The whole "Mina is Dracula's true love reborn" plot was invented wholecloth, but otherwise this is one of if not THE most book-accurate adaptations of Dracula to date.
@Maya Nightwolf that is a very good production,and I watch it every October.The only flaws are the 70s-era video effects.It's readily available here on CZcams.
A personal favorite. I don't care about the accent mistakes, this movie is a masterpiece to me in beautiful images and a stunning musical score. And Oldman is the perfect count.
In this version of Dracula he truly was redeemed at the end. Its explicit in the ending when the light from God removes the vampire curse. Great movie!👍
@@levenkay4468 Haven't seen that version, but it makes me think of Leslie Nielsen in Mel Brooks "Dracula: Dead and Loving It". 'Children of the night... What a mess they make."
This is the role, that looking back, makes me realize that even though Reeves may not be the greatest actor of all time, he does commit to a role, no matter what it is.
I give him a lot of leeway because he’s so lovable. Onscreen he comes across as warm and full of heart, with the exception of The Gift, where he actually plays a convincing bad guy. But I can’t get over the accents in this movie. So bad it’s unwatchable.
@@dqshipley2811 His accent is beyond terrible, like Bill and Ted Go To Transylvania bad. That being said though, Keanu himself I can't hate because he does the best he can with what he's given and he's just an awesome guy period so he get's away with it. There are worse things in this movie than just his accent like the overacting from many of the other cast members like Cary Elwes in some scenes for instance.
Fun Fact:Heath Ledger based his Joker voice on an awkward interview his friend Tom Waits did whilst promoting his band a couple years before making this film.
@@kingjellybean9795 I can do Cockney, but then I also can do Liverpudlian. It's not difficult. Hell, I've even convinced strangers that I was Irish just for the hell of it. I've never watched walking dead so I really have no idea about the program. I've always preferred my zombies to be the result of a Hatian witch doctor, providing labor to the sugar cane fields using the resurrected recently deceased. You have to feed them the most pallid mash. If someone accidentally gives them salt they realize that they are dead and hasten back to their graves. :)
@@mikebarratt4802 The ironic thing about Keanu and his buddy Alex Winter`s bad English accents is both their mothers were English and Winter was actually born in England!
@@WillsonT011 As a person who isn't native to the English language I didn't know people thought his accent was strange until this review. I've just thought his acting wasn't quite on point for it.
The ending in the book was a bit different. Mina didn’t kill Dracula, nor did she love him in the book. In the book, Quincy stabs him in the heart and Johnathan beheads him. Quincy was mortally wounded as shown. Johnathan and Mina name their first son after him.
@@JnEricsonx I’ve always thought that this decidedly “American” character was pretty cool. When I saw that Quincey was in this particular version of Dracula I knew it was going to be awesome. Coppola’s Dracula is one of the very few times the character of Quincey Morris (unaltered in any way) was portrayed on screen by an actor.
All things considered, I think I prefer this version of the ending. Going off to live happily ever after seems at odds with the overall tone of the story.
Yes! This right here is the most amazing comment. I didn’t realize it- until I watched it very recently. I’ve watched this movie dozens of times; growing up and never realized it!!
IMO it's kind of obvious the whole thing was shot in studio. All of the scenes set "outside" look fake as hell. But it just adds to the surreal, dream-like atmosphere and it works IMO
Dracula supposed to be gothic. Along with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Bram Stoker's story defined the genre. Dracula doesn't mean vampire. It means son of the Dragon. The real king of Wallachia, Vlad III Tepes Dracula, was the son of Vlad II Dracul, who had been inducted into the religious military order of the dragon, and who took the name Dracul or dragon in Romanian. Vlad III Dracula was also known as Vlad the Impaler because of his very notorious use of impaling as capital punishment and as a tactic to so fear against his enemies. He scared the living daylights out of and invading Turkish army, which is led by his brother, by sewing the invasion root with thousands of impaled corpses. Among those who are impaled were many German Saxons who had settled the area and whose community has cited with be nobleman who had previously deposed to Dracula. When Dracula returned to power, he returned disloyalty with mass murder. Surviving Saxons who fled back to Germany brought tales of his bloodshed and use of impaling. Germany was the center of book production in Europe and he gained a reputation because of this. Bram Stoker borrowed elements from the real life Dracula. But for the purposes of the story, he downgraded a king to a count. Mina's wound healing meant that she was no longer a vampire.
