For all its flaws, this movie had some great strengths. The atmospheric and surreal horror imagery influenced by German expressionist horror and British Hammer horror films was really effective. Dracula seemed like a supernatural being of incredible power, like a sorcerer or a mage. The musical score was well done. And Gary Oldman didn't hold back as the character.

Vampiric Lucy is one of the best parts of the movie, and inspired the iconic look/attacks of Queen Yharnam in Bloodborne.

The blame for the love story having the most focus can't be put on Coppola since it was Hart who created it for his script. For some reason, after reading the novel, he came to the conclusion that Dracula was a tragic romantic character who just wanted love. I really don't know how the hell he ended up thinking that.

I don’t blame you. Winona as Mina is my favorite Winona. I was so glad she came back after all these years into acting. I just love her. I haven’t read the book, but a tragic and doomed love story that Dracula is trying to force, which leads to his ultimate doom. Love it.

This movie definitely had a massive impact on the stylistic interpretations of Dracula. I saw Michael Pink’s Dracula (a ballet) 8 months ago, and while the plot is a fairly close adaptation of the book, it took quite a few nods from this film in the costuming, such as having Dracula spend act 1 in a red robe and dressing the brides in Roman-esque robes. Not surprising, given that ballet is an art form that depends heavily on stylism in the first place. I’d honestly recommend it for anyone who liked this movie, or who thinks ballet is staid and boring.

I wouldn't say this is an unfaithful adaptation compared to its rivals. I think this movie is all the more frustrating BECAUSE it's so close to being an actually faithful adaptation - a lot closer than many others, for example the many productions that switch Mina and Lucy, make one of them Seward's or Van Helsing's daughter, kill off Harker, turn him into a vampire, have Renfield go to Transylvania instead of him, and smoosh or eliminate Lucy's three suitors entirely. This one has the lavish costuming, the atmosphere, Gary Oldman's performance when he's actually being Menacing Asshole Dracula, the incredible use of old-school practical effects and vintage film techniques...the fact that they actually included Arthur, Jack and Quincey! Tom Waits Renfield! Anthony Hopkins Van Helsing! The Demeter, the carriage chase! Dracula growing young when he feeds! DRACULA WITH FACIAL HAIR! ...AND YET. And YET. The actual events of the film hew quite closely to the book AND YET the romance plot is like this big squirming cancer in the middle of it. Because of the marketing and title it's also almost singlehandedly responsible for hard-coding its egregious changes into pop culture to the extent that people think they're 100% canon and will argue blue in the face despite the evidence of the actual book sitting right there. "Dracula is explicitly Vlad III" no he isn't "Dracula has a lost wife and a tragic backstory" no he doesn't "Dracula and Mina are time-tossed lovers" they sure as fuck are not, his visit to her in the book is a violent sexualized assault perpetuated out of spite and vengeance. Then there's slut-shaming Lucy, damsel-fying Mina, making Van Helsing kind of a crazy jerkass, milquetoast Jonathan, losing all of Renfield's pathos and tragedy...so many missed opportunities.

I think Keanu and Carrey should have switched parts. Carrey can actually do a British accent.

I took a class in high school where we had to read a book then watch the movie it’s based on and do a presentation on it. I did this movie and Dracula and it took a lot of editing in my paper to not get across how mad I was about adding in the romance, love when someone else points it out!

One of the most visually striking movies of all time. The costumes cannot be topped to this day. Masterpiece.

I've watched this movie a bazillion times and never noticed that Anthony Hopkins played two characters.

I'm sensing a consistency with your favorite characters and red hair...

