
Gary Oldman was talking about getting this part and he said he was reading the script when he came across the line, "I have crossed oceans of time to find you." At that point he was sold because who wouldn't want to say that on film. That makes me like him, the movie, Coppola, James V. Hart, and the mythic character of Dracula himself all the more.
Rated 14 Feb 2014
spoonerspotspoonerspot
Rated 30 Mar 2008
81
71st
4 words: Winona's wet bouncing boobies.
Rated 30 Mar 2008
billyshearsBillyShears
Rated 09 Apr 2008
80
77th
Keanu Reeves sucks shit in this. Other than that, great movie. That part where Winona runs down the steps , MMMHMM.
Rated 09 Apr 2008
triffidtriffid
Rated 14 Jun 2008
77
41st
How appropriate. A vampire film that sucks.
Rated 14 Jun 2008
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 20 Sep 2010
75
92nd
The two "leads" are the worst part of the film. Reeves and Ryder are both depressing and talentless compared to some that surround them. Oldman and Hopkins do amazing jobs in what easily could have turned into cheese ball roles. The camerawork and effects are very well done (no CGI etc) and Coppola and company are ultimately successful in making Dracula a sympathetic figure.
Rated 20 Sep 2010
ecitizeneCitizen
Rated 26 Oct 2020
60
59th
Great atmosphere. Dracula starts out old and decrepit and then becomes vigorous and healthy-looking. The dark story is interesting and keeps you guessing. There is just a little blood. Excellent sets and costumes. Acting is good also. Music sets the tone very well. Overall this was satisfying for a Dracula movie but the ending was not at all good.
Rated 26 Oct 2020
stainStain
Rated 31 Mar 2007
60
47th
So many special effects that it should be called _The Vampire Strikes Back_ instead
Rated 31 Mar 2007
jschlanskyJSchlansky
Rated 24 Oct 2020
63
47th
The last of the worthwhile Dracula tellings I had left to watch. Honestly, I shoved this one to the back of the list because of Dracula's stupid fucking haircut. Certainly not one of my favorites. I would put it below Nosferatu, the Bela Lugosi Dracula, the Hammer Dracula, Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre, Shadow of the Vampire, and even that recent Dracula mini-series. I love Keanu, but he's badly miscast here. I didn't particularly like Anthony Hopkins' take on Van Helsing either.
Rated 24 Oct 2020
kramyessevKramYessev
Rated 26 Sep 2012
54
34th
This is a beautiful film. The costumes, sets and cinematography are all incredible. Gary Oldman also gives a hilariously OTT performance, needlessly whirling his sword around whenever he gets the chance. The rest is fucking terrible. All the performances, bar Oldman, are awful, (which is strange as I thought Hopkins was incapable of such a thing), the narrative is all over the place and the screenplay is dire ("The green fairy who lives in the Absinthe wants your soul"). Watch the Lugosi film.
Rated 26 Sep 2012
bunkenBunken
Rated 28 Jun 2011
80
88th
Even though its a bit confusing up untill Van Helsing is introduced, it is still the best Dracula film made... The use of shadows is exceptional and Gary Oldman does a mean blood sucking vampire machine!
Rated 28 Jun 2011
battletoadBattleToad
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
48th
Gary Oldman is an incredible Dracula, and his performance makes this film worth watching. Anthony Hopkins is also as good as ever, but Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves are expectedly pathetic. It's overall a decent telling of the story of Dracula. Pretty good!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
kojilessKojiless
Rated 14 Aug 2007
48
52nd
Took my best friend in high school to see this when it came out... Had to spend the next 6 months trying to convince him I wasn't craving his ass. It was 3 years before he would invite me back to his March Madness pool. I blame Keanu.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
quintonjaminQuintonjamin
Rated 26 May 2021
70
66th
I loved the atmosphere and look of the film. Reeves, who is pretty bad in this, starts out feeling like the main character but becomes an afterthought after 45 minutes. Everyone around him is fantastic, though, especially Hopkins and Oldman.
Rated 26 May 2021
hellsditchhellsditch
Rated 04 Mar 2015
76
41st
Keanu. LOL.
Rated 04 Mar 2015
overratedoverrated
Rated 09 Jan 2010
50
48th
Granted there's some fantastic art direction, but this adaptation is ridiculous. The casting of Keanu as a Victorian Englishman goes without saying, and Oldman's scenes at the beginning are a hoot. "Your employer said you were a man of good... taste."