I saw this in the cinema on release in Liverpool, UK. As my girlfriend and I walked into the auditorium there was a coffin on a stand in front of the screen. As the lights went down, the cinema was filled with smoke, the coffin lid slowly opened, (complete with creaking sound effects), and an actor dressed as Dracula emerged from the coffin and ran amok amongst the audience. Great memories.
In spite of Reeves and Ryder's shocking performances, I love this movie. Oldman is incredible and the film is really a love letter to the history of filmmaking. Coppola used every single trick in the book to shoot this. Every visual effect you see was done in-camera, nothing in post (except for the one shot of blue flames at the castle's entrance).
The main issue I had with this wasn't really the fault of anyone, but it was having Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins play dramatic roles opposite the majority of the rest of the cast...they were all serviceable, some wonky accents but in general passable, but putting them next to those two is like watching a municipal basketball team play against the 1992 US Olympic basketball team...the local team can all be great players but they're just being set up to pale in comparison...I like all the actors in this, all great in their own right, reeves is even I'd dare say great if you put him in just the right role, John wick or the matrix for example, and he seems one of the nicest guys in the world in interviews and such. What they needed here were people who had the sheer chops Hopkins and Oldman had. Someone like Daniel day Lewis or Philip Hoffman at his peak as van helsing...unsure for Mina, an actress like Naomi watts or Natalie Portman who were nothing short of breathtaking in Mulholland drive and black swan respectively. Again, no shade on the other actors, they're all great and I love them in what I've seen them in for the most part, but they were all quote young here and just hadn't quite found their voices or styles yet and it's noticeable when they act next to god-tier virtuoso like Hopkins or Oldman.
Rather than being accurate to the mythos, it could be noted that the Bram Stoker novel is what started a lot of the vampire tropes. For instance, vampires being able to move around in the daylight actually predates the idea of them spontaneously bursting into flames in sunlight, which surprisingly is a much more recent addition to the lore I think. This is why I generally don't mind if a setting says its vampires work differently, because it's all just tropes with varying degrees of popularity anyway.
It was actually Nosferatu, as Dracula's first unofficial film adaptation, that had the vampire destroyed by sunlight for the first time. So in a way Dracula didn't invent that trope, but in another sense it did. I wouldn't say much more recent though, since Nosferatu was 1922, only 25 years after the book.
A note on the production of this film. Coppala wanted a very old-school feel for the film. He wanted to use old-school techniques for the whole film. As a result, all of the effects that you see are done in-camera. All of them. *ALL* of them! Coppala had to fire his previous production team and hire his son, Roman, because they kept trying to get him to abandon the idea.
I got the impression it was an age thing. Dracula was old as fuck and very strong as a result while his brides significantly less so, and lucy was weak sauce.
Actually it wasn't just Dracula who could move about by day. ALL of them could; they just typically didn't because they're by nature nocturnal predators. Dracula was a special case only because he had a functioning brain beyond just the hunger and so was able to do a lot more than just lure in prey and feed.
All of the film’s visual effects were done in-camera with techniques that would have been available at the turn of the century. When Coppola proposed this, his special effects team told him it was impossible. He promptly fired all of them and hired his son, Roman, who had some training as a magician. Together they pulled it off. The behind-the-scenes of how they did some of it is fascinating.
@@justinplayfair4638 which one is that? In the behind the scenes they say the only optical effect added in post production was the animated blue rings of fire.
@@matthewganong1730 That would be Dracula's transformation at the very end of the film before he "dies". He goes from vampire-ghoule to middle-aged Dracula to young Dracula.
I love this movie for its sets, costumes, and visual effects. It was shot almost entirely on sets and using in-camera practical and optical effects using methods from the early days of film.
To see another great Dracula film, check out German director Werner Herzog's 1979 Nosferatu the Vampyre, starring the entirely appropriate Klaus Kinski. It's a more modern remake of Murnau's 1922 original. Beautifully realized.
