User reviews

There were several reasons why I wanted to see Bram Stoker's Dracula, and after seeing the film finally I was really impressed. No seriously I was. It is not perfect, but on the whole it is very well done.

I have read Bram Stoker's book several times and love it to death, it is rich in detail, it is haunting and it is shocking. This film is not the truest film version of the book, and that's putting it mildly, but it is one of the more visually beautiful and intriguing ones. That is no way a flaw, I am not the sort of person who says if this adaptation is untrue to the book I pan it, or at least I try not to. Speaking of flaws there are two significant flaws, one is more significant than the other, that stop the film from perfection. At over two hours the film is probably a little too long. But the biggest problem is Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. I know it is not old news to rag on Reeves's performance, and I will say I am not a fan of his, sure he has been in some very good films but he is nearly always one of the weaker assets which is exactly the case here. Jonathan Harker is an estate agent who is threatened by Dracula, but I found Reeves's acting far too too inept, flat and emotionless, complete with a very unimpressive accent. For instance, when he says "Oh, I'm very sorry"- Keanu I know there aren't many ways to say that phrase strictly speaking, but do actually try to sound as though you're sorry.

Flaws aside, Francis Ford Coppola's film is very, very good. It is eerie, it is romantic and it is even operatic. For one thing, it is exquisitely mounted, very grandiose in its visual approach. From the sumptuous costumes, the lovingly crafted settings, the superb make up and the basic yet atmospheric lighting complete with more sophisticated techniques it is a feast for the eyes. Another strength is the score, it was very like an opera, rich, soulful, haunting and melancholic. I also liked the script, it was poetic, it was intelligent and it was sophisticated, and the plot is coherent with some effective scenes such as Mina following Lucy into the garden when Lucy is later attacked by Dracula. And the direction is wonderful, a lot of fashioned touches are made to make this film very watchable at least once.

With the exception of Reeves, the acting is very good. Winona Ryder is an improvement certainly, she is beautiful and intense thus she becomes the object of Dracula's devastating desire. Her chemistry with Reeves wasn't quite there, but with Gary Oldman it was pretty much smouldering. Anthony Hopkins was one of the main reasons why I wanted to see this film in the first place, he is a brilliant actor, one of the best there is actually. See him in The Elephant Man, Shadowlands, Howards' End and the Remains of the Day, all wonderful films, and he is impeccable in all of them. I enjoyed him here, here he plays Dr Van Helsing, a famed doctor who dares to believe in Dracula and in the end even dares to confront him, and gives a delicious performance making the most of some inventive one-liners. Richard E.Grant, Cary Elwes and Bill Campbell all give great support, but it is Gary Oldman's towering performance as Dracula that dominates the film. An excellent, underrated actor(Immortal Beloved is just living proof of his talent), Oldman is menacing, suave, handsome, charismatic, tragic and just amazing here, his transitions from old to young and from man to beast are completely believable, in short it was one of the more interesting interpretations of Dracula. Also look out for Monica Belluci as one of Dracula's wives, she is breathtakingly beautiful, even Sadie Frost was surprisingly good as Lucy.

Overall, if you want a faithful adaptation of the book, you may be disappointed. However, if you want a visually stunning, richly scored and compelling movie this is perfect for you. Regardless of how it deviates from the book, I liked it a lot, and would definitely see it again. 8/10 Bethany Cox

"Apocalypse Now" worked due to its hazy, surreal vision of a hellish world. Coppola returned thirteen years later and created a similarly haunting and poetic so-called "masterpiece," a supposed truthful adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula tale - when, in fact, the truth is that this movie is no more faithful to Stoker than the (superior) Universal Pictures original.

The hazy film-making is visually satisfying, and some of the special effects are - simply put - amazing. Coppola's backlighting and use of shadows is creative and unique. But, unfortunately, after a while his emphasis on style over content begins to eat away at the film's other strengths - the relationship between the heroine (Winona Ryder) and Dracula (Gary Oldman) is weak. Many story links are completely nonsensical and people appear and disappear at whimsy. The heroine's fiancée (Keanu Reeves) writes to her from Transylvania, asking her to depart at once to marry him; in a matter of one or two scenes she has suddenly traveled a vast distance and is standing at the alter prepared to wed. It seems like Coppola loses a grip on his characters and plotting very early on.