Rated 09 Jan 2010
frederikaFrederikA
Rated 10 Dec 2010
80
86th
The very definition of acquired taste, since it requires a proper knowledge of, not just of late 19th century mannerisms and culture, but also (and perhaps more importantly) a hundred years of horror movie aesthetics, to be truely appreciated. That, and a blind eye to the thespian stylings of Keanu Reeves.
Rated 10 Dec 2010
davidblastDavidBlast
Rated 10 Dec 2010
90
93rd
Coppola ingeniously transforms Stoker's novel into a gothic poem of extraordinary visual beauty. Instilling heart and soul into count Dracula, by adding a tragic love triangle, Coppola successfully breathes life into the dated concept (a man sucking the blood of a woman? Surely, these days it's the other way around). Mixed with Kjilar's epic score, the result is the greatest love story ever told and the definitive vampire movie. Oh and casting Reeves as zombie was a masterstroke. What?
Rated 10 Dec 2010
voltaire53Voltaire53
Rated 14 Jan 2007
74
60th
A little slow at times but it is good to watch an adaptation trying to stay close to the original source material; I'm not sure Keanu was the best fit but Gary Oldman was good as always. Lovely imagery in many scenes adds to the material too...
Rated 14 Jan 2007
madisomadiso
Rated 24 Jan 2007
80
96th
best dracula ever
Rated 24 Jan 2007
moraesfelipemoraesfelipe
Rated 29 Jul 2017
75
80th
If only the plot were less convoluted, this would turn out to be a masterpiece by the most flamboyant of all directors. This is either way a pure work of ancient cinema crafted in studios, with matte painting and on-camera tricks. There is not a single shot that isnt' lavish, colorful, erotic or simply bigger than life. One raccord is Lucy being beheaded followed by meat being cut. It's really amazing the stakes Coppola risk by filming Dracula so convicted of its bloody and sensual potential.
Rated 29 Jul 2017
martrynmartryn
Rated 25 Mar 2007
78
71st
Best Dracula film ever.
Rated 25 Mar 2007
jetjaguarjetjaguar
Rated 30 Jun 2007
80
52nd
A visual feast, and the most faithful adaptation of Stoker's novel yet. And there lies part of the problem; Coppola has too many characters here, and many of them end up with little to do. Still, it's awesome to behold, and Oldman is excellent.
Rated 30 Jun 2007
joegayeskiJoeGayeski
Rated 25 Jul 2007
65
44th
Insanely nuts, both when it works, and doesn't. This is the sort of crazy creature that people will dig the ride, or riot.
Rated 25 Jul 2007
dwiggendwiggen
Rated 07 Jan 2011
65
21st
Keanu Reeves and Wynona Rider drag down an otherwise great retelling of Bram Stoker's classic book.
Rated 07 Jan 2011
madmanMadMan
Rated 06 Sep 2020
90
67th
Keanu is horribly miscast-RDJ would have been a better choice, or anyone else really. Otherwise this is the closest we will ever get to an adaptation that follows the book. Gary Oldman was a great Dracula.
Rated 06 Sep 2020
lexlex
Rated 30 Jul 2012
70
28th
Thanks to some inspiring and fitting visual spectacle and an outstanding central performance from Gary Oldman, it becomes easier to feel involved in this flawed fable that ends up being a lot more shallow than you would hope from a Dracula film with Coppola at the helm.
Rated 30 Jul 2012
trixrabbiTrixRabbi
Rated 12 Jun 2011
63
18th
Keanu Reeves does this movie in like an asteroid the size of Texas hitting Earth.
Rated 12 Jun 2011
petrostserPetrosTser
Rated 31 Aug 2020
40
11th
For fuck's sake. Is it that hard to take a great book and not turn it into a silly mess? Why the idiotic origin story? Why all the romance and melodrama? Why the amateurish jump-scares? Why the spastic editing and visuals? And, worst of all, why the absurd tempo and chaotic direction? Coppola and Hart can follow the story but they don't get the story. They don't know what to leave out or not; where to focus; how to build the characters. Everything is unconvincing, superficial and awfully rushed.
Rated 31 Aug 2020
luordluord
Rated 06 Aug 2017
66
59th
Weird and unintentionally funny at times. The showy direction and Oldman's performance make it worthwhile.
Rated 06 Aug 2017
shotton25shotton25
Rated 19 Aug 2020
75
68th
Very slow first act, but things just get more crazy and it picks up especially in the final 40 minuets. Keanu and Ryder are bad but fun to watch, the film looks gorgeous and obviously the standouts are Hopkins and Oldman.
