A wealthy San Francisco socialite pursues a potential boyfriend to a small Northern California town that slowly takes a turn for the bizarre when birds of all kinds suddenly begin to attack people there in increasing numbers and with increasing viciousness.
The Egyptian vampire lady Miriam subsists upon the blood of her lovers. In return the guys or girls don't age... until Miriam has enough of them. Unfortunately that's currently the case ... See full summary »
Marie has two appetites, sex and blood. Her career as a vampire is going along fine until two problems come up, she is interrupted while feeding on Sal (the shark) Macelli and she begins to... See full summary »
This version of Dracula is closely based on Bram Stoker's classic novel of the same name. A young lawyer (Jonathan Harker) is assigned to a gloomy village in the mists of eastern Europe. He is captured and imprisoned by the undead vampire Dracula, who travels to London, inspired by a photograph of Harker's betrothed, Mina Murray. In Britain, Dracula begins a reign of seduction and terror, draining the life from Mina's closest friend, Lucy Westenra. Lucy's friends gather together to try to drive Dracula away. Written by
The scene of Lucy (Sadie Frost) getting back into her coffin in the underground crypt was shot in reverse to give it an eerie quality. See more »
The glass lid on Lucy's coffin disappears midway through the scene. When the men look into the coffin, the lid is present, but when Lucy walks over to the coffin, she gets in without having to open the lid. See more »
It is called "Bram Stoker's Dracula." The title is deceiving.
This film is an incoherent mess, to put it rather bluntly.
The effects, which look beautiful, only take away from the story-- you forget that this is a vampire movie and you are left with an impression that it is a special effects promo. And for crying out loud, what is with that tagline "Love Never Dies?" This film has taken a classic story and mutated it into a romance. Granted, there were huge romantic elements in the original Dracula-- the gothic horror classics such as it and Frankenstein flowed elegantly like poetry, and romance was used. But this film has taken something that Bram Stoker never intended and made it the key focus: Mina is now a riencarnation of a lover who Dracula lost while still Vlad the Impaler, and the whole film is basically an endless trek as they find each other and rediscover their lost love. OOOOKAY!
As far as events in the book goes, it is pretty accurate, but that's not the point. The point is, they completely changed the focus on some kind of unnesseccary love story. If Coppola had made the film an accurate account of the legend, it would have worked great. If he had changed the title from "Bram Stoker's", I might have liked it a little better (Even though the endless effects, as I have mentioned, made it mind-numbing and incoherent). Instead, it is only boring, tedious, and an insult to everything Bram Stoker hoped to accomplish. Poor Mr. Stoker....If he knew such trash like this would come out of his work, I'm sure he would have never written it.
If you want to see a good Dracula film, watch the Klause Kinski version of Nosferatu. It certainly isn't faithful to the novel, but at least it doesn't PRETEND to be, like this sorry excuse for a Dracula epic does.
I would give this film a negative two hundred on a scale of one to ten, if not for Anthony Hopkin's brilliant performance as Van Helsing. Truly, he's the only brillaint thing about it.
43 of 74 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?