From history of Dracula and his revenge against the god are interesting.Then all the properties such as fog,mirror are showned somewhere.Anthony Hopkins played important role to kill the Dracula and one question may arise when he clearing the three female vampires in the climax it showned as his shadow hurt by those vampires,how it is possible? vampires having no shadows.Dracula affection on his lover so nice .

You know, I just love them Dracula flicks, but there was something wrong with this one. For me, it was Gary Oldman, who played Dracula like some old homosexual, not the suave and debonair Dracula of old. Dracula is suppose to be charming and alluring, like the spider in the web, pulling his victims into his lair. Not some freaky dude painted white with a wig that looks like someones butt stuck on his head. Winona Ryder is very attractive in her role and worth watching the film for. But Gary Oldman, even when he loses his butt wig, is annoying.

This is arguably the best vampire movie of all time. Dracula is CREEPY AS #&^@ IN THIS FILM!! By the time the film ended, my nerves were shot. And that doesn't change no matter how many times I see it.

Very good visuals and as commented by others, a very good adaptation of Bram Stoker's work.

Let's be fair here, has anyone ever read Bram Stoker's Dracula before watching this movie? Cause if you did, you would know the movie is really close to what he wrote, and ok, you don't like the actors? I personally thought this was a good attempt to stay true to Bram Stoker and was thrilled with the acting. You are supposed to think Harker is a wuss, he was, you are supposed to think Mina is wishywashy, she was! Try reading the original sometime and give them a break!

Pretty good flick that at actually tries to follow the original book.At least Dracula is creepy in this instead of romanticized and prettied up for Hollywood.

I believe this is one of the greatest dracula movies of all time! It was perfect...in gore and the story line. I could have done with out a few things but no movie is perfect. Besides who doen't get turned on by vampire movies?? Give me a show of hands...

Like almost all of Coppola's movies of the past 25 years, this one was interesting to look at, and had some great actors in it, but was ultimately empty and soulless. First off, Dracula was written as a horror story, not some half-assed romance. If I want a love story, I'll watch Romeo and Juliet or Thelma and Louise. I don't say there's anything wrong with altering a story so that it conforms more closely to the personal vision of the person making the film based on that story, but if you're going to title your work Bram Stoker's Dracula why would you eliminate 90% of what made Stoker's novel so effective in the first place? Just what the world needs...another dull, romantic Victorian soap-opera dressed up in the trappings of a vampire story (or Penny Dreadful as they might have called it in Stoker's own time). Isn't that what eventually killed the whole Hammer franchise in England, this forsaking of horror in the interests of some plotline dealing with tepid, insipid love? I liked the scenery in this movie, the atmosphere, and I love the cast (Keanu Reeves isn't a very interesting actor, but then the character of Jonathan Harker isn't all that interesting a role; let's be fair) but even the best cast can't turn a piece of chicken-s**t into chicken-salad.

It must have been someone's birthday because it was as if the casting department started the day out sober (this would be when they selected Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins) and by the time they got around to Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder they were so drunk they just said sure, why not - more beer! Otherwise this was a generally crappy and weird adaption of the classic tale that had only one redeeming virtue that appealed to me personally - really great looking costumes. But, it just wasn't quite enough.

Even the presence of Hopkins can't salvage this naff film. The attempt at the accents are laughable. Quite simply a farce.

I've always liked this movie. Cheesy acting and all. Winona's hot.

I agree with many of the others here who were dissappointed with Reaves & Ryder's acting. Both are beautiful people (what a shame) but there acting here lacks element. Oldman and Hopkins are decent. The visuals are good, and I like that they tried to stick to the original. A bit long at times, but a good vampire flick.

Ok but not great. Gary Oldman is the best thing about the whole film.

This film was laughably bad. Highly overrated, it was a schmaltzy attempt at classic horror that failed miserably. Keanu Reeves as a Brit...you must be joking. His accent was painful to listen to. Winona Ryder gave a breathy, unbelievable performance as Mina. The only reason this film gets an extra star is because Gary Oldman played Dracula. However even his quality work could save this disaster. The good cinematography was overwhelmed by bad effects and poor writing. Not worth watching.

I love Movies about Vampires and Dracula is a great classic Bela Lugosi is just the perfect person to play Dracula and he's a wonderful actor!! I love this movie and never will get tired of watching this! It good ole wonderful black-and-white!! it has a memorable eerie feeling when Dracula attacks!!! and that's what makes this a memorable great movie!!! it's an absolute masterpiece and it will be forever!!

Good visualizatio, but not true to Stokers work and the two lead characters should have been cast with other more experienced, capable actors. (No wonder Romanians didn't want and Dracula movies/books in their country). Gary Oldman was definately the best asset of this film. Coppola did a great job with the cinematography, nice to watch, but he missed some other parts of the movie that could have made it a timeless peice.

