On B List of Movie Reviews

(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)


Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Rate: 8
Viewed: 1/05, 11/06, 12/12, 11/16

Dracula92
11/06: Jeez, there's not a single decent performance from this turd of a picture.

Bram Stoker's Dracula is weighed down by the ineptitude of the cast trying to achieve naturalism or stay faithful to their characters based on the book.

Anthony Hopkins acts like the pompous jackass that he always has been. Winona Ryder overdoes the drama. Cary Elwes looks like he doesn't belong. Neither does Keanu Reeves. Gary Oldman tries to turn every scene into an Oscar-winning clip, and the ugly red-headed girl wants to make me believe she's the most beautiful of them all.

It makes me wonder, by replacing the all-star cast with low-key players, that Bram Stoker's Dracula will look better as a result. Or perhaps, in true Godfather fashion, we can go with Marlon Brando as Van Helsing; Robert De Niro, James Caan, and Al Pacino as Lucy's suitors; Sofia Coppola as Mina; and Nicolas Cage as Count Dracula.

Meanwhile, there's a lot of information that's left out from the book which is crucial to the buildup of the story; hence, I feel cheated at times. However, it does have delicious cinematography, being exactly how I imagined some of the key scenes from the book.

All in all, what a silly picture Bram Stoker's Dracula is.

12/12: Okay, my opinion of Bram Stoker's Dracula is now improved, and I think it's not bad at all.

The performances are good enough to float the picture, but I can't tell if Gary Oldman was overdoing his part to try to win the Oscar. Nevertheless, he's the central figure of the story and is the reason why the film works. I like to revisit it plenty of times because of Michael Ballhaus' lush cinematography.

All in all, Bram Stoker's Dracula may be the best film adaptation although it doesn't capture everything in the book.

11/16: Bram Stoker's Dracula is the most faithful adaptation of the book.

There are scenes that capture the pivotal moments very well. I feel like everybody had understood the spirit of the penned story. The other is Michael Ballhaus' rich cinematography that's blended with the fantastic-looking visual effects. In fact, if you took them away, the high replayability value would be lost. Hence, he should've received an Oscar nomination for his work.

The cast isn't bad; they, even down to Keanu Reeves, are whom I imagined the characters to be. However, the acting, especially from Winona Ryder, can be slightly unconvincing at times. I just don't see how her character loves Dracula. Anthony Hopkins (who also plays the priest telling Dracula that Elizabeta's soul was damned) gives a bizarre rendition of Dr. Abraham Van Helsing.

Gary Oldman, as much as I dislike him, gives the best performance of the show although he tends to go overboard. Notwithstanding the fact that they never got along on the set, he did make Winona look good, so she has to give him credit.

All in all, although it's not possible to capture everything in two hours, Bram Stoker's Dracula does the book justice.