Please watch Shadow Of The Vampire (2000), a re-imagining of the filming of the 1922 classic Nosferatu, with John Malkovich as original director Murnau and Willem Dafoe as his lead actor. Directed by E. Elias Merhige. Also the patient, Renfield, is played by jazz/blues/rock legend Tom Waits.
Shan - the traits of the vampire shown in this movie are very much in line with Bram Stoker's novel, which - while not the origination of the vampire myth - was certainly the novel that started the modern (ie. twentieth and twenty-first century) conception of vampires. The powers depicted are not word for word what Stoker conceived, but are closer than what is typically put in movies. The key to enjoying this movie is ignoring Reeves accent. I like to pretend that in the late 1800s that is how english people spoke as opposed to today ; )
The thing I love about this movie is that it's all about Dracula. Every account from the beginning leads up to his arrival, then it's about the characters interactions with him and once he was dead (truly) the story was over. I probably stand alone being happy with the open ending 🖤
I don’t know any better actors than Oldman the accents the roles he can play anyone thanks Shan this is another art piece I enjoy watching for the visual much like Rumble Fish
Coppola’s lush photography certainly captures the lurid atmosphere of the dark age politics of the Turkish jihad and the Christian response. There are a number of historical channels that explore the facts. Vlad had a twisted sense of humor, to say the least.
FYI and FWIW, There is a video elsewhere on YT that compares *all* the Dracula movies both from the cinema and on TV. Coppola’s version was a very close second to a BBC miniseries as far as being true to the Stoker book.
Dracula on Netflix was good it could have been better some of the new ideas that were established were not fleshed out as much as could have been but they were still pretty interesting
Since you admire Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins I recommend films starring Jeremy Irons, Geoffrey Rush or Alan Rickman (RIP). I would say these gentlemen are the most charismatic actors of our time. One less known but interesting film would be The best offer (2013) with Geoffrey Rush.
Vampires having wolves as protectors or controlling them or turning into them is a typical trope. Not sure if it's from the book but it's definitely part of vampire lore.
Wow I didn't expect this one. This is my favorite vampire/Dracula movie, as well as the most faithful to the original novel of all the adaptations I've seen. Even with the romance subplot. First time I saw the intro scene, with that haunting, demonic score, I was just enthralled. Glad you enjoyed the movie, it really is bursting with gothic creativity, especially through the special effects.
"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" would be a great watch, the one starring Robert DeNiro and Kenneth Branagh. Was made in 1994. Also I'd hope you'd check out "One Hour Photo", its a psychological thriller starring Robin Williams!
I watched that Frankenstein in its theater release and I felt embarrasment almost all the time, not a recommendation... the first 2 Universal Pictures movies from the 30s are still the best ones, even if they aren't close to the original Mary Shelley story. Not a fan of Mary Shelley's book either, though
@@JulioLeonFandinho I actually agree on some level. I am not a huge fan of the novel. But I do love the film. But. While I do love the film. I still prefer the 30s versions. I prefer the gothic horror vibes. With, a honorable mention going to the Hammer Frankenstein series
This film is a masterpiece. All in camera visual effects, no CGI, no green screen. Incredible music and production design - this is the closes to book to screen adaptation there is.
For a laugh, if you haven't already, check out Mel Brooks' "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" (1995) with Leslie Nielsen, it takes mainly from the old Lugosi version and the modern Coppola films. :D I remember Richard E. Grant from one of his earlier films "Warlock" (1989), not a bad film to pass the time :)
If I remember correctly in the original book by Bram Stoker it's stated or at least implied that Vampires have the power to turn into "lesser" life forms, including wolves, bats, etc. Also, it's actually "Mina", not "Mira". Mina Harker.
Also rats and green gas, but it cannot cross water in that form. A black dog with clear eyebrows is supposed to drive him away as well. But that's added lore I think.
@@pablom-f8762 Wasn't it that vampires can't cross moving bodies of water under their own power? I remember it being an important thing in the Hellsing anime, where the bad guys trap Alucard on a crippled ship, knowing he can't escape on his own over the water. They also kept the ability to move in sunlight (albeit reduced in power), shape shifting, needing to rest in their native soil, etc.