Tbh the duality of Dracula’s character here in this movie is what is so great about this particular interpretation of the Dracula with infused love story - Dracula here has feelings only for one person- Mina - so yeah, he can show some special treatment towards her. All others however are just food or obstacles or means to an end to him, so it was perfectly logical for a vampire like him that Lucy was just a victim to Dracula and food supply and he would easily violate her and murder her with no qualms. Same for Jonathan, Van Helsing and any others characters- he wasn’t supposed to treat them well and be suddenly nice to them just because he had feelings towards Mina. And tbh I think Oldman so effortlessly switching between sentimentality/brooding and bloodthirsty glee/slaughter is a strong point of his performance and his Dracula. Like if you bother to show vampire’s being in love in your movie you’ll definitely need to show that such kind of love doesn’t make vampire safe or completely defang him, cause he’s still undead creature, albeit with some feelings, creature that still brings death and destruction around him. I actually doubt that without this duality Oldman’s Dracula would have stood the test of time and would have became such a popular and influential version of the Dracula character.

Lucy was literally my favorite part of the movie. I was so upset at her death. Also I hate when people change the lore of other peoples stories or folklore to what they think it SHOULD be. It’s so disrespectful. People have done this a lot when it comes to different peoples religions and mythologies as well. That being said the story of the vampire being misunderstood love interest is so cheap and this was the beginning of a horrible trope. There was no need to make Dracula this way. Johnathan was my second favorite character. I also loved learning that dracula had many transformations not just a bat or vampire. The character designs and acting was phenomenal but again it is ashamed that they chose to make this a Dracula sympathizing movie unlike the actual story.

The Tom Waits Effect = the effect by which any media, no matter how good or bad, jumps a noticeable amount by the presence of Tom Waits or a Tom Waits song. Something you aren't enjoying becomes tolerable. Something you are enjoying becomes that much better. And Little Drop of Poison in Shrek 2 is what solidified "SHREK FOR LIFE" in my heart forever.

"We've all become God's madmen" I always interpreted as him reflecting on the human cost of their quest to kill Dracula. So, while they're on the side of God, their devotion to the quest had consumed them and now it had reached the point of costing one of them their life.

I have to admit that those two personas of Dracula always made perfectly sense to me. They portrayed his initial disconnect with humanity, "normal people's" values and their concept of love (and thus, the main problem with villain love interests). However, I think the movie should've dived deeper into that aspect and the manipulative powers of Dracula. He easily could've changed the narrative to "I have only granted Lucy eternal life, the others killed her". They could've played into Mina's extremely kind, compassionate nature to give book Mina another nuance in line with our zeitgeist: those virtues are important, but be careful as there are bad people who may profit from them. As much as I think that throwing in potential love is not inherently bad and enjoyed the movie, I don't like how all of that happens at the expense of Mina's very active, heroic part in the book.

the notes Stoker made for the sequel implied that the story was originally set in the late 1870s (tail end of the first bustle era a few years before the second) and the hairstyling is clearly sourced from the 70s so the bustle gowns work wonderfully well here now i guess the movie is explicitly set in the late 90s? but everything shows they understood how victorian dress worked and most importantly they didn't shy away from making everyone look interesting

I just love this movie. I love the costumes. The acting was great. I just love it. I watched a documentary on the making of this and Gary Oldman went through so much crap. He is a superb actor.

Love this movie tbh. Camp fun but looks spectacular. Worth watching for the visual style alone.

It's not necessarily inconsistent that Dracula is fine with turning Lucy, but is conflicted about doing the same to Mina. He has different values and tastes than the mortal male characters who are in love with Lucy. To him, it's Mina who is the special one. And, had it been played up more consistently, it shows how some people can be romantic without being real gentlemen. Dracula cares about Mina, but is totally fine with corrupting and damning other women like Lucy and his brides. Heck, this could have been emphasized as yet another contrast between Jonathan and Dracula. Jonathan would be that good-hearted guy who is kind to everyone but hasn't figured out how to make his girlfriend feel special. Dracula is that charismatic jerk whom Mina is guiltily attracted to because he clearly sees and treats her differently than he does other people.

i had no idea there were so many deleted scenes - including one of jonathan and mina reuniting at the end! thank you for this vid, a great watch and i learned something new eh :D

I don’t see a problem with Dracula as a tragic love story. I thought it was a great movie. But I’m also not married to the original IP.

absolutely LOVE finding a new favorite KZfaq channel!!!