Rated 19 Aug 2020
tinybonanzaTinyBonanza
Rated 20 Aug 2014
27
31st
"father i must" he says. "she is love. she is trueness. come wit me to scientology meeting and u will see it is holy." "my son," i say. "i cannot. it is abomination." "no, it is true. she know." my son fiance is devil i know buit i agree to go to the meeting. to be in an unholy church sets my soul on fire and my body crumbles into ashes. but he is my son and my love and the recipient of my fortune when i die so i must abide him.
Rated 20 Aug 2014
naurunauru
Rated 17 Jun 2012
6
4th
Painfully boring film, horribly acted with crappy effects and abysmal dialog. Feels like it's four hours long.
Rated 17 Jun 2012
mist600Mist600
Rated 25 Aug 2017
79
49th
Slightly overwrought but then so is the source material and the era. Could have been truly great and had enough star power so why the hell did they cast KEANU as a young British Victorian solicitor? Doesn't look English, Certainly doesn't sound English, doesn't convince at all. Can you think of a more absurd piece of miscasting? God what was that accent?! Real shame. Gary Oldman's performance deserved a far better foil
Rated 25 Aug 2017
troothTrooth
Rated 11 Apr 2020
73
64th
Coppola does a good job making Dracula into a mythical figure unlike many other film adaptations. Instead of going the route of a gritty vicious monster, as most adaptations (even today) do, this version makes the character feel a lot more like a living legend, supplemented by some amazing sets and costumes.
Rated 11 Apr 2020
scholar69420Scholar69420
Rated 17 Oct 2022
80
86th
Dripping with style and melodrama, this gothic romance cine-opera is beautifully presented. Incredible sets and design. One of the least subtle movies I've seen, but in a good way - á la Princess Bride. Everything about the filmmaking is so over the top that it just works. Match cuts, camera tricks, shadows, Coppola uses every trick in the book to give us this mythical tale not of a repulsive monster, but a living legend whose power and love is manifest as an erotic lust. Twilight but good.
Rated 17 Oct 2022
mwestcottmwestcott
Rated 04 Jan 2018
80
59th
Francis Ford Coppola's directing choices are all unique and risky. They don't always pan out, which sometimes brings the films production value down a little. The Gothic romance and amazing sets are something to behold. As is Gary Oldman's possible greatest Dracula performance there has ever been.
Rated 04 Jan 2018
suteupacSuteupac
Rated 03 Mar 2009
45
38th
Why Keannu Reeves?
Rated 03 Mar 2009
moviesinhellmoviesinhell
Rated 25 Mar 2009
88
85th
Eschewing the slimmed-down, stage-bound approach established by Tod Browning's Bela edition -- the basis of most straightforward Drac adaptations to come -- Coppola returns the tale to its pulp Victorian roots by adhering to Stoker's then-contemporary 1897 concerns, biases, references, and themes. These range from the nature of romantic love to venereal-disease fears (with their current AIDS corollary), new technological advances, and even America's Wild West.
Rated 25 Mar 2009
nadihNadiH
Rated 03 Jun 2009
71
20th
This is a casting nightmare and, despite the title's implications, this screenplay strays far and unnecessarily from its source material, especially in its added love story, its grossly simplified and judgmental character portrayals, and its oversexualization of Lucy and everything else. As far as the sexualization goes I get it and I like it when it doesn't sacrifice the integrity of the characters(ex:Lucy as a sex crazed woman=bad, the women attack on Harker=good). Some great innovations here.
Rated 03 Jun 2009
pigletPiglet
Rated 09 Jun 2009
70
59th
Gary Oldman is always great, and I can't help but feel that if anyone else than Keanu Reeves got the role as Harker this would have ended up better.
Rated 09 Jun 2009
amazedemonamazedemon
Rated 30 Oct 2022
62
31st
An impressive cast that have little chemistry or coherence acting off each other make Coppola's take on Dracula a bizarre watch. The costumes are probably the biggest star of the film, followed by the score that generates the atmosphere more than anything else. The performances are hammy at times. The pace starts off well but falls apart midway through, and the film rushes its conclusion. Coppola manages to highlight the uninteresting melodramatic moments at the expense of the fun ones.
Rated 30 Oct 2022
nilkynarfynilkynarfy
Rated 28 Mar 2011
10
7th
Dracula, as interpreted by people that enjoy the smell of their own farts.
Rated 28 Mar 2011
fredericg54frederic_g54
Rated 02 Jan 2023
6
35th
It drags most of the time but it's also consistent on a technical level, with Coppola using many tricks in the book to keep the viewer engaged. I'll take the Simpsons parody over this, though.