@@Jay-ln1co not entirely sure, the gas thing is referenced in the game Vampire: the Masquerade and the dog thing appeared in Stephen King's "Salem's Lot"
This is one of those films where the visual narrative uplifts the weaker points. The effects, costumes and sets are just so artful and breathtaking. Thanks for the reaction!
FYI - Francis Ford Coppola, in addition to directing, was also a producer for the films, THX 1138 (George Lucas - creator of Star Wars & Indiana Jones - very first movie), Paper Moon, American Graffiti, The Black Stallion (and it's sequel), The Escape Artist, Rumble Fish, The Secret Garden, Don Juan DeMarco, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (the Robert De Niro one), White Dwarf (tv series), The Odyssey (1997), Moby Dick (1998), The Virgin Suicides, Sleepy Hollow (the Tim Burton movie), the Jeepers Creepers films, Lost In Translation, Marie Antoinette, The Good Shepherd & On The Road....all great films and shows 😁✌️
Funny fact Keanu and Winona where in the film married by an actual priest making them legally married however they obviously are not romantically involve they still make jokes about that and Coppola's stubbornness about detail and cool fact why there is narration is because in the book Dracula it is written in the journal style.
about the bat shapechanging we need to put a couple matters straight: Dracula is a novel written by Stoker at 1897 after watching some exchibits in British Museum as well researching the legend of the cruelty of Vlad Tepes Dracula. The Tepes part of his name means "impaller" and is related to how he treated prisoners of war as well collaborators in his fight to stop the Ottoman expanding into Wallachia as a form of Terror tactics combined with his guerilla warfare.The Dracula part is based on his father nickname "Dracul" = dragon...so he kinda was nicknamed "son of dragon" in turn and had a reputation of being ferocious in battles as well in the aftermaths and that legend included post mortem exploits and fame. The Wallachian legends were combined by Stoker with the "reverant" legends common in 18 century central europe and particularly Germany about people who came back from the dead because of unfinished business and often praying on their former life mates. The Wallachian legends about Dracula's post mortem exploits included shapeshifting into black birds and rats ( Stoker seems had a certain fascination about rats given he based another novel on them) but no bats as Wallachia had at the time of Dracula's lifetime and legends creation not seen any vampire bats as the ones in Europe are mostly either fruit or insect diet based and the first vampire bats seen by Europeans were found in American continent. Vlad died around 1477 while Colombus left Castille at 1492 for the first trip that made landfall to America (unless of course Eric the red's expedition encountered vampire bats so much earlier but never seems to brought up stores of them to Europe). Stoker of course writting at 1897 combined bats among Dracula' s transformation powers based on the vampire bats discovered by then.
A bit of awesome trivia about the effects. Francis Ford Coppola was insistent that he didn't want to use any kind of elaborate special effects or computer trickery when making the movie. He initially was given a standard visual effects team, but they told him that the things he wanted to achieve were impossible without using modern digital technology. Coppola disagreed and fired them, replacing them with his twenty-nine-year-old son Roman Coppola, who set about achieving some of the effects by using old-school cinematic trickery. A thorough exploration of these effects can be found on the 2007 Special Edition DVD in the In Camera: The Naïve Visual Effects of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (2007) featurette and in the "Heart of Darkness" article from Cinefax Magazine (also found on the DVD), but some of the most interesting examples include: When sitting in the train on his way to Transylvania, Jonathan Harker is looking at a map which appears superimposed on his face. This was a live effect achieved simply by projecting the image of the map onto Keanu Reeves' face on-set. In the same scene, outside the window, Dracula's eyes mysteriously appear in the sky, watching Harker as he travels. This was achieved by combining three separate shots. First, the shot of Gary Oldman's eyes was done with him wearing special make-up, so that only his eyes would be visible when the image was projected onto the sky backdrop. The next shot involved the projection of the eyes onto the backdrop of the Carpathian Mountain set, making it appear as if two eyes are appearing in the sky. Then, a shot was taken of Reeves sitting in the train with the combined background/eye shot rear-projected through the window. Another shot in this sequence involves a close-up of Harker's journal, with the train appearing to travel along the top of the book, blowing smoke across the pages. This was a forced perspective shot using a huge book and a tiny miniature train model. After