I love just looking at the film. The sets, makeup, costumes and effects are absolutely entrancing. The acting, less so, though I think Hopkins adds levity and life, even if the portrayal betrays the book. And I also believe Ryder's best performance is in The Crucible, where I'd rank this towards the bottom of her filmography. But she certainly looks the part! I enjoyed hearing your perspective. For better or worse, this is my Dracula! I also think Crimson Peak is more than just style over substance. There's no need to knock that film in order to elevate this one. They both have glaring issues yet exhilarating moments of cinematic brilliance.

I still think it's the best version of Dracula on film. And I've seen almost every Dracula movie ever made... But I didn't read the actual Novel until I was in my 30's and I had watched most of the films in my 20's. Vampire fan here. I love it.

Teenage me didn't mind the romance, quite the opposite. lol I was fascinated by Dracula (and might or might not have written fanfiction after seeing the movie that elaborated further on the romance aspect). And while I nowadays see that the movie is not perfect, I still adore it. I do however absolutely agree with you regarding Mina, Lucy and the design of the movie. ♥

I have feelings on this one as well: it started when I was a gothy teenager and was introduced to it by my equally edgy boyfriend who tried to use it as romance influence, including muttering gibberish like in the cinema scene like it was some secret sexy language. Vomit inducing as much then as it is now. Ugh. Now as I look back at it with more maturity what I can't stand it taking itself so seriously that it threw down the gauntlet calling itself Bram Stoker's Dracula and is one of the least faithful adoptions of the book. Maybe it becuase I haven't seen the extended cut but I always doubted the sincerity of this production as it seemed more like a fanfiction sex romp than an adaptation of Bram Stoker. I felt especially that Mina's character suffered the most (besides the Lucy/Furry sex scene, I mean WTF?) Mina was a freaking badass in the book, with her determination, courage, and so fiercely intelligent she even gave Van Helsing a run for his money. Now in this movie she's reduced to the love interest being fought over. I could never tell if this was trying to be campy with how over the top serious it was, which I don't mind but tha may just be a personal preference, when I think of something so over the top it becomes funny I think more like Evil Dead. But to end this with my own personal pet peeve, I've done medieval armored combat for many years, and I loathe the red twizzler armor. It's so poorly designed that poor Gary Oldman could barely lift his elbows above his waist, resulting in one of the saddest sword flourishes ever committed to film.

I largely agree with this analysis but I would also like to mention that the music is spectacular. Wojciech Kilar, who also did really well for The Ninth Gate, really pulls out all the stops here. He nails the gothic horror, the melancholic love story and the bombastic action scenes so well, the music feels like an oil painting. For me, this is up there with Basil Poledouris' _Conan the Barbarian_ among some of the best soundtracks ever.

I remember reading the book for high school and then watched the movie because it was the closest adaptation or so I was told. Needless to say at certain parts I was very surprised because it never took place in the book. Afterwards I figured it was the most faithful because every character in the book makes an appearance.

I kind of feel like the idea of "faithful adaptations" is overrated due to the creative boundaries it imposes. Purists might dislike the focus on romance and love in the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992 for diverging from the book, but I quite like it. In the movie version, Prince Vlad's transformation into a monster becomes a metaphor for a man's heart turning dark due to loss and grief. It's a pretty fresh and unique spin, imo. Also, as a romantic I appreciate how this angle adds emotional depth to the story. I get that calling the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" creates certain expectations, though.

I can always appreciate good use of practical effects.

