When i saw this movie years ago i liked it but i thought it was more romantic than horror. The cast was great especially Anthony Hopkins & Winona Ryder. Gary Oldman wasn't bad but if he looked creepier in the London scenes(he looked too innocent for Dracula). After reading the novel i came to the conclusion that the movie had no right to be called "Bram Stoker's" Dracula. If they had stuck to the original story it would have been better. They told the same story up till the first 5 or six chapters. The violence was ok it "is" a horror movie about vampires it has to have blood. Anyway the movie's gonna take you 3 hours to watch, the book three days to read. Do both then draw your own conclusions.
Review of Bram Stoker's Dracula