Rated 02 Jan 2023
crazybobcatcrazyBobcat
Rated 28 Jul 2009
65
58th
I pinned my hopes on this film despite the dubious casting of Keanu Reeves. I was disappointed in much of the acting (such as Reeves), but it is a lush portrayal of one the greatest love stories ever told. It could have been so much more than it was.
Rated 28 Jul 2009
egbertsouseEgbertSouse
Rated 16 Oct 2009
85
62nd
Even if the story is occasionally muddled, fantastic cinematography and production design. It doesn't take itself too seriously and Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are always a plus. This is closer to Murnau's Nosferatu than the more "classical" interpretations like the Bela Lugosi film. I can forgive Keanu Reeves' wooden performance since Harker is supposed to be flat anyways.
Rated 16 Oct 2009
backwardsuitbackwardsuit
Rated 12 Nov 2014
73
59th
Ridiculously thick with the gothic romance operatics. If you can't understand cinema as melodramatic bombardment of over the top sentiment it's easy to just call this film stupid. The story is all over the place and sorely lacks the narrative thrust of the novel. However the visuals are gorgeous and the rich atmosphere is enough to keep you engaged and mesmerised if not anywhere near the edge of your seat. Oldman is having a blast but everyone else kinda fails to carry material this overblown.
Rated 12 Nov 2014
groovysoulsGroovy_Souls
Rated 13 Sep 2014
80
73rd
Perhaps this is not Coppolla's best film, but it is still by most means great. Coppolla's direction and cinematography is awesome and entertaining while Oldman performs beautifully. Hopkins does well, while Ryder and Reeves struggld tremendously. The story is up to snuff with Stoker's original but includes some strange and out of place scenes. Otherwise this movie is great, with just a few big flaws.
Rated 13 Sep 2014
bentienbentien
Rated 12 Oct 2014
53
35th
Overblown and unfocused but also a real treat for the eye and ear. I would take 'Interview with the Vampire' any day though.
Rated 12 Oct 2014
zeytounzeytoun
Rated 07 Jan 2010
65
54th
creepy and sexy
Rated 07 Jan 2010
manwhonosemanwhonose
Rated 16 Oct 2018
92
60th
You really have to concentrate so that you don't lose the story amongst the theatre of it all, but that's no bad thing. I think this is how you do real Gothic horror; you do it with sumptuousness and sexuality, which this film has in spades. You do not, however, cast Keanu Reeves.
Rated 16 Oct 2018
chemical404chemical404
Rated 10 Apr 2010
67
75th
Dracula we never saw before. A tragic hero, rather then bloodthirsty beast from previous adaptations. Narrative is a bit clumsy, it often switches from the view of one character to another for no apparent reason. Reeves is wooden, Oldman left me indifferent, but Winona is the most beautiful romantic interest of Dracula ever (or at least tied with Isabelle Adjani). Art direction is stunning. Use of shadow theater, lightning and set decorations makes the film look like a dark, yet beautiful play.
Rated 10 Apr 2010
mr_filmMr. Film
Rated 25 Jul 2010
82
53rd
The film isn't as good as 1922 Nosferatu or 1931 Dracula, but it is still a well acted and smart film
Rated 25 Jul 2010
spleenspleen
Rated 01 Mar 2012
76
56th
If you lose the nudity and gore, you've got Dracula, a Hallmark Channel original movie. A classic exciting and suspensefull story is watered down and reimagined as a daytime soap. Still the production design and cinematography are worth drudging through Keanu and Winona's amateurish performaces.
Rated 01 Mar 2012
catfacercatfacer
Rated 09 Oct 2010
25
23rd
The worst English accent ever - by Keanu Reeves.
Rated 09 Oct 2010
zephonithZephonith
Rated 25 Oct 2010
65
40th
Great atmosphere
Rated 25 Oct 2010
indyatmnINDYATMN
Rated 17 Apr 2022
80
59th
I liked this alot more when it first came out since I was less familiar w/ the novel, but now it just seems too long. At the same time I can't imagine a better made movie that's as faithful as this one. This managed to be a hit b/c Coppola amplifies the sex ALOT - particularly as illicit pleasure . He also creates an actual romance between the Count & Mina which isn't satisfying or moving but is more interesting. Van Helsing gets a couple of funny lines & the silent-era efx are also interesting
Rated 17 Apr 2022
cclzaCCLZA
Rated 17 Sep 2012
80
77th
There's a palpable 'gusto' for operatic, climaxing, grand scenes from Ford Coppola that make this a highly enjoyable and impressively staged spectacle. The character development and dilemmas and central themes are also surprisingly well rounded.
