Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

Mike Matei / October 17th, 2014

A highly stylized take on the classic tale, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, starring Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins and Keanu Reeves. Produced by FRED FUCHS.


  • Berkeley_Bum

    October 17, 2014 at 12:25 am

    Thanks for making October awesome!

  • October 17, 2014 at 12:28 am

    Think you could review “Demons” next year?

  • albert fernandez

    October 17, 2014 at 12:34 am

    awesome review! Do tales from the darkside movie!

  • October 17, 2014 at 12:44 am

    Gary Oldman will always be my favorite Dracula on the big screen. Despite his horrendous actions, I could always sympathize with him. You ought to watch Oliver Harper’s review of this film on Youtube. He goes into great detail about how Coppola went to great lengths to recapture classic film making techniques for this movie. The man was dedicated to give it an old school feel and it shows.

  • Satnav

    October 17, 2014 at 12:45 am

    As iconic as the Lugosi film is, by today’s standards it doesn’t necessarily hold up that well either and can feel a bit hokey. Objectively the Coppola film works better as an adaptation and as a horror work right now, but I agree that it doesn’t have as much an impact on popular culture (bar that Simpsons) parody as lavish horror adaptations are nothing new.

    That being said I’m not big on the whole Dracula-Mina romance thing; I mean it’s not that bad by itself, but symptomatic of all this nonsense to make Dracula sexy or whatever. Bring him back to pure evil as he was in the novel. Not like in the recent Untold film or whatever.

  • Wazzafuzza

    October 17, 2014 at 1:12 am

    Monster Madness is amazing

  • PresidentJenkins

    October 17, 2014 at 1:24 am

    Very good movie in my opinion. Is it necessarily important to the genre of horror? No, but I do think many consider it a classic. I will agree that Dracula looks silly, that look has been parodied to death including on the Simpsons and Conker’s Bad Fur Day, but I always felt like that was the point. Coppola wanted Dracula in those scenes to seem feeble and almost silly while being creepy. Making sure that nobody would ever suspect him of being the monster that he is. Also, I totally agree about not using Bram Stoker’s name in the title. Maybe it was done to put it apart from the rest of the Dracula movies, if only in chronological order, but F.F. Coppola would have sufficed.

  • Nintendomaniac

    October 17, 2014 at 1:33 am

    I can’t ever look at Dracula in this movie when he’s young and wearing the top hat and sun glasses, without thinking of Jim Carrey when he parodied the character in the “In Living Color” skit.

    • October 17, 2014 at 10:10 am

      Lol, the one with Jamie Foxx as a woman? I remember that one.

  • October 17, 2014 at 1:35 am

    I used to think that I hated this movie. But in hindsight, what I really hate is that it enjoys a degree of acclaim that it doesn’t deserve, presumably on account of all the marquis power behind it. In truth, it’s a movie with an extremely weak script–which, given the number of adaptations preceding it, really doesn’t seem excusable. The tacked-on love story is just infuriating, because not only does it spoil the notion of Dracula’s inherent inhumanity by making him, well, more human, but it also ruins Mina’s character on top of it. Rather than an object of horror, Dracaula’s predations became a tableau of lust–which isn’t bad in itself, I guess. Plenty of other movies have done it. But it makes for a poor adaptation, and this script handles the idea clumsily.

    But, as this video points out, there are certainly elements of the film worthy of praise. Now that I’ve seen it again, I find that my past ire is engendered less by the movie (which I would ultimately call a mixed film with amazing highlights but that lets itself down in the end) and more by how much people gushed about it at the time. Even now it rates 79 on Rotten Tomatoes and hails Coppola for “rescuing” the character. What movie did they all see? I have trouble imagining it was this one. To each their own, I suppose.

  • October 17, 2014 at 1:55 am

    The visual style of this film is great and the soundtrack is amazing. But I always hated the love story. This movie just makes me wish Coppola had a different script.

  • rian fox

    October 17, 2014 at 2:02 am

    Someone should digitally remove Dracula’s Buns and post it. Oldman is great otherwise… Like that stare where the camera zooms in would look menacing as hell minus the do. Annnnndddd… Tom Waits is Renfield!

  • Taraalcar

    October 17, 2014 at 2:10 am

    Fred Fucks strikes again!