arriving in Translyvania, Harker is met by Dracula's carriage, and the driver seems to magically reach out and lift Harker into the carriage. This shot was achieved by having the rider (Gary Oldman) sitting on a camera crane which reached out and brought him towards Reeves. At the same time, the camera was moved to the right, so it appeared as if the rider's hand wasn't actually stretching, but was simply defying physics. For the lift, Reeves was also standing on a fake floor, which was a movable rostrum which raised him up into the carriage. As the carriage approaches the castle, there is a shot of the castle in the background as the carriage speeds along a narrow driveway. This was achieved by painting the image of the castle onto a piece of glass, and then positioning the glass in front of the camera, while the shot of the carriage was shot on a soundstage. The scene when Harker is shaving, and Dracula approaches him from behind, without a reflection in the mirror, was shot by a classic technique as old as cinema itself. The actor, with his back to the camera, is actually Reeves' double, not Reeves, and the "mirror" is simply a hole in the wall, with the real Reeves standing on the other side in a portion of the set, thus when the hand touches the shoulder of the double, there is no reflection to be seen, because there is no mirror. When Harker is exploring the castle, there is a shot of some rats walking on the ceiling upside-down while Reeves descends a staircase right-way-up. This was achieved by using a double exposure. First, the shot of the rats was done with the camera upside-down. Then the film was rewound, and a matte box was placed in front of the lens so as to ensure only the correct portion of the image would be exposed.
If you want to see a very fun, humorous, parody version of this film (and satirizes/pays homage to many other Dracula/vampire films as well), then check out Mel Brooks 'Dracula: Dead & Loving It' (starring Leslie Nielsen as Count Dracula, Peter McNichol as Renfield, Steven Webber as Jonathan Harker, Amy Yazbeck as Mina, Harvey Korman as Doctor Steward & Mel Brooks as Professor Van Helsing). It's a huge laugh, hoot and a holler in my opinion. 😆😁😉
I really like this adaptation. It does a lot of interesting things, especially effects-wise...with most done in camera when possible. Yeah, some of the accents aren't great but its still very worth watching and enjoying.
He tried to use only effects they could have done 100 years ago (or something like that). Everything was shot on sets, no exteriors or locations, like old school Hollywood. Miniatures, back drops, repacking the film, all the old school effects. No CGI, no modern effects.
There is indeed a gothic undertone. The book is from the gothic horror novel era (it's from 1897) and Coppola stuck to that style really well and I think he did a good job complimenting it. Other notable gothic horror books from the same era are 'Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley' (the inspiration to all later Frankenstein adaptations) and 'The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde' (but there are many more cool books :D). During that era writers liked to really play into the fears of English society at that time. Any kind of phobia was explored and exaggerated (from the partially xenophobic elements that were hidden in Dracula, to the taboo of dabbling with life and death and being ungodly in... pretty much all books from that age). The tricky bit about the Bram Stoker book is that a large part of it consists of diary entries from Mina Harker and Jonathan Harker and a klot of newspaper clippings and headings. So the movie makers had to really piece a lot of things together.
To answer a couple of questions:Yes,in the book,Dracula can walk in daylight,and he can turn into a wolf and other animals.The whole "death by sunlight" showed up in Nosferatu,and the bat became a big element in stage and film adaptions And the thing with the effects was they were done mostly in-camera.Coppola wanted to use early effect techniques from the silent era to give them an old-fashioned feel.
Cinemassacre did an extensively researched video on which movie version followed Stoker's novel the most closely. I believe Coppola's film ranked pretty high on the list.
The heavy association with bats and not walking around in the day are tropes developed with the Bela Lugosi Dracula. So the turning into a wolf and other creatures as well as the ability to move about in the day are present in the book. In fact, even Dracula's look in this film, including having a mustache, are from the book.
Finally someone reacting to it. Coppola's final masterpiece! I agree it's not life-changing amazing, but the story, cinematography, costumes, set design and soundtrack are all top notch and more than make up for it. So is the cast, certain dialects excluded 😄 The cinematography alone is mesmerising, all that labor of love that went into it. Besides those blue ring, all effects are practical. And unique (given it was released in '92). One of my personal favourites.