Rated 17 Sep 2012
mrxMrx
Rated 04 May 2007
25
6th
Francis Ford Coppola reduces a classic horror story into what seems to be a soft-core porno film. Disappointing.
Rated 04 May 2007
juicejuice
Rated 26 May 2007
85
97th
Vampires are the shit.
Rated 26 May 2007
chmulcr0nchmul_cr0n
Rated 13 Jul 2017
41
10th
As fun as it is to see Winona Ryder in anything, and as cool as the movie looks and sounds, this movie's greatest weakness is that its terribly boring, which makes it very hard to follow the dialogue or plot. Maybe that's also due to the fact that the movie is more concerned with stringing together as many atmospheric moments as possible instead of structure or coherence. Or making sense. Or being not silly. :D
Rated 13 Jul 2017
yiannosYiannos
Rated 08 Jul 2014
78
89th
Surely one of the most eccentric 'blockbusters' ever made, Coppola's Dracula is an opulent, ambitious take on the literary legend that draws on numerous sources to create an epic of brooding gothic romanticism with astonishing in-camera effects. There are some odd casting choices, but it is hard to deny the strength of Coppola's vision. For all its flaws, there are moments of complete brilliance, and it is in these moments where we get a glimpse of the masterpiece it could have been.
Rated 08 Jul 2014
clevrtitaniaClevrTitania
Rated 07 Aug 2011
90
74th
There are a few common things people panned in this Dracula. One of the most common is the acting of Ryder and Reeves. I don't think I'll ever understand that mentality, because I think they're both exceptional in it. But then again, people still think Keanu can't act, despite vast evidence to the contrary. Oldman was practically unknown when this came out - at least to the mainstream movie goer. But his performance made this movie the subtle horror which propelled it into place of classic.
Rated 07 Aug 2011
circe823Circe823
Rated 19 Jul 2007
65
26th
Why, oh why is Keanu Reeves allowed to ruin what would otherwise be perfectly good movies?
Rated 19 Jul 2007
nrooNroo
Rated 28 Jun 2014
71
46th
Anthony Hopkins and Tom Waits chewing some really pretty scenery.
Rated 28 Jun 2014
nathanbatesNathanBates
Rated 18 Nov 2023
60
35th
Everyone tries to add their own little thing to the Dracula story; here we have (on top of gushing blood and some titillating scenes) ol' Fang Head doing double-duty as the Wolf-Man (and a lower-case bat-man). It reminded me a bit of many of Stephen King's stories: good, but with at least one goofy scene that starts to make the whole vision collapse. The costumes, effects, and soundtrack were all fair, but most of the acting felt pretty wooden and a little draggy.
Rated 18 Nov 2023
squidgetsquidget
Rated 21 Aug 2007
67
19th
The Cinematography of this film was the best I had seen at the time. It still stands out in my mind as a beautiful film. I try hard to ignore things like plot, actors, and editing when I remember it.
Rated 21 Aug 2007
drewlephantDrewlephant
Rated 24 Aug 2007
96
97th
I dunno, there's something about this movie that really resonates with me. I know it's not perfect, but I could watch it forever.
Rated 24 Aug 2007
htimanhtiman
Rated 10 Oct 2018
60
25th
The firs thalf is so stupid that its easily "so bad its good", but the second half drags a lot, so while it has some decent moments overall the movie is a bit more boring then entertaining. But, it definitely has some really goofy scenes that are worth seeing, which is why I didn't rate it lower.
Rated 10 Oct 2018
erbasalviaerbasalvia
Rated 05 Dec 2007
70
48th
molto suggestivo
Rated 05 Dec 2007
killertomatokillertomato
Rated 28 Dec 2007
72
67th
Long, but worth it. Great film to enjoy in the company of friends and a case of pumpkin ale.
Rated 28 Dec 2007
videoetronVideoetron
Rated 20 Oct 2021
72
83rd
a bit uneven for me. Some interesting takes on the story VS weird shock attempts, some good effects and makeup VS kitsch purple lights and eyes in the sky, some interesting costumes VS some sets that look like cheap theatre cardboard, some good actors VS other bad ones... Still alright in the end I guess.