  • Mattashell

    October 17, 2014 at 4:04 am

    I wish this film would just be forgotten. It’s closer to the book in the same sense as Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, meaning, sure it includes events from the the novel that were left out of most other adaptations, but the trade off is it drastically misses the tone, as well as the point of the source material. Stoker never presented Drac as a sympathetic character, Anne Rice started that, Coppola ran with it, and ultimately handed it off to Stephenie Meyer.

    Also I read an interview with Coppola where he made the claim that they didn’t use any technology that wasn’t available to Murnau when he made Nosferatu. Really, what about sound and color?

    • October 17, 2014 at 9:45 am

      Coppola cant be blames for the story, he didn’t write it, he was simply given a script. As far as the technology used, he was referring to special effects technology. In other words all the effects were done in camera to give it a more classic horror look. I wont forget this film, Coppola did an amazing job with a story that would have been forgot in the hands of another director.

  • October 17, 2014 at 4:19 am

    Is there a problem with the App? I can’t watch 80’s a-thon, or sequel a-thon 2 on it. All the other Monster Madness episodes are on it.

  • October 17, 2014 at 4:41 am

    James, have you ever thought of reviewing the Cornetto Trilogy?

  • Sean Smith

    October 17, 2014 at 6:37 am

    Nice man

  • rob norton

    October 17, 2014 at 7:22 am

    Trouble with making a Dracula movie straight from the book is the book itself. While it’s a fantastic read, a movie would suffer as Dracula himself is hardly in the book at all! He is in it at the start when Harker goes to the castle, then apart from the tiny bit in the middle when the scooby gang purge Carfax, he’s not in it right till the end. Then he is killed in no more than a couple of words. No fighting, or struggling. In fact he’s not even concious when he gets decapitated. They just rip open the crate and lop his head off. Coppola’s film tries to humanise the count to generate sympathy for his actions, but the novel generates Dracula as more of a shadowing evil that clouds the minds of the other characters.

    A film that needs to be reviewed by James is Humanoids from the deep. An absolute classic.

  • Simon Skipper Sørensen

    October 17, 2014 at 7:49 am

    Tom Waits is in it. Makes the movie even more epic.

  • October 17, 2014 at 7:58 am

    Finally James reviewed a movie worth reviewing! Up until this point I have not been enjoying 2014’s monster madness. Way to step it up nerd!

    • Joker83

      October 17, 2014 at 9:43 am

      Beetle juice? They Live? Cabin in the Woods?

  • October 17, 2014 at 8:25 am

    This is actually one of my favorite movie of all time

  • CrushingC10996WM

    October 17, 2014 at 8:41 am

    We should all thank this movie for introducing us to Fred Fuchs

  • Haseo55

    October 17, 2014 at 8:44 am

    Personally the only thing i didnt like was Winona Ryder, you could say her character was the pionier for the girl that wants to be a vampire like Jesse Reeves from Queen of the Damed and Bella from that horrible series Twilight.

    The rest of the movie was good and the cast was great

  • frostare

    October 17, 2014 at 9:20 am


  • October 17, 2014 at 9:28 am

    This movie bored me to tears.

  • BranaHawk

    October 17, 2014 at 9:31 am

    James, when are you going to tackle Count Dracula (1970)? It’s got Christopher Lee but you’ve never mentioned it. Thanks for the videos James & Mike!

  • October 17, 2014 at 9:57 am

    This film is odd in the fact that the good parts are completely amazing, and the bad parts are just terrible. It either completely nails it, or totally misses the mark.

  • Alex Row

    October 17, 2014 at 10:10 am

    This is definitely my favourite Dracula in spite of it flaws, namely Keanu’s terrible acting. Even though it’s not in the book, its that opening sequence that really makes the movie for me. It’s interesting because it ties in the historical Dracula with the mythological one. And Dracula as a crusader knight in red armour renouncing god is just bad-ass. In fact, I have a feel that single scene is more bad-ass the the entirety of that Dracula Untold movie that’s out now.

  • October 17, 2014 at 10:17 am

    To me this is at least as good as the Lugosi film. I appreciate the fact that the Lugosi version brought the character to the mainstream movie audience and so will always be the iconic version of Dracula, but it simply doesn’t hold up. I consider myself a pretty hardcore horror fan, and to me its just boring and uninteresting. But it has nothing to do with its age, because I love the original Frankenstein films. To me, the flaws in this film (as big as some may be…) are over shadowed by the successes.

