Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Review

Spoiler-free so you can read before you watch

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Review

Movie review by Yo Adrian on February 28th, 2020 | Movie Review | Vampire, Back from the Dead, Drama

Bram Stoker's Dracula was directed by Francis Ford Coppola (who also directed Dementia 13) and stars Gary Oldman (from Tau, Hannibal and The Unborn), Winona Ryder (from Black Swan, Beetlejuice and Lost Souls), Keanu Reeves (from The Neon Demon, Knock Knock and The Devil's Advocate) and Anthony Hopkins (from Silence of the Lambs, Audrey RoseThe Rite and The Wolfman). It’s about a blood-soaked, hyper sexual, violent retelling of the story of Dracula, the infamous impaler and charismatic count.

Love never dies.

Abraham "Bram" Stoker was the guy who originally wrote the story of Dracula way back in 1897. This movie has his name in it, but trust me when I say that this movie is nothing like the story Bram inked out with his feather pen.

Columbia Pictures used Bram's name in the title only because another studio already owned the rights to "Dracula". It should have been called Frank Coppola's Dracula, since his stylistic touch is what made this movie memorable. And when I say stylistic, I'm talking Guillermo del Toro fever dream stylistic. Coppola also directed The Godfather, if that helps paint a picture.

Coppola's Dracula features vampires, sexual sirens, baby killing, exorcisms and rapey werewolves. That's cool and all, but the real 200 pound gorilla in this film was the curious casting of Keanu Reeves. His role got decimated when this movie was released. Keanu was still a young actor who was only three years removed from his iconic goofy role as Ted in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. So when he popped up with a major role in Dracula, sounding like a California surfer bro, the critics weren't kind. He was included in many scathing lists including "The 29 Worst Movie Miscastings", "50 Performances That Ruined Movies", "Acting Miscasts That Ruined Movies" and "Top 10 worst movie accents" and is said to have had a performance that was "as painful as it was hilarious". And the sad thing is they weren't wrong. He did have the innocent naive vibe Coppola seemed to be going for, he was probably just too typecast at the time for such a serious role. It wouldn't be until a decade later when he finally shook off the surfer rep with The Matrix.

So, back to the werewolf rape. It actually was a thing in this movie. Dracula wasn't only a vampire, he was also a werewolf who took his infatuation with a young socialite entirely too far. This version of Dracula definitely isn't for sensitive types. It's also not for anyone looking for a mild gothic thriller. It's intense, loud and in your face. The screen just throws stuff at you constantly while epic music blasts throughout. It can honestly get fatiguing.

But it was visually beautiful and had amazing special effects for its time. Definitely one of the better Dracula movies out there and one that falls solidly under the horror genre.

Worth Watching? 

Absolutely. Sure, it's long and gets repetitive near the second hour mark, but it also gives you a monstrous, violent and repulsive Dracula unlike anything good 'ol Bram could have ever thought up.

Bram Stoker's Dracula Review (1992) Worth Watching? - ALL HORROR Tweet it


Would it Kill You to Subscribe?

Get horror news, reviews and movie recommendations every Friday!

We respect your email privacy