Oldman gives a chilling performance but isn't given very much to do, because he's set aside and the special effects take over. The opening scenes of his battle and his motivation to become the King of the Undead is very enthralling - if Coppola had maintained this mixture of style and content the movie would have been far better.

The casting of the weak Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder in leading roles harms the impact of the film as well. Reeves sounds like a Californian pothead imitating a Brit; Ryder treats the material as if it is a dramatic, over-the-top theatre rendition; every line she speaks is sickeningly cheesy.

Anthony Hopkins turns in a disappointing performance as the utterly forgettable Van Helsing, who is given very little to do in this particular film apart from show up when convenient and sprout fancy little one-liners, most of them dramatic closers to scenes (e.g. "We are dealing with a demon!", then a cut-away to another scene.) Overall, "Dracula" is a good film and is worth seeing for its visuals alone. It is not, however, the strongest adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel; given the hype surrounding its release in 1992, the completed effort is rather lackluster in the story department.

Excuse me, but I just read a series of reviews by people who are disappointed by the fact that this movie didn't follow the same old script that has been done over and over and over again. They gave a provocative movie a rating of "1" so they could sabotage what most people thought. Go do something else besides writing about films. This is not a perfect movie, but it takes the basic text of the Stoker novel and extrapolates from it. People seem to be reacting tot he sexuality of this. If we go back to the seminal movies, "Nosferatu" being the greatest example, we see that sexual tension dominates these films as well as the books. Dracula has power over people. He can draw women to him. He is not an animal, but he is a sub-human with desires to dominate. Coppola uses this to show his evil intent. Gary Oldman is the most eccentric and wonderful Dracula to come along in years. When did it become written that every Dracula should be the black-caped Bela Lugosi figure that kids still dress up as on Halloween. He is a force to be reckoned with; he is evil; and he is powerful. Remember, people accept the scenes of him sucking the blood out of women without any trouble. Why not an evil abuser of their being? Remember, they are under a spell over which they have no control.

This is the best rendition of Dracula ever captured on film. Gary Oldman's dark and sensual personae outshines any other vampire who ever dare put on a cape. To me Gary Oldman is the most talented and underrated actor ever. He becomes who he is playing, however in this role... Dracula became him... Oldman set the bar so high it is untouchable even to Bela Lugosi. Winona Ryder's delicateness suited the role of Mina/Elisabeta nicely and Keanu Reeves played the unsuspecting and naive Jonathan with satisfaction. However the whole movie comes together because of Gary Oldman's intoxicating essence. He draws the viewers into his darkness and passion and guides them through until the end. This film is drastically romantic and hauntingly captivating- just like a real Dracula movie should be. The cinematography deserved Oldman's phenomenal performance and perfectly created a true vampire realm. Francis Ford Coppola is brilliant. This is the spirit of the vampire.

Incessantly gothic & unabashedly erotic, Dracula brings Bram Stoker's literary classic to the film canvas in all its Victorian glory & required faithfulness and is a visual splendour overflowing with bold vision & audacious choices. But the technical mastery on display is also severely hampered by the film's inconsistent tone, overdone theatrics, casting choices & passionless performances.

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather & Apocalypse Now), the story unfolds like an eerie & sensual reverie and is substantially elevated by its operatic set pieces, lavish costumes, vivid photography, old-school effects & uncanny score. The film gets the atmosphere right with its inspired use of colours, shadows, lighting & subliminal imagery that works in tandem with its sexually charged narrative.

However, the impressionistic touches, cinematic flourishes & technical ingenuity still don't prove to be enough to mask its shortcomings, for its bloated length & over-the-top drama are further exacerbated by the casting decisions that nearly destroys the whole picture. Neither Keanu Reeves nor Winona Ryder are right choices for their roles and as for the remaining cast, their inputs are serviceable at best & forgettable at worst.

Overall, Dracula is a visual feast that delivers on mood, setting & filmmaking creativity but the commitment evident in the technical aspects are sorely lacking in the acting department. And that in effect hurts its ability to fully immerse viewers into its dreamlike escapade. Its romantic gestures are sincere even if the tonal shifts are all over the place but for a premise that has so much promise, the film as a whole leaves much to be desired.

I have seen multiple versions of Dracula, but none compare to 1992's version starring Gary Oldman, the definitive Count Dracula in my opinion. This film is lavish, decadent and wonderfully vivid. It captured the gothic spirit of the novel, it's deep, romantic, and mixed with tender and violent moments. The visuals to this day are exquisite, the costumes, sets and scenes of Victorian England are superb.