Yes, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is a lush visual medium. You’ve gotta know by now that Keanu just isn’t proficient at dialects. If you ever decide to watch “Little Buddha” understand he portrays Siddhartha Gautama. I love a lot of the film, as it’s actually made for kids to understand, so it needs to be kept in context. I absolutely adore the soundtrack by Ryuichi Sakamoto.
The story in the novel is based on diary entries, letters, etc. So, the disjointedness is in the story itself. And you are right...this is a gothic story. A gothic romance. The visual effects were all based on old-school techniques that would have been available to filmmakers back in the time of the first 'Dracula' film with Bela Lugosi as the Count. This won Oscars for Make-Up, Sound Effects Editing, and Costumes. The costume designer was Eiko Ishioka, who had only done one other film when she won for this. The lawyer who went crazy was Renfield and was played by recording artist/actor Tom Waits. Mina Harker's fate is ambiguous...in fact, the ambiguity has led to a few interesting stories. In particular, Alan Moore incorporated Mina as one of 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' in the comics (she even appeared in the rather flat film adaptation played by Peta Wilson...and she had some vampiric powers). Coppola did a follow-up film as a producer with 'Mary Shelly's Frankenstein' and handed directing duties to Kenneth Branagh (who starred as Victor Frankenstein). The film also stars Helena Bonham Carter and Robert DeNiro as the creature. It was also an interesting film.
Was glad to see you checking this out - great reactions as always! This movie is both the most faithful, and yet the least faithful, adaptation of Dracula. The biggest difference is that Jonathan and Mina are the only love story in the original. This version with Mina and Dracula and this reincarnation plot was lifted from Carmilla, another vampire novel from that era. Originally he just collects brides (three), it's nothing to do with love. Also, while Bram Stoker lifted the name from a real historical Count who fought the Turks, there's nothing in the novel to link the two. That's all added in. You also asked about the wolf - that actually comes from the short prequel story that was published posthumously by Stoker's widow, 'Dracula's Guest'. Dracula appears as a wolf in that one. And on Renfield, his death makes no sense really here because of the story change. Originally he has a change of heart and tries to save Mina from her fate, warning her, despite knowing what it will cost him. He gives his life to save her. In this version it's not quite so well explained. Mostly this movie really tries to make Dracula a sympathetic figure, while in the original he's pure monster, so the tone is completely different. Regardless, I love a lot about this movie, largely the music and performances (even Keanu!), but it's still not a patch on the novel.
@@anthonymunn8633 Possibly! It's funny how ingrained its become in the Dracula lore now. Kind of a shame, since the whole point of Mina is that (unlike Lucy) she is virtuous and strong enough to overcome Dracula's growing control over her long enough to lead the men to him to kill him. It's much more of a classic Victorian morality tale about resisting the lure of sexuality and evil than modern adaptations allow. Jonathan is also a particularly virtuous person, which is the only reason he survives - he resists the lure of the brides and escapes.
The daylight and the wolves are both in the original novel: Dracula is described several times walking around the city in daylight, but it is mentioned that he doesn't have the powers he had at night. And wolves were always his closest allies in the novel. He's shown - during the day - recruiting one at the London Zoo. This wolf then breaks through all the barriers put up to keep Dracula away from Lucy. As others have noted, the back story and love interest with Mina were added wholesale by this version. The novel's Dracula had no redeeming features, at all.
There's a series of novels called "Anno Dracula" by novelist and film historian Kim Newman, based on the idea that Van Helsing and company lose at the end of Bram Stoker's story and Dracula goes on to marry Queen Victoria and turn her into a vampire, becoming the king of England and causing vampires to come out of hiding. It incorporates A LOT of historical figures and situation as well as a fictional characters and situations from other books, movies, TV shows, etc. The series goes on up to 1999 if I remember correctly, and at some point it covers Francis Ford Coppola making "Dracula" but it's based not so much on Bram Stoker's book but on the novel's in-universe events and he shoots it in the late 70's instead of the early 90's and the cast, crew, and the behind the scenes drama are all based on "Apocalypse Now" to the point that it has Martin Sheen playing Jonathan Harker, Marlon Brando playing Dracula and Robert Duvall playing Van Helsing and so on. They're awesome books and more people should know about them.
