Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

"Bram Stoker's Dracula" or, more properly, "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula"? The assumption was that the title was chosen to stake a claim to being the film adaptation closest to Bram Stoker's original gothic novel, but the reason was more mundane. Another studio had the rights to the title "Dracula," so a qualification was necessary. Since this 1992 horror film would have the same characters along with the same general plotline as the novel, this seemed reasonable enough. But screenwriter James V. Hart added a significant element to Stoker's novel that justified the movie's potent tagline, "Love Never Dies." As director, Francis Ford Coppola provides the stylistic flourishes, which are this movie's best parts, but Hart is the one who is responsible for the derivations.

In the novel Count Dracula only makes vague reference to the historical Vlad the Impaler, son of the prince known as Dracul (the Dragon), hence the name Dracula (son of the Dragon), when he tells his guest Jonathan Harker of the history of his family. Hart takes advantage of what we know about the historical figure to craft the film's prologue. Vlad (Gary Oldman) is fighting the Turkish invaders, not simply as a prince of Wallachia, but rather as more of a true Christian knight. He succeeds, but the exaggerated rumor of his death reaches his beloved Elisabeta (Winona Ryder), who throws herself to her death from the castle walls. As a suicide she cannot be buried on consecrated ground, and an outraged Vlad renounces God and is somehow transmorgraphies into a vampire as a result of his blasphemy. Then we get to the beginning of the novel.

Harker (Keanu Reeves) is traveling to Transylvania to Dracula's castle to complete a series of real estate transactions that will allow the Count to come to London and live in style. Something not very nice happened to the previous member of Harker's firm to make this trip (can you say Renfield?), but the old Count only seems eccentric. However, when he sees a picture of Harker's fiancée, Mina Harker (Ryder), the Count knows that she is the reincarnation of his beloved Elisabeta. Now Dracula has reason to not only travel to London, but to make himself young again so that he can woo his woman.

Once we move from Transylvania to London, we meet the rest of our cast of characters. Mina's best friend, Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), is being courted by Dr. Jack Seward (Richard E. Grant), who runs his own little asylum, Lord Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes), a handsome nobleman, and Quincey P. Morris (Bill Campbell), who hails from the American West. However, before Lucy can choose from amongst her beaus, she becomes the new bride of Dracula instead. Fortunately, Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) knows more about medicine than what is found in science books and knows what is to be done in this situation. Meanwhile, Count Dracula manages to run into Miss Mina, and the seduction is on.

The production design on this film is fantastic. When it first came out on DVD I would use it as a prime example of what could be down with sets and decor: Thomas E. Sanders and Garrett Lewis were nominated for an Oscar. The film won Oscars for Eiko Ishioka's Costume Design, and the Makeup of Greg Cannom, Michèle Burke and Matthew W. Mungle, as well as the Sound Effects Editing by Tom C. McCarthy and David E. Stone. Cinematographer Michael Ballhaus deserves to be mentioned despite similar notice. The bottom line is that this is a great looking film, which is one of the things we come to expect in Coppola's work.

Oldman's performance as Dracula is interesting. Given all the actors who have come before from Max Schreck and Bela Lugosi to Christopher Lee and Frank Langella, it is hard to stake out new ground in the role. But Oldman bases his characterization on not only the romantic but also the tragic elements of this particular Dracula. Unfortunately, the performances of the cast are the weakest part of the film. Reeves is far and away the most wooden, but Ryder does not create a woman worth waiting for as far as I am concerned, which is the true weakest point of the film. Hopkins follows Laurence Olivier in the Van Helsing role and in a similar vein creates an eccentric ethnic know-it-all who spends a lot of time basically telling the gang of fearful vampire slayers to shut up and do what he says.

When "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is over you will be struck by how gorgeous the film is from start to finish. That will make up for so many of the actors being as wooden as the stakes used to dispatch the vampires. Hart's twist on the tale helps improve Stoker's original ending, which was basically a race to kill Dracula before the sun sets. The tragic element established by the prologue is adequately played out in the ending. This film might be another example of the triumph of style over substance, but given the depths that some vampire movies can reach, it is nice to have one that aspires to such artistic pretensions.

When I first saw this film I was completely carried away with Francis Ford Coppola's dark and brooding presentation of the novel that created the modern vampire. The visual composition, the use of color as theme, and the music overloaded my senses to the point that I barely noted the movement of the plot. After all, I had read Stoker's tale often enough to recite it word for word. Why pay too much attention? Going back over the film 10 years later revealed much that I missed the first time.

Of course, the film really tries to capture the feeling of the book rather than be a literal copy, which may bother some aficionados. Coppola has chosen to gradually shift emphasis from a horror tale to the tragic story of an impossible love, without ever losing either thread. By shifting Dracula (Gary Oldman) back and forth from Rumanian hero to terrible monster, and allowing each persona to have its emotional context, he forces a foreboding dilemma on the viewer. Dialog and narration is sparse, just enough rather than florid. Again, nothing is allowed to distract from the building tension.