Oldman is incredible, but the supporting cast of Reeves, Hopkins and Ryder are terrific, Winona Ryder's delicate character is superb. The accompanying soundtrack was also fantastic, great songs from Annie Lennox.

A true classic. 9/10

... although I keep remembering that this "modern" tale was filmed 31 years ago.

James V. Hart's script seemed heavily indebted to Fred Saberhagen's The Dracula Tape (1980), which was a re-telling of the events of Bram Stoker's novel from the POV of Dracula, whose POV was missing from the Stoker original. It was also much more favorable towards Dracula, and added a lot of the romantic elements.

One thing that it did get right was having all the actual characters from the original novel. Many of the adaptations removed one or more of the suitors, especially the American Quincy Morris, or age up Dr. Seward, or make him the father of Mina or Lucy. This version did present them as they were in the novel.

Stylistically, it was unusual even for 1992, with Coppola said to be attempting some sort of visual homage to silent and classic film techniques, with some things looking deliberately artificial.

I recall at the time thinking Keanu Reeves was highly miscast, and his awkward performance nearly undid the whole film for me. Anthony Hopkins was coming off his Oscar win for The Silence of the Lambs, and he did seem to have his performance pitched to the rafters. His characterization seemed more in line with the Saberhagen book, where Van Helsing is depicted as more of a religious fanatic with a cruel streak.

The whole enterprise was a cash grab for Coppola who was coming off the relative disappointment of The Godfather Part III. It was a success, and kickstarted a "prestige horror" trend over the next several years, with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Wolf, and Interview with the Vampire.

As is the case with many of these latter-day horror movies, this is visually stunning. This one is particularly so, with beautiful colors, wild special effects, lavish sets and a handful of pretty women, led by Winona Ryder.

It isn't all beauty; there are some horrific, bloody moments in here. I've seen the film three times and the first two times was terrifying to me in parts. The last viewing wasn't as scary, but maybe I was distracted by seeing this on DVD for the first time, which enhanced the visuals and added some nice 5.1surround sound.

At two hours and 10 minutes, it's a bit long but there are very few lulls, if any. Gary Oldham gives his normal intense performance as Dracula and it never hurts to have Anthony Hopkins in the film.

The only negative I found was Keannu Reeves, who sounds a bit wooden in his lines. Is it my imagination, or is he a terrible actor? Maybe it's just his voice. Nonetheless, Cary Elwes, Richard Grant, Sadie Frost and Bill Campbell all give good support to this film which is a real feast for the senses.

BRAM STOKER'S Dracula is a lavishly Gothic adaptation of the Stoker novel, directed by Francis Ford Coppola like he's doing an imitation of Tim Burton. This is Dracula as high camp, with a highly theatrical performance from Gary Oldman (with tongue firmly in cheek) playing the Count as both an old-time romantic and modern-day ghoul. Let's be clear: Oldman's performance is far from definitive (that honour goes to Christopher Lee), but it is memorable.

Elsewhere, the film is hit and miss. For every hit there's a miss, for every great idea there's one that doesn't work. The art direction and set dressing is top notch, and I appreciate all the artiness of the direction; the stuff in the skies, the blood fountains like something out of Kubrick's THE SHINING, the overblown musical score. Elsewhere, the special effects have dated considerably, particularly Dracula's transformation into a cheesy giant bat. Plus the whole romantic sub-plot drags things down and goes nowhere.

The cast is equally mixed. Anthony Hopkins really gets into the spirit of the thing, delivering a performance loaded with high camp as Van Helsing. Tom Waits's Renfield is arresting, Cary Elwes and Richard E. Grant are fine in minor parts, and somehow Sadie Frost works as the sexually frustrated Lucy. But two of the main parts are given to Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder, and it's clear from the outset that their hearts aren't really in it. They give dejected, dispirited and artificial performances, which isn't great.

Still, with all the gory effects and imaginative interludes on offer, BRAM STOKER'S Dracula is a film that it's hard to dislike. Indeed, when I first saw it as a 14-year-old boy, I loved it to bits. Many years later, it feels deeply flawed, a movie that's all over the place. Coppola's scattershot film-making works in some places and not in others, and it's fair to say this is a bit of a mess. A riotous, entertaining mess, but a mess nonetheless.

