Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

cricketbat Dracula was disappointing. The filmmakers spend so much time focusing on visual effects (which were impressive), that other areas of the movie suffer. Most of the performances are either flat (*cough*Keanu*cough*) or over the top, and the film itself seems disjointed. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer Tod Browning's Dracula or F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu to Coppola's attempt at Bram Stoker's novel.

David del Real -------Dracula.-------A 9.6 but not a 10++.I am giving ten well deserved stars to this version of Dracula as it is without any doubt the best adaptation of the Abraham (Bram) Stoker´s book to the big screen. Nonetheless, it´s a 9.5 or 9.6 star movie that become ten when you round and not a 10+ or 10++ because if this movie has any defect at all is that in the moments when Dracula does not appear, the tension falls dramatically, which is also applicable to some moments when Dracula appears in his human form during daytime; and it is actually a defect that it maybe shares with the book it came from. Nevertheless, I think that this wasn´t necessarily a defect 100 and something years ago when Stoker wrote his novel, as life was slower in those days and there was no TV, movies or internet. Actually if you ever read the first chapter of the original Bram Stoker´s Dracula, you will be amazed how in some few pages, the author teaches you a little bit of many things at the same time that he tells you the first part of the story. He teaches you a little bit of gastronomy, a little bit of geography, a little bit of mythology and even a little bit of German and other languages. Nonetheless, when the story advances you keep wanting less details and more action.Thanks for reading.IMDb Review written by David del Real.2018.

zed-stronger this was a complete disgrace to the novel by bram stoker . story 1/10 cast 3/10 the movie 1/10 or less . the original novel was not sexual at all.all the characters were noble and respectable.it's like a parody or something close to it . i really wish if they remake a new one

tomasdavisd In giving an image to a story written on a book, I suppose there's a very complex difficulty with interpretation. Everyone has a different conception of characters as described in books: we all build the image that best suits the given description by the author, using as many resources as we possess.But in Coppola's film, it is just too extravagant, too excessive. If looked through the filter of Bram Stoker's novel –considering the title of the movie itself declares to be loyal to the author's name, I don't find other filters to be more accurate–, the image portrayed by Coppola is a disgrace.I must say that the story-line is quite complete and does not contain unnecessary changes such as in Browning's version (1931) or in Herzog's (1979), regarding who leads the actions. What these two lack in story-line, Coppola's lacks in image (or exceeds in it and takes it off track). Characters like Jonathan Harker, Quincey Morris and Abraham Van Helsing in Coppola's version are quite well-made; while Lucy Westenra is a complete disaster.