What completely escaped me on the first viewing was Coppola's vision of a creeping corruption that infects almost all of the characters. British social mores fare little better than those of the vampires. Jack Seward (Richard Grant) is a morphine addict and Lucy Westenra's (Sadie Frost) sexual intensity proves her Achilles heel. Even Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) is subject to eerie, almost degenerate moments. This is a less pure, more disturbing world than that of Bram Stoker's imaginings.

Coppola keeps the film working on many levels foreboding horror, grand romance, sharp social commentary, and transcendental morality play. If love redeems, it only does so at a terrible price. Well worth viewing several times.

Buy Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Now

Not since Bela Lugosi has there been a Dracula this sexy, handsome, ugly, lovelorn and pure evil at the same time. Whether portraying the young count in the 16th century or playing himself as a late 19th century ogre of a man with a big white bufont hairdo (with a handsome window's peak to boot) and Edward Scissorhands fingernails, Oldman makes this film what it is. His acting is exquistite as the tortured soul who longs after his lost love and lusts after the taste of human blood.

Post-Lagosi vampires in cinema have always seemed to get the best of the good guys, but in this film taken from Stoker's 19th century novel, good does triumph over evil. Copola endeavored to stick with older cinema effects and he did a superb job. There are some scenes that you will never forget ... a marriage between simple effects and creativity gone wild... especially when the elder count's shadow acts on its own accord. More suave than gory, but there is gore... this is the best production of the tale of Dracula since the invention of color film. If Anne Rice's spin on the vampire tale is more your speed, this film will probably not be up your alley. Violence and sexual inuendo make this a film not suitable for kids.

Read Best Reviews of Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Here

For months people have been complaining about the visual quality of this particular Blu-Ray title. I'm a Blu-Ray enthusiast and I do enjoy this film so I wanted to find out for myself if all the attacks about it's visual quality had merit. Here are my thoughts...

I bought the Superbit Collection standard DVD of this movie and compared it to this Blu-Ray version. For me, it's a no-brainer, the Blu-Ray is superior. The Superbit version actually looks more garish and brighter than any version I've seen before, be it on TV or VHS. The overly bright colors give the movie a fantasy feel. Rarely did the night scenes in the castle look dark or disturbing. It was all very garish, color wise.

In this Blu-Ray version, Coppola's people, acting on his instructions, toned down the color scheme and made it darker, far more sinister and realistic. I enjoyed the look of the film very much. Those night scenes in the castle are eerie and dangerous in comparison to the overly bright Superbit version. The movie has a more horror like atmosphere to it. In a couple of short scenes, the color is drained and the picture has a nearly black and white look to it. It's strikingly beautiful. On Blu-Ray, instead of the garish haze, the color of Dracula's wardrobe for instance, blood red, leaps off the screen unlike the Superbit DVD.

Although most of the scenes don't have the sharpness or detail you've come to expect from Blu-Ray, I still say it's a very good purchase. Obviously this movie is not going to look like the Blu-Rays of Pixar's Cars or Blade Runner or 2001: A Space Odyssey. I didn't expect it to. The audio quality is just fine. Top notch. Some of the most hilarious features on this Blu-Ray are the multi-language tracks. They have Russian, Romanian and several others. I speak Russian and had a blast watching Dracula in Russian! It's goofy watching Keanu Reeves in Russian at first but soon enough you realize this is very high quality dubbing. Not done as some afterthought at all. Very nice.

The special features have many documentaries and of course Coppola's commentary. This Blu-Ray certainly warrants a purchase for those who like the film. If you're unsure because of the controversy of the color scheme, I suggest buying the Superbit alongside the Blu-Ray and contrasting them for yourself. Perhaps you'll like the Superbit DVD better. Compare them on your widescreen TV in a dark room at night and I think you'll find the Blu-Ray is a better experience. Yes, there is grain and dirt and the picture is not perfect by any means. It's an older catalog title. If it doesn't get a full on restoration, it's not going to look any better than this.

Now, as to the movie itself. I always enjoyed this Coppola treatment of Dracula. The atmosphere and art direction, the costumes, sets, music are all first class. The script, acting and pacing can be a bit stiff. That and Keanu Reeves hamper this movie. It's still about as good as "Interview with the Vampire" or any of the other big-budget Hollywood vampire spectacles. Don't forget that vampire movies are typically all exploitation and titillation with nothing remotely serious about them. I can point to dozens of examples. How about "John Carpenter's Vampires" for one? Or the abysmal "Blade" trilogy for another?

The fact that Bram Stoker's Dracula and Interview with a Vampire take things a tad more seriously than 95% percent of vampire flicks counts for something. The ultimate vampire film is yet to be made but Gary Oldman's portrayal of Dracula makes him one interesting bloodsucker!

Want Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Discount?