Though I did not read the book and can't compare it to the movie, I found Bram Stoker's Dracula quiet excellent. The costume design, lighting, camera work, make-up-fx are all very good and make for a very atmospheric movie.

There are some truly outstanding things in this film.

1, the editing... excellent, I love the way they worked with dissolves, the hypnotic feel they created with the careful editing. Every frame flows in the other, the whole style grabs you and never lets you go... I simply could not turn my eyes off the screen.

2, the acting... Gary Oldman is THE Dracula, IMO. Seductive, strong, bad and scary in his own distinctive way, yet really romantic.

Hopkins is funny as Van Helsing and quiet ironic.

Winona is a great Mina. Beautiful, innocent. She looks great in these Victorian costumes.

Keanu Reeves is not as bad as many of you think. He makes the best of his underwritten character.

3, the Score... haunting, romantic, scary. It works beautiful with the pictures.

I think this movie is a great cinematic achievement and very underrated. It's a shame they don't make movies like that any more.

10/10

After seeing this movie, I feel it is perhaps the best Dracula adaption to date despite some created plot info. The mood the movie sets is absolutely wonderful. However, the story sometimes can lose you until it brings you on track. The added plot info of Dracula having a lost love does work for a little while until Dracula starts to become a tragic villain where you pity him. I personally feel that Keanu Reeves didn't do that bad of a job, but the character he played could have been given to a better actor. All in all, this is the best Dracula adaption and movie to date.

Coppola's take on one of horror's sacred texts was divisive at the time of release; well, I say divisive ... but I'm the only person I remember loving it. But time plays tricks. It's faithful to the text - at least more than most adaptations; in and of itself that's not necessarily a good or bad thing. But Coppola's high-wire act of excess makes it work brilliantly, and it's aged very well ... who knew that the man who made The Godfather could make a good film?

Hopkins and Reeves excepted (whose idea were their interpretations?), there are some terrific performances, and I seriously doubt if Gary Oldman has ever had more fun as an actor than he does here. The almost entirely in-camera approach to visual effects lends the film an otherworldly, chilling air; there are some dazzlingly brilliant transitions that speak to the film's technical mastery. It's not afraid to be many things; camp, funny, exciting, disturbing, erotic, and romantic, all in the right proportions and at the right times. It's also unafraid to make Dracula himself, ultimately, something of the story's romantic hero and to see the events of the story through the female gaze as much as the male.

Ultimately it's one of those films that's imperfect and all the better for it; it has hopelessly high ambitions, but its failure to reach some of them (but by no means all) is still thrilling. You can't possibly be bored.

"Bram Stoker's Dracula" is one of those films that reeled people in by making its audience believe that it would be an intense horror film on par with productions like "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Exorcist". Instead, director Francis Ford Coppola stayed more true to Stoker's novel and put a focus on an intense love story that transcends time, the elements and even life and death. This naturally turned off many horror enthusiasts who would rather see a film that thrives on shock value rather than a movie that thrives on heart, brains and emotion. The film is naturally about the titled character, an immortal man (played superbly by the nearly always exceptional Gary Oldman) who has turned against God and now lives through the powers of darkness. By the late-19th Century, the titled character is trying to lure back a reincarnation of his one true love (Winona Ryder) and of course attempting to eliminate all those that might stand in his way (Ryder's fiance Keanu Reeves and professor Anthony Hopkins most notably). Overall "Dracula" is an amazingly good looking film that benefits from high production values and guaranteed performances (mainly from Oldman and Hopkins). Coppola's direction is strong, but a bit overbearing at times and sometimes it is unclear what the tone of the production truly is. Watch for Italian beauty Monica Bellucci as one of Oldman's beautiful, but deadly wives. 4 stars out of 5.