Heck yeah, a Dracula '92 review for Halloween, from Bob! 🦇🎃 My connection with the movie sprouted from the Dracula binge I went on after the high of watching (and enjoying) Dracula: Untold back in 2014, so I watched both my mom's VHS copy of the Coppola film, and even the Bela Lugosi version on DVD (to which my mom greatly rejoiced, at last I was choosing to watch an old historical black-and-white movie! Not to mention the appreciation she had towards Lugosi for being a fellow Hungarian). I'd always been a fan of supernatural/monster romances, born out of Beauty & the Beast being my favorite childhood fairytale, so you can imagine my surprise when I saw just how romantically & sexually-charged this film was, especially in comparison to the older versions (it even makes direct reference to Jean Cocteau's world-famous La Belle et La Bête in one scene). Couple years later, I borrowed a graphic novel version of Bram Stoker's book from a friend at school and was both surprised and not to see just how different it was focus-wise to Coppola's movie. (And yes, I *have* since realized that the reincarnation bit, which several other 21st century versions have since copied over, technically came from Boris Karloff & The Mummy). As a result, I can understand your mixed-bag feelings towards this film. (For instance: let us be glad that Keanu Reeves has gone on to have bigger and better successes in recent years as an equal parts bad-ass and compassionate action star, however I appreciate you not lambasting him like most other critics do. Plus, you love Winona Ryder as Mina, which is also quite welcome!). 4:16 Well hello, unexpected yet appropriate Phantom of the Opera reference! (Yes, I'm a proud Phan through & through, my costume for today even being a modernized version of Christine's Masquerade dress from the stage show that I put together). 🌹

I love this book, but the movie is the strangest anomaly. I've seen it 4 times and every time I watch it the only thing I remember is Renfield in that damn accordian slinky straight jacket thing. 😮

i unironically love everything about 92 Dracula. Amazing making of stuff and even though its cheese its so so good and the bits it does get right about the book it gets really good.

This a great vídeo essay! The romance thing is weird tbh. I read on a Lugosi biography that when the movie came out Universal was not sure how how to market it so they tried to sell it as gothic love story….lol! But I think that influenced greatly how the public viewed vampires as sort of “romantic” (they were just getting into the public pop culture subconscious back then, nosfeartu was rediscovered later)😅 and of course we have gradually leaned more and more into it with each coming version of Dracula (and vampire media in general…don’t even get me started on Edward Cullen 🙃😒) overall I think it’s a fascinating topic.🖤

Ooooh, this film is a bane of my existence. I'm not book purist, but how dare them calling this film as the canon It could've been perfect film, the cast, the visuals, the costuming! But I hate the plot to my core

The movie is terrific, and you tell me everything I need to know learning you started with Van Helsing

I *loved* the love story, myself. Specifically, the stark tonal shift between monstrous Dracula and seductive Dracula. I have read the book as well and while it’s not a particularly faithful adaptation, I think it’s awesome to see. I feel it mostly just allowed Gary Oldman to exercise a significant depth of character with Dracula and show off his chops as an actor. Dracula is terrifying in the book and just as menacing in the film, but you get to see how truly manipulative he can be in creating his “wives” as well. You see the lengths he will go to for one he really, really wants, compared to one he could take or leave, like Lucy and his wives at the castle. It makes you wonder how each of the three came to join him, what sort of tactics he used against them. Anyway, love the video!

This was the first movie I bought on DVD... God, I feel old...

Thank you so much! I love this essay. Would you be interested in doing a series about Y2K adventure movies? We really got spoiled -- Pirates of the Caribbean (the first one), The Mummy, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Mask of Zorro

Thank you for acknowledging the Annie Lennox song. It's my favorite too.

As a curator with an interest in 19th century fashion, I can promise you that the scariest thing about this movie are the clothes. Some of those needed to be buried at a crossroads at midnight. A friend of mine, a clothing designer, had me go see the movie with her. She laughed through the whole thing, yelling "Look at THAT! Look at THAT!"

YES, FINALLY , THANK YOU !

Meh. I love Anthony Hopkins performance in this film. It adds a bit of humor to a very serious and sappy love story. You may be unaware that humor in horror is great.