It seems to be commonplace for folks on the Internet to dismiss the Blu-ray transfer of this film, citing inconsistent definition, incorrect color timing, among other things.

I'm a bit of a hi-def enthusiast: I do not usually pay for Blu-rays that are subpar, that which don't live up to my expectations. For me (and I wish it weren't just "for me" but instead an industry standard), Blu-ray is a medium whose sole purpose is to bring a movie into a living room, representing that film as accurately to the original look and sound as possible. A proper Blu-ray Disc (BD) of a movie shot on celluloid will look like an actual film projection on one's HDTV (with the proper video settings, of course--a well-calibrated TV makes a great deal of difference). If a film is shot on gritty 16mm film, the BD product ought to replicate that look accurately, with little digital noise reduction (DNR)--only used for dirt and scratch clean-up, not to remove grain (which is NOT "noise," but an inherent part of the image)--and a good encode with as much room as possible for the least amount of compression with zero artifacting.

Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is a visually rich and captivating film. Shot at the brink of CGI, the filmmakers made it a point not to use any computer effects, preferring traditional means: practical effects, optical effects, the lot. The end result is a visually striking film that is above and beyond anything being produced today.

The Blu-ray for this film, as far as I can tell, is an accurate representation of its original finished and edited photography. Colors are vibrant when intended to be, and likewise dull when intended. A good grain texture and structure is present throughout, and is appropriately grainier during scenes where a different film stock was used. Definition is strong, with a great deal of detail, with any occasional softness to the picture being due to the original photography and effects. It's important to understand that BDs are supposed to represent the film itself, not a reimagining of it. I all too often feel that consumers and "professional" HD DVD and BD reviewers have a wrong notion that films should be touched up and filtered to provide a "pristine and clear" picture, meant to satiate the immature, undeveloped tastes and preferences of "the HD video game crowd." (I can't count how many times I've read a review where the words, "The image just POPS!" are used to convey the supposed high quality presentation of a BD film, as if this faux-3D "popping" factor is key to a good transfer.) Old films aren't meant to look like the pristine, "flawless," and entirely clear digital photography of, say, "Zombieland". Different methods of filming, different technology, different eras, different intentions--artistic or otherwise.

I own the Superbit DVD of this film and can honestly say that the BD blows it sky-high in every manner. Far better clarity, more lush colors; I'm convinced that the old home video color timing of this film is way off, on VHS, LaserDisc, and DVD (despite claims to having received Coppola's approval; people should know by now that such phrases are usually marketing fibs). The look of a film should never be determined by how it appeared on old home media, but rather by the source. The Superbit DVD is a mess of browns and washed out colors; the BD is much more natural and filmic, and also far more beautiful. According to Robert A. Harris, a noted film preservationist (who approves of this BD), the transfer for the "Bram Stoker's Dracula" BD is based on the answer print of the film, and thus accurate to the original artistic intentions and endeavors.

It's disheartening that so many have put this BD down. Even more sad that many have come to their conclusions based on low resolution screencaptures of the BD (that are also often captured incorrectly, degrading the quality of the original image further) rather than anything even remotely representative of its quality. There's a particularly well-known screencap of the BD that has circled the Internet, one in which Dracula's face has a green glow on it, and people use this to dispute the color timing of this HD transfer, saying it's outrageous, out of place, and totally off. The fact of the matter is, this particular scene's color scheme fits contextually. It's a dark film, but is very colorful at key scenes where certain colors are chosen to set the mood--and yes, there is a source to that eerie green glow, which is completely absent from previous home video releases.

I'll never understand how anyone could choose the look of any previous home video releases over this utterly fantastic Blu-ray THAT WHICH IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ORIGINAL FILM. Thank God the "pro" reviewers aren't in charge of things! Though I fear their ignorance and the exposure of such can sway studio decisions in a negative direction.

Hopefully this review will persuade somebody to pick up the BD, and to not be dismayed by the wrong and, might I say, uneducated outlooks of disapproval.

In a collection of Blu-ray films where I somewhat pride myself on only having "the best" quality visual representations of films I enjoy, I can say that this is one of the most stunning Blu-ray Discs I own, in large part due to the original film's merits and visual feats, and equally the accurate representation of that film's transfer to high definition. (For a quick example, some of my other favorite United States-released BDs I own are for the films "Blade Runner", "Braveheart", "The Searchers" [another BD that gets slagged for its color timing compared to older home video releases, even though this release is most accurate and most visually appealing], "Hellraiser", "Children of Men", "The Bird with the Crystal Plumage", "No Country for Old Men", "Bonnie and Clyde", "Saving Private Ryan", "Rio Bravo", "Shoot 'Em Up", "Drag Me to Hell", "Black Dynamite", "Inglourious Basterds", "Hot Fuzz", "How the West Was Won", "Zombieland", and "The Wizard of Oz", among many other quality BD titles.)

Save 50% Off