Over-rated.

I loved this movie. I'll watch anything about Dracula, or vampires. I was not impressed with Reeves, or Ryder... bad casting. But Oldman... wow. what else can I say. Truly a magnificent actor. Sir Anthony Hopkins's supporting role was great.. couldnt think of seeing anyone else in this role. My favorite part of this movie is the opening sequence. The beginnings of Dracula.. really well done. The costumes were ok, nothing to wave an Oscar at. I haven't seen a great Dracula movie since the 1980's version with Frank Langella... wow, his eyes will hypnotize you. He portrayed Dracula as he should be... Romantic, not Monserous. Otherwise, good movie, worth seeing.

Disappointing at best...

Wonderful retelling of the Dracula legend. With the exception of Keanu Reeves, the acting was exceptional. If only they had got someone else to play Harker. Oh well, you can't have it all. Anyway, the production values are wonderful, and the sets are unreal.

Sorry folks, but this movie sucked. Hey, I love Francis Ford Coppola and Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder as much as anyone out there, but this was just bad. The costumes were terrible (excepting, of course, that see-through nightgown of Ms. Ryders), the acting was not very good and it BOMBED in the theaters. This has no business making this list so high, as it was a forgettable piece of junk.

This movie was bad to the point of being offensive. And what is the idea of making Dracula's head look like a big powdered butt? I feel like I wasted my time. The only redeeming value is that I can advise people not to watch it.

One of my favorites. Although I think Keanu sux in just about everything he does and I also think the same about Wynona Ryder, the movie had such a great script and Gary Oldman is an incredible actor, that it was worth seeing at the theatre. Copola did an excellent job of direction (look what he had to struggle w/ though).

A beautifully shot film that is mildly lacking in story and acting credit. The original story of Bram Stoker's Dracula is a very romantic story. Francis Ford Coppola has turned this classic story into more of a modern slasher vampire yarn. The romance is watered down to the point of transparency. Gary Oldman gives one of his best performances as Dracula. His performance is hypnotizing it is imposable to keep your eyes off of him. He inhabits his character so well, so perfectly you forget you are watching a fictional character. Anthony Hopkin's gives a swell performance, not one of his most memorable but still well acted and I couldn't see anyone else in the part. Wynona Rider, what can I say. Another blah performance from the queen of cute hollow acting. She doesn't quit fit the mold of this character and never really transforms. We never see the termoil she is going through. Then, of course, the biggest poo performance in this film (drum role please...) KEANU REEVES! What a dink! Every scene with this kid seems to just drag like a transexual on a Saturday night. Keanu has no buisness even being in the same flick as Gary Oldman. But, despite these short comings in the film, it is made up for by a strong supporting cast and interesting, artful directing and cinematography. Beautiful to watch even if the acting is whatever. Still recommended. Go see it if you are a fan of any of the actors in it or if you are a fan of well orchestrated horror films. A treat for the eyes.

To enjoy Bram Stoker's Dracula, you have to be in the mood for a dark and gothic movie. You may or may not enjoy it, because it doesn't follow through Bram's original story, it instead in fact changes the storyline, and makes Dracula seem like a nice person.

If you have not read the original unabridged work by Bram Stoker I suggest that you do. It is a romance, not a horror story. The terror is merely the background, but as for this movie I would have to say that Reeves needed to be removed completely. Winona Ryder on the other hand I thought came off exactly the way she needed to. She held her acting at a certain level in order to give grace to the story. I feel that when I see her playing the role of Mina Harker that she truly grasped the characters torn essence between two men. One she loves, and one she use to love and finds that she loves him again. Ryder, I thought, looked enchanting and seductive portrayed through her devious forte as a superior actress. Gary Oldman, probably the most 'real' actor in Hollywood right now, once again pleased me, but still I sensed that he could have pulled himself into the role more.

This movie is very close to the book as far as plot and story. The special effects were great. The suspense was appealing.

Visually stunning, but poorly written and horribly acted. Keanu and Winona were miscast. They can't do the accents!

Pretty incredible special effects/makeup effects etc. but I gotta say unless I'm making a mistake here this was the film with Keanu (sp?) Reeves and was it Wynona Ryder? Oh man is Keanu a terrible actor when he's forced to portray a moment where he's just done something other than sprint after a bus or person? I think if he's not out of breath he just has no idea what he's supposed to sound like. Wynona---- well I think she's kinda sucks too. Sorry. She does have her roles but she should know better than to try and over extend herself into REAL acting. Stick with the Heathers and Reality Bites type films.

What an excellent movie! I don't think I would classify it as horror, but the costumes, acting, and music were fantastic. I even have the t-shirt. I highly recommend this movie for any vampire afficianado.