At some point or other, everyone watches a 'Dracula' film. Some people will remember Bela Lugosi's seminal portrayal of the vampire; others will think of Christopher Lee and the Hammer horrors. Fourteen years ago, the legend behind 'The Godfather' brought us a different, more imaginative type of adaptation. Whilst Coppola doesn't work with Stoker's work as well as Puzo's, his film holds several significant merits. Before I talk about the performances, I must commend the crew members responsible for the make-up, costumes and special effects, as 'Dracula' is a near-unparalleled visual experience. Too often, the people tasked with refining a film, enlivening its characters and placing them within a vibrant environment are forgotten by audiences. The scale of the 'Dracula' crew's feats has secured them a place in the vivid memory of film fans, and should continue to do so for a long time. Equally memorable are some of the performances. Gary Oldman is one of the greatest working actors, and his excellence as Bram Stoker's legendary villain makes Coppola's 'Dracula' worthwhile. The then-recent star of 'The Silence of the Lambs', Anthony Hopkins, delivers a similarly enjoyable performance, although the visual and written restrictions placed on character of Dr Van Helsing prevents him from ever wresting the spotlight from Oldman. Another decent performance is provided by Winona Ryder. I wouldn't place her in the same category as Oldman and Hopkins, but she manages to play a fairly boring part with conviction. Now for the elephant in the room… You could fill the pages of 'War and Peace' with a compilation of criticisms regarding the casting of Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker, and so I won't go into detail on this issue. It should certainly be acknowledged, though, as it has to be one of the worst casting choices to ever take place in a major Hollywood film. The atmosphere developed by Oldman's outstanding acting is awfully diminished in scenes involving Harker, and so Coppola's 'Dracula' never becomes the horror it has the potential to be. The film, probably for this reason, feels longer than its runtime of 128 minutes; at least half an hour longer. It's worth enduring, however, as the inevitable climactic scene does not disappoint. Overall, Coppola's 'Dracula' bears some significant flaws, but accomplishments in visual style and dramatic performance make it a rather enjoyable film.

First of all, sorry for my English: I'm Italian and I don't know if I am able to express not in my language my thoughts with the proper terms. Anyway, I loved this movie, even if I agree that the title should have been F.F.Coppola's Dracula. In fact it is a very personal read of the original script. So, I can understand, but not agree, with all critics about important differences to Bram Stoker's masterpiece. It's a movie you can love or hate, there is no midway, as all comments prove. Personally, I loved the way Coppola reviewed the classic tale, giving Dracula a reason to be what he became after the loss of his wife e to search in England the reincarnation of his lost love. Gary Oldman is absolutely fantastic, lavish, romantic,chilling, in particular as he plays an old Dracula in the beginning of the movie. Definitely the best character of his career until now (let's see how he portrays Churchill in the Darkest Hour). Winona Ryder is so sweet and adorable that I forgive the fact she hasn't been the best choice to play Mina. The other actors (except for Keanu Reeves, completely outcast and unable to act) are all good choices. The music is wonderful, as cinematography, art/set direction, make up and costumes (who cares if Dracula wears John Lennon style sunglasses...). This Dracula is seductive as no other movies ever showed and as no other actor was able to portrait the dark prince. By the way, the choice of Keanu Reeves and some screenplay bad errors and holes don't allow to give a 10. But at the same time I can understand it's not a movie for all tastes. As I already written, you can love or hate it.

It's 1897 and it's been 400 years since he lost his beloved Elisabeta (Winona Ryder). Young lawyer Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) travels to do business with Dracula in Transylvania, but is imprisoned by the Count. Dracula travels to London to seduce Harker's fiancée Mina Murray(also played by Winona Ryder).

Gary Oldman is deliciously evil but Keanu Reeves is well overmatched by his acting counterpart. Winona Ryder is pretty but her role desperately need her sexuality. Director Francis Ford Coppola has created one of the most beautiful lavish Gothic film. It is erotic but it isn't sexy.

The movie looks amazing but it lacks the pace, the tension, and worst of all, it lacks the scares that a real Dracula horror should deliver. Coppola has built a beautiful piece of art, but not a great piece of story.

