eShop USA > DVD > Bram Stoker's Dracula
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Customer Reviews
Rating:  - Get this edition quick.
I had purchased the new Special Edition of this film and was horrified to find it lacking in quality. This Superbit Edition may not have the extras of the new release but it hands above the the new one. Color and clarity out shine the newer release. The Special Edition is dark and colorless. I saw this film in the theatre and it's didn't look like the Special Edition. I also owned the old Laser release and it too look good. It's really sad that SONY/Columbia re-mastered the film in hi-def (Blu-ray) and it looks so bad. When I tried to get this Superbit Edition at my local store I was told it was taken off the shelves and sent back due to the newer Special Edition. I was lucky enough to find in on Amazon. It was sent out quickly and arrived fast.
Rating:  - Great Upgrade to a Classic
Having not watched this movie in almost 10 years I was excited to see how it would look in Blu-ray.
I wasn't disappointed. Maybe it's just me but I get a kick out of watching movies that claim to be made in the old style of film making. This movie is great to watch in High Def because it almost draws out the old style filming tricks (if you know where to look for them).
The transfer to Blu-ray is really great. Color pops where it is supposed to and blacks are just that, black.
The extras are all in high def which is a huge plus.
It was fun to relive the (almost) cheesy acting of all involved. If you don't have this movie in your collection and you have a Blu-ray player I would totally recommend you get this.
Rating: - Not nearly as bad as everyone's making it out to be
I just watched this last night and have read many of the reviews of this transfer being too dark due to Coppola's desire to give the film his original intended look. Is it very dark? Yes, it is. It's clearly noticeable. However, my wife and I actually liked it. We thought it lent a darker, more eerie, aspect to the film. The quality of the film is great though and is certainly hi-def quality. Most scenes are sharp and clear and we'd actually noticed things we hadn't before and we've each seen the film plenty of times. Die hard fans of the film will likely be upset by the change and I can understand that especially when you are so familiar with the films look. When viewing the movie you can easily see how dark it is especially in the blacks. Black are VERY black, basically matte black (ie. flat black with no detail). The movie looks kinda like up'ing the contrast and lowering the brightness. Outside of that though we enjoyed the picture quality and the surround sound was used phenomenally. Overall, if you're a die hard fan you may want to rent it before buying as it will come down to personal preference. The sharpness and clarity of hi-def are clearly there, but the movie is darker and the color of some scenes have changed dramatically. We thought it was well done and worth the purchase.
Rating:  - 3.25 STARS: "I condemn you to living death, to eternal hunger for living blood!" -Count Dracula
The movie entitled "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is strangely enough mistakenly titled given its clear deviations from Bram Stoker's novel. After I watched this movie, I was surprised by this fact. However, the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is certainly not a complete waste of time. In fact, this version of "Dracula" is quite entertaining, if you can labor through the fabricated romance parts. Sometimes, one comes across a movie that has both good things and some bad things about it. This fact makes the review somewhat difficult...such is the case with "Bram Stoker's Dracula".
To its credit, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" goes along with some of the main parts of the plot of the novel itself, but obviously not enough of them to hold true to its name. Johnathan Harker, an attorney, visits Dracula in Transylvania to close some real estate transactions. Dracula has purchased Carfax Abbey in England. Dracula forces Harker to remain in his castle longer than Harker wishes. Eventually, Dracula leaves for England with Harker left behind. However, when Dracula gets to England, things begin to deviate from the novel.
The most noticeable deviation of this movie from the novel is the lovelorn and romantic Dracula that we unfortunately get in this movie. Now, you see this with many of the Dracula movies, but these movies are largely inferior to the purer versions due to this fabrication. Call me unromantic, but this fabricated and forced love story was way too drawn out and took up way too much time in the movie itself. Consequently, as a horror movie, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" suffers as a whole. The love story seemed to drown the thrust of Dracula's story in a dull and baseless love story.
One cannot help but be annoyed by the fabricated and far-fetched love story that this movie strains and labors so hard to create. Unfortunately, it inevitably reduces the vileness of the beast that is Count Dracula, and takes away from the horror this movie attempts to create. After all, if a creature is capable of love, then he is not all bad, right? Well, as many of this know, this idea is certainly not in harmony with Bram Stoker's novel.
As another point of criticism, I thought it strange that this version of Dracula would dispense with many of the traditional rules of vampirism as well, e.g., vampire out in the daylight, steel stakes instead of wood, big bouie knives instead of stakes, etc., etc.
Nevertheless, with those significant criticism aside, I thought "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was a success on other levels. The acting was by and large very good in this movie, especially Anthony Hopkins in his role as Van Helsing. Anthony Hopkins was able to insert his personality quite well into the character of Van Helsing, although I found Frank Finlay's and Laurence Olivier's performances as Van Helsing to be more compelling than that of Hopkins. That being said, that is hardly a knock on Hopkins who did do a fantastic job as Van Helsing in this film, no doubt about it!
Surprisingly, a miscasted Keanu Reeves performed as well as he possibly could as Johnathan Harker, and Gary Oldman had some fine moments as Dracula at times, although his performance seemed wasted at times as it was so focused on the fabricated and forced love story that the creators of this movie unfortunately felt was so necessary. The rest of the cast was sufficient as well.
Perhaps what is best about "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (if you can even call it that) was the amazing visual effects and images that you get in this movie. The director and company did an outstanding job with the visual effects, including the scenery, the use of colors, and especially the setting in general. Indeed, all of these things went into creating a good and creepy atmosphere for this movie. The special effects were also pretty good, and there is plenty of blood to go around. To this movie's credit, there are quite a few haunting and harrowing images during certain scenes that the creators of this movie did so very well with, and this, along with the acting, is what this version of "Dracula" has to hang its hat on at the end of the day. The story, notwithstanding its flaws, was executed quite well, overall. However, I thought the ending was rather abrupt, but that is the way "Dracula" was intended I believe. After all, it is probably the best they could do within the confines of the story.
Overall, this is a pretty good "Dracula" movie that is highly entertaining, but the main criticism remains its deviations from the novel itself. Seriously, you should not call your movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and then have so many deviations from the novel itself. It does not make much sense. The fabricated, elongated, and at times, painfully annoying and boring love story really brings this movie down from the four stars it should have gotten. Certainly, with all its faults, this movie is not the best "Dracula" ever made. That honor would reside with the 1977 version of "Dracula" starring Louis Jourdan no less. That said, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is certainly not the worst "Dracula" movie ever either.
"Bram Stoker's Dracula" is actually an entertaining "Dracula" movie that earns 3.25 STARS which represents a rich, colorful and dramatic adaptation of the novel that is also a good and sound horror movie about the infamous vampire, but unfortunately flawed due to some unfortunate and disappointing deviations in plot from the novel itself. That being said, the flaws of "Bram Stoker's Dracula" are certainly not enough to keep this movie from being an enjoyable movie watching experience for those that appreciate "Dracula" and vampire movies like myself.
Rating: - Dracula as the romanitc.
Coppola focuses on the heartbreak and romance of Dracula in this appealing rendition of Stoker's classic tale. The ever professional Gary Oldman as the beleaguered and lovelorn blood guzzler is the best performance in the film. Overall it's worth the watch for vampire film aficionados. The Good - Oldman, The Bad - Winona's accent, The Ugly - Keanu Reeves' accent, and its like he's not even trying!
Featured Listmania!
| |
 |