Good review

That’s my favorite Annie Lennox song as well ❤️ I can’t listen to it without tears as my true love was taken too soon.

Keanu plays Jonathan Harper perfectly, Jonathan is a wet blanket. He is low energy and stiff like Keanu plays him.

Nice work

See your FFC rankings at the end, I'm curious; what are your thoughts on Rumble Fish? I remember seeing a double bill with that, and The Outsiders on BBC 2's 'Moviedrome' (hosted by Alex Cox) back in the late '80s, and it became an instant favourite. Great video! Our opinions may differ in a few places, but loved it all the same. Thanks!

I love this film, but mostly watch it as a good fan-fiction version of the story. For accuracy, I watch the 1977 BBC Dracula starring Louis Jordan. You included some scenes from it in this video and for good reason. No one has topped that film in terms of its accuracy.

Not even a minute in and I'm howling with laughter! I'm definitely gonna enjoy this one.

This was one of the few VHS tapes we had when i was a kid. I watched it countless times during summer.

I read the original story, having never seen the film, so when i completed it, I bought the DVD and gave it a go. Even knowing that adaptations are rarely 100% faithful to the material, I still returned it after watching. I couldn't get past the love story. However, I saw this video pop up on my recommendations, and listening to your essay, I've come to realize it is a better film than I gave it credit for.

I love this iteration of this version tbh it’s so good 🧛🏻‍♀️🧛🏿‍♂️

It makes perfect sense that Dracula would love Mina, but treat everyone else like dust. He's seen generations of people die. They are less than a blip on his radar/food to him but Mina is the love of his life and always has been. And it does make sense that Mina would be in two minds as the story suggests reincarnation works so she literally is two people - the princess and the modern woman. It's hard to make that work psychologically because it's not straightforwardly relatable 😂😅 But it does make sense. And I love the the moral ambiguity of him being a loving man and a ruthless killer because theres something very true to life about that - human nature in itself is a beautiful and a horrific thing and he embodies both.

I agree with your assessment 100%.

I watched it 4 times at the cinema.

Can you PLEASE do a video on Vampire in Brooklyn!? It's one of my favorites ❤

Amazing video, so well researched and presented in a brilliant way! But the shade subtly thrown at Crimson Peak at the last minute was unnecessary, Crimson Peak has both style and substance and you can quote (and fight) me on that.

I think the score could’ve been talked about more. I have always really appreciated it

In my top 5 fave movie of all time. Francis is my fave director too.

Any movie with a money shot of Wynnona Ryder's lovely jugs is an Oscar worthy production! 😮

This was great. You should do Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein from 1994 starring Robert DeNiro

I saw this twice during its original run. I liked it enough. Not my favorite, but it stuck the landing enough that I remain fond of it.

I remember buying this movie on my birthday just to celebrated being old enough to buy an R-rated movie on my own. It holds a special place in my life because of that, so while I do ADORE this movie so much, I try not to be blind to how weird some aspects are, namely the love story and some of the costumes.

I love both the film and the book; however, the book Mina is a stronger character than the Mina in the movie. Book Mina is strong and courageous but definitely not in love with Dracula. In fact, Mina would rather kill herself than be turned into a vampire. When they were promoting this movie, the actors and actresses went on to different late-night shows to claim the movie brought out the romance in the book. Maybe that's why your brother incorrectly insists the book is actually a romance. I suspect Coppola was just really horny when he made this movie, but like you, I love Lucy. What directors get wrong is that being turned into a vampire is akin to rape. Neither Lucy nor Mina consent to being turned into vampires who want to be brides to their attacker. It's not a love story but rape,