The most famous vampire in the history of literature and film is brought graphically to life in `Bram Stoker's Dracula,' directed by Francis Ford Coppola, and starring Gary Oldman as the Count from Transylvania. Working from a screenplay (by James Victor Hart) that is a faithful adaptation of the novel, Coppola takes an artistic approach to the material and creates some startling and effective images-- some quite intense and erotic-- to tell the story of Count Dracula and his world of the undead. Unsettling at times, and often shocking, the film is mesmerizing and thoroughly engrossing, delivered with a full palette of colors and shadows that form a backdrop against which the characters so vividly emerge to play out the drama. It's a visual and emotional feast that is satisfying in every respect, beginning with a brief history of Dracula and the circumstances of his life that ultimately allied him with the forces of darkness and evil. Initially, the casting of Gary Oldman as Dracula seemed inauspicious and ill advised; in retrospect, the choice of Oldman was inspired. Though many actors have done the role before and since (Schreck, Lugosi and Lee, just to name a few), Oldman manages to make the character uniquely his own, with a nuanced performance infused with depth and acuity. Even when delivering famous, oft quoted lines from previously filmed versions of the story (Lugosi's `Children of the night, what music they make,' for instance), Oldman makes them spontaneous and fresh, with a conversational tone that makes you feel as if you're hearing them for the first time. His presence is self-assured and menacing, which makes the character strong and intimidating, and you sense his longevity and the dark wisdom afforded him by his many years of existence. There is a fastidiousness about Oldman's methods of inhabiting a character that makes you wonder if there is anything as an actor that is beyond his grasp. At this point, I would think not. As Van Helsing, Anthony Hopkins puts his personal stamp on a well known character as well. His portrayal of the famous professor is zealous and lively, and touched with an eccentricity that makes him an interesting and welcome presence in the film. Winona Ryder, too, gives a believable performance as Mina, a somewhat emotionally challenging role she addresses with the restraint demanded of her by the character. With her dark, winsome looks and natural intensity she is perfect for the part, and displays a femininity that contrasts well with the overt sexuality of Dracula's three `brides.' And Tom Waits gives a memorable performance as the mad, insect-eater, Renfield, as does Sadie Frost, as Lucy, Mina's young and nubile best friend who unwittingly falls prey to Dracula's dark powers. The single member of the cast who seems to struggle a bit with characterization is Keanu Reeves, as Jonathan Harker; he gives a passable performance, but fails to ever get a firm grasp of the character. Still, he has an engaging presence and, though lacking depth, his portrayal is at least credible enough to maintain the continuity of the film. The supporting cast includes Richard E. Grant (Dr. Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Holmwood) and Bill Campbell (Quincey). Exacting in detail and imaginatively rendered, Coppola's `Bram Stoker's Dracula,' is an impressive, memorable film. By boldly juxtaposing images and shadows, embracing the innate sensuality of the vampire, and blending it all together so seamlessly, Coppola has taken his film, not only to the zenith of the horror genre, but beyond. It's a journey into the regions beyond the known, wherein the forces of darkness thrive and survive; a cinematic experience you'll not soon forget, courtesy of Coppola, a superlative cast, and the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.

Its so much better. The costumes, acting, the opulence, score, the tragic beauty of it all. It is a masterpiece of gothic horror. The love between dracula and mina is completely believable and you empathize with them on every level. The colors are sumptuous, the sets invoke the feeling of old fairy tales. The costumes are elaborate masterpieces. The eroticism is instrumental to the story and actually erotic without being cheap. And Gary Oldman is dracula on every level. His voice, face, manners, i just love it all. I am going to view it for the 80399383 time tomorrow just because no remake can match it!

DRACULA gets off to a great start as 15th century Romania finds itself on the front line against muslim hordes charging into Europe leading to a Romanian hero losing the love of his life

That`s the best part of the film . Other good aspects of DRACULA carry on throughout the movie , aspects like the very moody cinematography and the very impressive visual tricks , but there`s things that clog up the works , things like the intrusive ham acting on display . A lot of people have commented on Anthony Hopkins ham performance but I don`t have a problem with it and neither do I have a problem with Gary Oldman`s performance either . I do however have a problem with Sadie Frost`s performance as Lucy and Tom Waits as Renfield , both give over emphatic performances while both Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder are utterly unconvincing as 19th characters from England ,both are miscast and they`re not even bad enough to be entertaining. Francis Ford Coppola`s directing style may lead to accusations of " ham " directing ie over directing but it should be remembered this directing style was very common in the early 1990s and a lot of American directors did this most notably Martin Scorsese and Oliver Stone . I do wish Coppola had more input into the script ( He is one of the best and most under rated screenwriters Hollywood has produced ) because the one here by James V Hart isn`t all that good . The dialogue isn`t memorable and in several scenes , especially romantic ones , it`s rather corny . It`s also rather over long and not very well paced , but I`m led to believe Bram Stoker`s novel is badly structured but even so that`s no excuse

This version of Dracula has its moments but it`s never the sum of its parts. It`s probably Coppola`s best film since APOCALYPSE NOW but can anyone name me a good film he`s made since the surreal `Nam epic ?