The score is one of the best orchestral film scores out there. there's not a lot of long-form composition music within the movie like you find with composers like John Williams, but the individual pieces are just brilliant. One really interesting thing here was how Coppola tried to retain the epistolary structure of the original book, which was written as a collection of letters, recordings, diary entries, newspaper articles, etc...
2 pieces of informations: 1) Dracula is based on the bloody legacy of a historic figure : Vlad III Dracula (dragon) Tepes. 2) Vampires DO have a mirror image, but clean things dont reflect evil, silver for example. And old mirrors have been made with silver. THATS why they didnt have a mirror image. So you could still see them in modern mirrors, which are not made with silver, or just water.
Coppola adapts the Stoker's novel and the legend of the real Prince Vlad III of Romania,the real Dracul... In a way it is the best interpretarion of the novel since it follows the same lone of events,and respects the presence of the secondary characters ( in other versions there are not Quincy Morris or Arthur), but at the same time it intentionally exaggerates everything, to build a fantastic story halfway between historical reenactment and a victorian gothic nightmare. Color,and the play of light and shadows, plus special effects are the protagonists
Amazing film very classic Bram Stoker's Dracula produced and directed by Francis Ford Coppola screenplay by James V. Hart based on Dracula by Bram Stoker starring Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves and music score by Wojciech Kilar. This film was nominated for 4 Oscars and won 3 for best costume design, best sound editing and best makeup while also being nominated for best art direction. Its score was composed by Wojciech Kilar and its closing credits theme "Love Song for a Vampire", written and performed by Annie Lennox, became an international success. Thank you Shan great reaction very nice excellent😎😎😎👍👍👍
THIS FILM IS AMAZING!!! Gary plays ALLLLLLL of the Draculas forms! All in camera techniques! and OH MAN THE SCORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But that film wouldn't be what it is without Eiko's costume designs. WOW! I worked with the guy who sculpted Dracula's armor and some of the make-ups! So bad ass! The accent never bothered me and only added to the, "stage quality". It actually helped the film I think become what it is because the director needed to edit around it. This film is so beautiful. I love the scene where Dracula drops off Mina. Entire epilogues were exchanged but no words were spoken. But in the beginning you forgot, Hopkins, Elwes, and WAITS!
This was one of the first films to portray the vampire romantically and also show a vampire hunter almost as animalistic,psychopathic and sadistic as his prey!Indeed Sir Anthony Hopkins was cast precisely for that reason!
Keanu is a perfect example of its not what you know or how good you are, its who you know in the movie industry. he’s been a star in more blockbusters than any other bad actor. dude is a legend for that 💯😆👍
Winona Ryder owed Coppola a good performance. She was supposed to play Mary Corleone in Godfather III and pulled our last minute. So Coppola put his daughter in that role and her performance was universally hated by critics at the time. Winona was a big name and talent back then. I would loved to have seen her play Mary.
This movie is a trip. Excellent acting performances by Oldman, Hopkins and Grant. A fantastic Score by Wojchiech Kilar and top-notch Production Design/Sets/Editing/Camerawork. And the Effects were exclusively & deliberately done the old fashioned way, like in decades past with a lot of in-camera stuff and no bluescreen whatsoever. And it just looks cool. Most importantly, it moves at a feverish pace. Watching it, I alternatively felt like being in a dream or a nightmare. Literally the *only* thing I didn't like was Keanu. Love him elsewhere, but here he felt woefully out of place.
9:53 You know Monica Bellucci... And yeah she is naked, lucky for us. ;) 11:02 That werewolf scene left a big impression me in the first time I saw this movie as a child. 16:35 "She was in great pain! Then we cut off her head and drove a stake through her heart and then she found peace." :D 18:32 Dracula turning into rats was fantastic seeing for the first time.
OMG!!!!!!!!!! I've been nagging every movie reaction channel I follow, including yours, to do this movie for like.. ever! But you're the first one to do it..!
Part of the reason the movie feels disjointed is because the original novel is disjointed...its not a straight narrative but presented as a series of journal entries, news articles, letters and such, all from different points of view.
