Very best movie i ever watch

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The '90s version of Prince of Darkness comes indeed closer to the original book than perhaps the more iconic Lugosi or Lee versions of the Count! Highly stylish and visually superb in every way(well let's forgive the silly hair of the old Bat?) Small shortcomings like the wooden acting of Keanu Reeves can easily be overlooked as this is definitely one of the best, most atmospheric and entertaining versions of the famous tale that also happens to be truer to the source material than many others!

Movie Review: "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992)Marking the picture's 25th anniversary of Director Francis Ford Coppola, given full creative freedom at Hollywood Major Columbia Pictures, to fulfill a life-time's dream of adapting the classic Gothic tale of Count Vlad Dracul from 1897 written by author Bram Stoker (1847-1912), brought to the screen in extraordinary enriching visuals, tension-tweaking sound design and emotional-perfectly received score by composer Wojciech Kilar (1932-2013) of further splendid production design by Tom Sanders (1953-2017) accompanied by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus (1935-2017) best work of light and shadow.The cast in its striking resemblance with actor Gary Oldman as Count Dracula, ranching from a young ranging warrior in middle ages wars with the Ottoman Empire in the deepest region of Eastern Europe, defeated armies in back-lit red ambiance of the epic epilogue to an unnaturally old age with Academy-Award winning make-up effects; powers due to his uncompromising love to princess Elisabeta, innocently-convincing performed by actress Winona Ryder at the age of 20, who's character ends her life due to false notice of the enemy of her husband's death, which makes Count Vlad Dracul renounce his belief into the Christian church to become Count Dracula for the centuries to come.The suspense has nothing lost of its initial stroke with supporting characters as real estate agent Jonathan Harker, portrayed no less convincing Keanu Reeves, who fills the spot of an older real state agent, already in a mental institution due to his encounter with Count Dracula and his brides of terror, here given face by acting-talented musician Tom Waits. Further cast members as late-arriving actor Sir Anthony Hopkins, performing as notorious Professor Van Helsing, steals the scene with utmost of ease and professionalism in his performance as vampire hunter, leading the avenging party of confronting Count Dracula in classical-set London in times of industrialization at the turn of the 20th century.The love story between reincarnated Elisabeta into the character of Mina Murray, financée to Jonathan Harker, goes on a journey toward a coming-of-age by falling for the rejuvenated Count Dracula on a busy London street; continuing followings into a movie-projecting etablissment, where Director Francis Ford Coppola unfolds the strongest scenes of a gently-growing relationship with leather gloves in color forces of overall dark green and red between an unless menacingly-hurt and power-drunken as to say demon-forced man, who finds his emotions uncovered to embrace instead of kill another human being, before the price of the encountering bliss becomes an highly accelerated showdown back to breeding grounds of Transylvania in this timeless tale of Horror and beauty to redeem a forfeited life in death.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

This movie is both easy to describe, and yet difficult as well. I say this because while I like many of the design elements, the music, and some of the performances...the story and most scenes are outright horrible. They're far too explicit compared to the novel, and many scenes in this film have no place in Stoker's work at all. As I understand it, Francis Ford Coppola placed the author's name in the title to avoid either confusion or a lawsuit with Universal Pictures, owners of the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi. Nonetheless, this film represents Coppola's desire for a Dracula story much more than Stoker's...so the director should have used his own name instead.How to criticize this film beyond the title - oh, let me Count the ways (pun fully intended). First, Dracula's existence as a vampire is shown to be the result of him renouncing God after his wife commits suicide, and driving his sword into a large Christian cross...which gushes blood that Dracula then drinks. He even tells the priests in that scene, "I shall rise from my own death, to avenge hers with all the powers of darkness." That's some seriously messed up spirituality to begin with, and it appears nowhere in Stoker's book.Second is the depiction of Mina Murray, as a reincarnation of Dracula's wife centuries later. Coppola's version of Dracula is motivated completely by this, in spite of the fact Stoker never wrote it either. More changes include Dracula's beast form attacking and having sex with Lucy, and Dracula giving his brides an innocent baby...presumably to eat or defile sexually. The writers were sicker with these inventions than Stoker ever was, and Coppola's a fool for supporting it.Another element in the film is very common to adaptations of the story, yet it appears nowhere in the novel. That element is the idea of Dracula being an undead or cursed Vlad Tepes, a 15th-century prince of Wallachia. This is a very popular myth which has persisted thanks to Hollywood, but again Stoker never equated Dracula with Vlad.Aside from the excessive sexual, Satanic, and gory elements in the movie, there's actually a very talented cast in it. Gary Oldman has done phenomenal work through his career, as has Anthony Hopkins. Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were fairly well-known in 1992, but had not yet reached superstar status. Billy Campbell's main role prior to this film was "The Rocketeer" for Disney, a perennial favorite of mine. Cary Elwes had done "The Princess Bride", which remains his most popular role 30 years later. But all these fine actors were wasted on a tale that, in spite of bearing Stoker's name, has only the slightest commonalities with the book.If you're going to adapt someone's work, and use their name in the title...keep your film as close to the source as possible. This movie is a violation of Stoker's book in so many forms, the title being the least one. There's so much here that is absolutely horrendous; I'm surprised Stoker's estate didn't sue Coppola and American Zoetrope.

On the run-up to Halloween 2017, I once again watched this movie which was being shown on TV. Apart from the aforementioned superb Mr. Oldman, who manages to imbue his portrayal of Dracula with pathos as well as menace, the rest of the cast are clearly hell-bent (no pun intended) on over-acting each other off the screen. By far the worst, hammy and intensely irritating performance comes from Sadie Frost with a badly miscast Keanu Reeves coming in a very close second. I am afraid that Winona Ryder does not fare much better, and quite why Sir Anthony Hopkins involved himself in this movie miasma is beyond me.The special effects which, at the time were state of the art, now seem a bit rickety.What should have been a classic for all the right reasons has become a classic for all the wrong ones. What a missed opportunity.