  • jasonjrf

    October 17, 2014 at 11:12 am

    acting from keanu reeves wooden and hollow??? From Keanu you dont say??? I dont believe it… 🙂

  • October 17, 2014 at 11:42 am

    I just recently did a commentary track on this movie and I provide a little bit more insite into this film and what the filmmaker’s intentions were.
    Located here:

    Give this a listen and you could maybe get a clearer insite.

  • fcabanski

    October 17, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    It doesn’t go down in history, because it’s awful.

  • October 17, 2014 at 1:04 pm

    I’m especially fond of this one for their version of Renfield and Anthony Hopkins’ laid-back Van Helsing who casually talks about decapitating someone while eating a steak. Awesome.

  • marcos pesquero

    October 17, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    just yesterday i was laughing out loud like some crazy asshole alone thinking about fred fuchs

  • October 17, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    Produced by Fred Fuchs. That’s just awesome.

  • Sunking

    October 17, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    The reference to Fred Fox is nice in the credits. Additional info: you aren’t spelling the word Fuchs right. I’m German and it seems like it’s supposed to be a German name. In fact the spelling of “chs” is the same as the “x” in Fox, so the correct spelling would be “Fred Fux”. The word “Fuchs” means “Fox” in German, btw.

    • Weldin Dunn

      October 17, 2014 at 3:47 pm

      Ok, thanks, but I looked it up, and it’s just his last name. It’s not meant to be the word fox on german.

      • Lukas Sprehn

        October 22, 2014 at 3:32 pm

        Weldin, take a look here Both the German word AND the last name is supposed to be spelled the same was: As Fux, or Fuks. Not Fusch or Fush. Just pointing it out, that’s all 🙂

    • Lukas Sprehn

      October 22, 2014 at 3:30 pm

      Exactly. I just made a comment where I mistakenly said it was pronounced “Foe-ex” though. But yeah, you’re right, it’s supposed to be “Fux”. What you’re saying, James, is Fusch/Fus (like in Fuschball rather than Fuchs.

  • Weldin Dunn

    October 17, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Charlie Brown Halloween? Everybody has seen but come on.

  • October 17, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    I agree with your opinion, well done.
    Cute pronunciation on ‘Fuchs’ by the way. 😉

  • October 17, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    Fred “Fooks” i always thought it sounded that way.

  • October 17, 2014 at 5:42 pm

    OMG! It’s Fred Fucks!

  • October 17, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    I was just playing this the other night on the Sega Genesis

  • erik37

    October 17, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    Winona Ryder Hot!!!!

  • October 17, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    I’m sorry but I always hated this movie. I’ve always felt like it’s a disgrace to Dracula, and the Dracula story and was super dissapointed in Francis Ford Coppola, after seeing this. I mean how do you fuck up after making such films as Apocalypse Now and the Godfather! There was so much potential for this being the best Dracula Movie probably but endend up short and cofused and just terrible of a movie. The casting great, the Visuals great, but the acting and plot… just sullied and messed up. This whole movie was just a dissapointment to me.

    • GrimMasterDeath

      October 18, 2014 at 1:01 am

      @Nicolas Guzman “I’m sorry but I always hated this movie.” Dracula 3000….If you haven’t seen that garbage yet I bet you’ll love this one afterwards.

  • William Sutherland

    October 17, 2014 at 7:38 pm

    I love the Treehouse of Horror parody. “Super Happy Fun Slide!”

  • October 17, 2014 at 9:12 pm

    That dracula costume *Facepalm*

  • October 17, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    What movie is the dude stumbling around going “ARRRRGH!!!” in the opening from. Makes me laugh all the time. I don’t like how this movie makes Dracula sympathetic. Don’t get me wrong, I love it, just not that part. It was much better than the Robert De Niro Frankenstein movie.

    Your friend,


  • Mega-Gojira

    October 17, 2014 at 10:14 pm


  • Mark Vanconant

    October 18, 2014 at 12:56 am

    He reminds me of the demon with boobs on his head in Little

  • Ben_from_G-town

    October 18, 2014 at 1:05 am

    I’m glad to see you finally took a look at this one. It’s always been one of my favorite Dracula movies. Very cool.

  • Peter Tomlinson

    October 18, 2014 at 5:03 am

    After watching this movie I quickly realized why I thought it did not reach it’s full potential and its the love story. I won’t spoil exactly for those who didn’t see it, but it’s the same reason I don’t rewatch the original Mummy with Karloff. Like James said the imagery is great but the rest of the movie doesn’t measure up.

  • JT

    October 18, 2014 at 5:21 am

    Keanu Reeves was the completely wrong person for Jonathan Harker. I can’t help but see Ted from Bill and Ted every time he’s on screen standing with old woman Dracula.