My personal favorite Mina in terms of horror factor is still Jan Francis' incarnation from 1979's Dracula. While it's not one of my favorite overall adpatations of the story by any means, that one iconic scene with the undead Mina still unnerves me. I find it to be a masterpiece of tone, presentation, and emotional delivery helped in no small part by Laurence Olivier and Donald Pleasance (R.I.P. to both). I appreciate more with each viewing how every ingredient contributes something: The oppressive darkness in the cemetery and claustrophobic mines, the night fog's thick atmosphere, Mina's reflection in the water signaling her entrance with the slow face reveal as Van Helsing looks up to witness what she's become, the genius in simplicity with Francis' crusty makeup making her skin appear like she's risen from the grave, her simultaneously chilling & hypnotic voice like she's now some hungry puppet of her master merely imitating Mina's voice, the glints of light in her black eyes accentuated by thin rims of red on her eyeballs' edges that match the color of the blood dripping from her lips. The cherry on top for me, of course, is Olivier's delivery of Van Helsing's grief over what Dracula took from him. His tears and that soul shattering mourning cry really sell the character of a father cradling the freshly staked corpse of the precious daughter he was forced to kill. In my opinion, the scene works better in black and white but the colored version still goes hard. *Link:* kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hK2hlJtlyMeVqWg.html

Glad you mentioned the ancient TV adaptation with Louis Jourdain; while it's of its time it did stick mostly to the book (which in my opinion really drops off in the last few pages).

I've been a hardcore vampire and werewolve fan my entire life. I graduated high school the year this came out in 1992. I immediately went back to watch it again for one reason. LUCY. Alright. And the brides.

You are not going to talk about the amazing sound track other than one lime at the end?

Ya, the lowest points in the movie are when it shows Dracula crying and moping about. I'm not buying this for one second!

10/10 video on the movie. depicts the themes very clearly.

Francois Ford Coppola's take on Dracula is far from a faithful adaptation - most obviously in the characterisation of the eponymous Count himself and the reframing of the entire story as a tale of doomed supernatural love across the ages rather than a horror story about a monstrous, Undead parasite preying on those that cross his path - but then again taking liberties with the plot, characters and even world building of the original novel in the various Dracula movies we have seen over the decades is hardly anything new and has been a semi-regular pass time of Hollywood since the 1920s. Watch the film on its own terms and, the unfortunate miscasting of Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker aside, the movie holds up very well, with wonderful atmosphere, great practical effects, incredible costumes and some very memorable performances.

Alex Winters would have been a great Renfield

Disapointing is the word for this adaptation. The issue with this movie is not the casting! I tend to blame the writing and Copolla's choices. Everyone had high expectations for this movie and it was just... meh

This movie is a masterpiece. The original book was written as a collection of letters, journal entries and news articles in a sort of literary 19th century found footage. To make a move completely accurate to original book you would have to make some kind of horror mockumentary. . In order to capture the atmosphere of the original book in cinematic form the story must be reimagined. The Coppola version is the only visual feeling of this story to actually pull this off.. you mentioned how flimsy the male roles are in the movie but I always thought that was kind of the point.

I never saw the old Bela Lugosi movie, but this is my favorite Dracula movie too. The only Bela Lugosi movie I ever saw was "Plan 9 from Deep Space" and if you know anything about Ed Wood than you already know how much of a head trip that movie was.

Awesome movie, I loved every minute of it.

I saw this when it came out in the theatres and had already read a lot of vampire fiction before hand so was open to them do something fresh with the material. I had some mixed feelings but ended up liking it overall mostly because of the production design. I thought Keanu was miscast as well as Ryder (she was just too contemporary) so interesting she was the catalyst to getting it made. The soundtrack is great. I loved the shadow puppet opening, and a year later met a woman whose brother had worked on it. Those opening credits were the real star of the film in my mind.

The one that got my attention was when he turned her tears into diamonds and I somehow knew that that was going to happen when I wasn't even of age to read yet when I was watching the movie or that she was going to fling herself out that window

So what are your thoughts on the new interpretation of Dracula as a narcissist?

