|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
Buy This DVD and Watch it Instantly
Watch the Amazon Instant Video rental on your PC, Mac, compatible TV or compatible device at no charge when you buy this DVD from Amazon.com. Your rental will expire 24 hours after you begin watching or 30 days after your disc purchase, whichever occurs first. The Amazon Instant Video version will be available in Your Video Library and is provided as a gift with disc purchase. Available to US customers only. See Terms and Conditions.
|
||
 |
 |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 Bram Stoker's Dracula is a feverishly inventive movie that often overwhelms its own narrative flow, yet proves irresistible to watch. In the high-definition transfer on this two-disc Collector's Edition, Coppola's baroque, operatic set design, costumes, and cinematography look as lavish as they did on the film's first release. The director's grab-bag of visual effects are still bold and unabashed, if often over-the-top, and the actors still appear caught up in a certain hysterical pitch that feels a little forced but can be a lot of fun to watch. Gary Oldman's imaginative performance as the titular vampire carries the weight of Coppola's vision of Count Dracula as a tragic-romantic hero with Christ-like overtones. Keanu Reeves still looks a little lost in the pivotal role of Jonathan Harker, the London clerk who finds himself a prisoner in a Transylvanian castle while a 400-year-old vampire makes a play for his fiancée back home (Winona Ryder). Anthony Hopkins is fearless as a daft Von Helsing, and Sadie Frost is very good as the doomed Lucy.
The second disc in this set includes several good documentaries, including a featurette on the making of the film, involving past and present interviews with the principal artists involved. (Coppola and screenwriter James V. Hart speak persuasively about their commitment to bringing Stoker’s vision to the screen, rather than another revision.) Another documentary, "In-Camera: The Naïve Visual Effects of 'Dracula,'" is a fascinating overview of Coppola’s sometimes-frustrated effort to get the timeless special effects he was seeking. There are also quite a few deleted scenes among the special features, the best of which is an alternative cut to the film’s bloody ending. --Tom Keogh
Product Description
Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins. Count Dracula travels to England to find his long-lost love, but his nemesis Van Helsing is never far behind. Francis Ford Coppola's spectacular adaptation of Stoker's classic vampire tale. 1992/color/130 min/R/widescreen.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
151 of 168 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
"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.
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.
107 of 122 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
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.
24 of 26 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
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.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
Dracula - par excellence
There have been so many productions of Dracula over the years it's difficult to find any that are even remotely in keeping with Bram Stoker's original. Read more
Published 1 day ago by B Leuri
A classic
Who wouldn't love this movie? The costuming, casting, special effects, the artful scenes are so carefully designed with attention to every detail. It is a classic.
Published 1 month ago by Leslie E
a beautiful interpretation of the tale!
well produced, great script, great cast! costume quality one of the best films of the 90s unforgettable
the best work of Gary Oldman
the best work of Gary Oldman
Published 1 month ago by kennedy
Old fashioned entertainment
This is a weird one, no doubt about it. But that is precisely why it succeeds.
There's no computer graphics and sometimes it makes no sense, but it's hard to argue... Read more
There's no computer graphics and sometimes it makes no sense, but it's hard to argue... Read more
Published 2 months ago by Adron Gardner
A Beautiful Windbag, Coppola's Classical Horror is the Definition of...
Francis Coppola's loyal translation of a classic piece of literature merely proves that many times some new wrinkles are necessary to interpret a printed property for the screen. Read more
Published 3 months ago by drqshadow
Dracula has never been better
No character has been portrayed more in cinema than Dracula. There are hundreds of Dracula films. This particular Dracula film is a different beast altogether. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Jon Walker
In Love With Dracula
I have watched a load of Dracula movies in my lifetime. As a child they were all scary, interesting and intrigued me. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Sandra J. Long
Not Dark Enough
Dracula (1992) is just an okay film, because it doesn't deliver in the element of fear and darkness as it should. Read more
Published 4 months ago by Todd7
Another Version of the Novel
Bram Stoker's Dracula, 1992 film
Around 1462 the Turks invaded Southeast Europe. Vlad, Voivod (Warlord) of Wallachia and Transylvania (a vassal of the King of Hungary)... Read more
Around 1462 the Turks invaded Southeast Europe. Vlad, Voivod (Warlord) of Wallachia and Transylvania (a vassal of the King of Hungary)... Read more
Published 5 months ago by Acute Observer
Reversing Hollywood Traditions
Usually, the book is made into a film first, then come the spin-offs.
The book "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was written circa 1905 and did not become popular as a film until... Read more
The book "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was written circa 1905 and did not become popular as a film until... Read more
Published 5 months ago by Lawrence Wegeman, Jr.
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