  • curt kaskavage

    October 18, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    its one of my favourite films

  • October 19, 2014 at 1:01 am

    Wow! Incredible review! Top-notch all the way! I seriously think James is poised to become one of the nation’s most well-respected film critics. No joke.

  • culwin

    October 19, 2014 at 1:12 am

    You need to track down and interview the legendary Fred Fuchs.
    He’s still producing TV shows and films.
    As for the movie, I think it gets worse every year. I thought it was mediocre at best when it came out, and it doesn’t really hold up today.

  • dansims

    October 19, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    I saw this one on the big screen, and I dislike it…it’s artificial and many scene made me laugh…

  • October 19, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    We couldn’t be further apart on some of these reviews, James. I love this movie and you gave it a poor review and you give Insidious (one of the worst films I’ve ever seen) a favourable review.

  • James-Michael Castro

    October 19, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    OMG! Monster Squad!!!

  • skwij

    October 20, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    Ol’ Fang Face has definitely looked better, and Keanau’s acting has been better, but I like this well enough. Thanks for the video!

  • Iron65

    October 21, 2014 at 2:06 am

    thank god someone was talking about this movie! It’s not that good. Only worth to watch

  • October 21, 2014 at 7:54 pm

    You’d think somebody who’s seen John Carpenter’s THE THING would know how to pronounce ‘Fuchs’. John Polis’s character in that movie was named Fuchs in the movie and the characters pronounced it as “fyo͞oks”.

  • Lukas Sprehn

    October 22, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    Isn’t Fuchs pronounced Foe-ex?

  • October 26, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Another great review.

    What are your thoughts on Dracula Untold?

  • October 27, 2014 at 12:32 pm

    I also hated the weird make up.
    But to me, it actually added a dimension of strangeness and horror.
    I realised that the look actually made me feel so uncomfortable that it might have been benefitial for the viewing experience.

  • October 27, 2014 at 8:27 pm

    It seems, the name “Fuchs” is still a bit difficult. It’s not “Fu*cks” and not “Fooshs”. Try “Foox”. Actually “Fuchs” is “Fox”.

  • November 1, 2014 at 8:22 am

    Keanu Reeves acting is usually wooden…

    • Claude Lilford

      March 10, 2015 at 11:05 pm

      Why did they keep giving him big roles again?

  • November 2, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    This Movie should have been called Oldman vs. Hopkins: Deathmatch

  • Seth Switzer

    November 8, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    I’m a big fan of Bela Lugosi and think he is the best Dracula. When I watched this movie I thought it was terrible and so boring. This is definitely my least favorite Dracula movie.

  • March 12, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    There’s been so many Dracula movies that it’s almost impossible to keep.. Tracula!

  • M. Ryan

    April 12, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    No mention of Anthony Hopkins, the only actor from the old school that legitimizes the film? He acts his ass off in this too.

  • Sam Wood

    July 14, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Great video as always James. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994).

  • RageJoona

    February 23, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    It’s funny how this is one of the extremely rare examples of a Dracula movie that has Quincey Morris in it. I don’t know why but he’s ignored in pretty much every film adaption.

  • October 2, 2016 at 9:43 am

    There are 3 things that got my attention on this film:

    1- The storytelling has a graphic novel rhythm and structure I have yet to see in another movie.
    – The eyes in the background set an example on the way different elements fuse and set the pacing of the story during the whole film: *you* are seeing in the background what the characters in the front are thinking/reading… and that’s quite the feat, lemme tell ya).

    2- The writing is AMAZING.
    Almost every single spoken line in this movie bears a double meaning, and you could find a really different film based on all the possible ways you can build the story with this. Comic book enthusiasts should quickly take notice on this and watch the whole movie again.

    3- Gary Oldman is THE SHIT; hell, which other actor nowadays could claim such versatility, having almost a natural knack for fleshed-out villains, and yet ending up so close to people’s feelings “even though it’s such a monster”..?

    This movie is a living, breathing graphic novel.
    And that is great in my book.
    I’d love to see its storyboards…

  • Jacob Boeve

    October 22, 2016 at 9:47 pm

    Keanu Reeves’ acting is always wooden. The puppets in the Puppet Master movies are more emotionally animated than he is.

  • Jacob Boeve

    October 2, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    Keanu Reeves’s acting is always wooden 😐

Leave a Reply

James’ favorites