Bob have you ever read or heard of a book called Dracula undead by dacre stoker it's written by a descendant of bram stoker 🤔🦇

If you can find an original VHS tape from that same year, you would see all the deleted scenes. Back then on VHS deleted scenes weren't even invited yet. So when DVD became mainstream and they adapted All those movies to have deleted scenes. I noticed because I love Bruce Lee films and Cheech and Chong films noticed that they cut parts out of the original and then I compared them and found out the truth. That is exactly the reason why I still have my original VHS tapes just in case I want to see the originals just like we remember the first time.

"We've all come God's madman". Never since I watched this film at the age when I definitely shouldn't have watched it did I think this phrase was aiming to condemn what the men did to Dracula. Rather, I always thought and still think that he was referring to the impact the ordeal had on the hunters. How far they went, what they pushed themselves to do and how much they were willing to sacrifice.

I love this movie because the filmmakers just went bonkers •Nothing looks ‘real’. The castle doesn’t look like a castle, Mina’s mansion doesn’t look like a real house. Everything looks like a decorated set to Broadways most elaborate stage play. •The cinematographer was given vast sums of cocaine and told to do whatever TF he wanted. From the top-down zoom introduction of Renfield, the aforementioned mansion scene film through an actual window, the 13fps cinematograph-o-vision, invisible vampire foursome ceiling mirror cam, endless oddball choices. There’s even a shadow puppet shot! •Sir Anthony Hopkins is fucking spectacular. Dudes got like twenty lines in the movie but he’s the star in his own universe. “I’m afraid your wife is dying. She will turn into a vampire, and we will have to kill her. NOW LETS GET SOME FUCKING TEXAS ROADHOUSE!” •Gotta stake a vampire? BLOOD GEYSER!™️ •Several shots are clearly filmed backwards but played in reverse. This adds nothing to the story but the jarring way fabrics moves wrong makes everything 10x creepier. FFC did this because he loves you. I can watch this movie on mute and still be endlessly fascinated.

New sub. For me style = mood

Have you seen John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 19? I would really like a review of it. Really cool movie.

Glad someone took a fair look at this film, far to many just pan it. I enjoyed the film, it was good at what it was trying to be, even if not what they stated.

It's an opera...just without the singing.

It was a fun to watch. And it based on Stoker novel ...so they could play with that.

One of my favorite movies and I just saw it. I don’t remember the book I read it twenty years ago. So it didn’t ruin it for me.

Calling Crimson Peak "All style, zero substance" is a CRIME

I read the book last year i did like it i grew up watching this version of Dracula i enjoyed it Winona Ryder and gary oldman did a brilliant job but i didn't enjoy Keanu Reeves as Johnathan he was totally miscast to me

29:20 I thought the bustles harkened to the late 1890s, which would have been contemporary to 1897, when the story was set.

I saw the televised version in 1977 with Louis Jordan as Dracula, I was 10 years old and I was mesmerized...

I can't get past the part with the baby.

I cried @ end of movie. I felt that Dracula's love got twisted & he was finally set free by mutual love of his reincarnated wife

Have you seen the Dan Curtis TV movie version of Dracula, starring Jack Palance as the Count? I'm not saying that that Hart copied and embellished what Curtis had done (more than once, what with his previous work being Dark Shadows that featured a vampire who meets a reincarnation of his true love) but it is very interesting that not only does Palance play a Dracula who finds his reincarnated bride, but we also see Stoker's Count linked to Vlad Dracula as well, possibly for the first time in an English language picture. At least, I think all this is more likely to be Hart's inspiration, if we can call it that, for what he wrote in the original script for BSD, rather than the Karloff Mummy film. +

If you love the 2004 Van Helsing movie, you got no room to criticize this movie. 😅

Regarding how disconnected Van Helsing is from the rest of the movie, the idea is that he constitutes the scientific mind that has been turn crazy by the supernatural. On a deeper analysis, he represents reason blinded by strong feelings (love, desire). He feels disjointed because he is not a developing character, but an explanation of what's changing within the mind of the two main female characters.