Rated 20 Oct 2021
elfflameElfflame
Rated 18 Apr 2008
92
96th
The magnificence of this film isn't simply the cast, though they are tremendous, and generally live up to their hype (with one notable exception), but in the direction and cinematography. Coppola takes all the tricks of the old horror films, and makes them just work, even in an age where we're used to flashy digital effects. Would have been even higher with a better actor as Johnathan Harker.
Rated 18 Apr 2008
luna6ixLuna6ix
Rated 17 May 2008
83
83rd
the best representation of the classic novel, it's dark, entertaining, and star studded. oldman is the best feature, the rest are satisfactory...dont let people tell you keanu is that bad, they're biased.
Rated 17 May 2008
nargNarg
Rated 15 Nov 2020
59
53rd
Ho boy does this movie look cool! Ho boy are Ryder and Reeves bad here! At its best when it is at its most sexy-murder-fever-dream-like (all the film making madness to achieve this feeling is truly awesome); a feeling which doesn't inform the second half of the movie enough due to it attempting to have an actual narrative. Highlights include Reeves mangling "Budapest" in his English accent, Oldman licking a razor like a man snorting cocaine, and Ryder having metaphorical sex with a wolf.
Rated 15 Nov 2020
mervtaylorMerv_Taylor
Rated 16 Jun 2012
89
67th
Pretty cool
Rated 16 Jun 2012
ottott
Rated 12 Oct 2023
60
37th
drag show material, i wanna see these succubi on the runway
Rated 12 Oct 2023
glmglm
Rated 28 Dec 2010
81
69th
80.500
Rated 28 Dec 2010
hstephen9hstephen9
Rated 24 Aug 2008
0
5th
POS. Oldman eats ALL the scenary.
Rated 24 Aug 2008
teeceeteecee
Rated 26 Sep 2008
31
40th
For meget romance for min smag
Rated 26 Sep 2008
rymRYM
Rated 29 Mar 2015
65
58th
3.25/5
Rated 29 Mar 2015
bialinsbialins
Rated 22 Apr 2012
100
96th
As surreal as love can be
Rated 22 Apr 2012
greatscott85GreatScott85
Rated 28 Apr 2011
69
24th
A beautiful visual treat that suffers from uneven acting (Keanu Reeves gives one of his worst performances) and some hammy story elements, with some scenes feeling just blat out bizarre.
Rated 28 Apr 2011
reyRey
Rated 18 Dec 2008
88
91st
Acho esse melhor do que o do Herzog. O clima do filme é mais apropriado. Coppola usa cores mais sombrias do que o alemão. Além disso a trilha sonora é muito bonita e o roteiro é ótimo. Gary Oldman está ótimo e Winona Ryder também. Só a mala do Keanu Reeves que eu achei inexpressivo como sempre.
Rated 18 Dec 2008
jetboyjetboy
Rated 17 Jan 2009
91
98th
A beautiful story about timeless love.
Rated 17 Jan 2009
matthagenmatthagen
Rated 20 Mar 2020
65
80th
Seen: 2.
Rated 20 Mar 2020
glm01glm01
Rated 18 Sep 2013
82
71st
81.500
Rated 18 Sep 2013
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
Rated 14 Apr 2011
61
13th
Well shot and an interesting take on the book, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. The plot is rushed, the accents are horrid all around, and the characterizations are either inconsistent or non-existent.
Rated 14 Apr 2011
beadingoffbeadingoff
Rated 26 Jun 2009
65
7th
Lush production with horrible acting including bad accents and wooden dialogue. Some fun scenes.
Rated 26 Jun 2009
filliganFilligan
Rated 10 May 2013
91
82nd
Coppola is like a giddy film student taking on this age-old material; the cinematography just goes completely absurd, usually to a fantastic effect without going too overboard, the practical effects are fun and creative, and Oldman is incredible. I think the pacing of the film suffers the most from this direction, but it's definitely worth a look for anyone interested in the material or filmmaking.
Rated 10 May 2013
sopachuco13sopachuco13
Rated 08 Sep 2024
80
62nd
Bram Stoker's Dracula is a feast for the eyes. The costuming is fantastic and it makes me feel like I am watching something from the era. The cinematography is filled with little extras that make subsequent viewings of this movie a lot of fun. The variation in the set designs give the audience the sense that they are traversing the world with these characters. The acting is over-the-top in so many good ways. I agree that Ryder and Reeves weren't the best choices yet they made these roles iconic.
Rated 08 Sep 2024
billkerwinbillkerwin
Rated 25 Jan 2010
74
24th
Some interesting atmospheric scenes, but basically a misfire.
Rated 25 Jan 2010

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...