9:00 the trope about Vampires having no reflection is because for centuries, they used silver nitrate (or something the like), to make the reflective layer of the mirrors, and according to folklore, Vampires hates silver. Its something that is not used anymore in modern mirrors, so a Modern day Vampire, would have his reflection in a mirror.
Never noticed Sir Anthony Hopkins playing the priest at the beginning. Thanks yo! Plus: Keanu Reeves also stars in "Much Ado About Nothing", directed by Kenneth Brannagh who must have been smoking something good to put Keano in a Shakespearean adaptation. While I'm here might as well recommend "Frankenstein" (1994) known as "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" by the mentioned Mr Brannagh.
Weirdly Reeves seems to have been often cast in period movies at this time and he seems completely out-of-place in every single one. Another one is Dangerous Liaisons with Glenn Close and John Malkovich who act loops around the poor guy.
The character of Renfield, the mad bug eater, was played by none other than the musician, poet, and actor, Tom Waits. I agree regarding Gary Oldman. Chameleon. He has taken on such diverse personas; Rosencratz, Dracula, Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK), BEETHOVEN (Immortal Beloved), Sid Vicious, Winston Churchill, Drexl Spivey (True Romance), Jackie Flannery (State Of Grace). All over the map and good to exceptional in everything he's done. I would recommend those last two films and Immortal Beloved to you for your reaction. Renfield's betrayal was that he warned Mina away from Dracula. Van Helsing had pressed a waffer of unleven bread (the body of Christ, the sacrament) onto Mina's forhead and it burned her there - that healed after Dracula's death, perhaps showing restoration, and redemption. I loved this movie - thanks for reacting to it. Very good job -
The whole "Mina is Dracula's true love reborn" plot was invented wholecloth, but otherwise this is one of if not THE most book-accurate adaptations of Dracula to date.
Check out NOSFERATU BY WERNER HERZOG
The 1977 BBC TV adaptation is generally considered the most faithful to the book version. It's on CZcams.
@@SadPeterPan1977 the one with Frank langella and Lawrence Oliver ?
@@SadPeterPan1977 if only it didn’t combine characters.
@Maya Nightwolf that is a very good production,and I watch it every October.The only flaws are the 70s-era video effects.It's readily available here on CZcams.
A personal favorite. I don't care about the accent mistakes, this movie is a masterpiece to me in beautiful images and a stunning musical score. And Oldman is the perfect count.
I love it for the smorgasbord of old-school film styles, tropes, and practical tricks. It's like a cinema history course in a single film!
My mother loved this movie also it sticks out in my mind because the video she brought came in a box shaped like a coffin lol.
Perhaps the most 'beautiful' horror movie ever made. Visually, it is just stunning. And hey, Tom Waits as Renfield -- what movie can say that?!
Gotta give love to waits, that guy is just all around awesome personified lol
Some get turned into a Vampire quickly but Tom Waits
In this version of Dracula he truly was redeemed at the end. Its explicit in the ending when the light from God removes the vampire curse. Great movie!👍
“I think this film might have a Gothic tone to it.” 😂
Understatement of the year award 2021
That’s why I keep coming back 👍
Gary Oldman was intrigued enough to accept the role when he read the line, "I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."
"Listen to them. The children of the night. What sweet music they make." My favourite line. :)
I think I prefer George Hamilton's, "Children of the night ... Shut UP!"
@@levenkay4468 Haven't seen that version, but it makes me think of Leslie Nielsen in Mel Brooks "Dracula: Dead and Loving It". 'Children of the night... What a mess they make."
This is the role, that looking back, makes me realize that even though Reeves may not be the greatest actor of all time, he does commit to a role, no matter what it is.
He was great in The Devil’s Advocate.
I give him a lot of leeway because he’s so lovable. Onscreen he comes across as warm and full of heart, with the exception of The Gift, where he actually plays a convincing bad guy. But I can’t get over the accents in this movie. So bad it’s unwatchable.
@@dqshipley2811 His accent is beyond terrible, like Bill and Ted Go To Transylvania bad. That being said though, Keanu himself I can't hate because he does the best he can with what he's given and he's just an awesome guy period so he get's away with it. There are worse things in this movie than just his accent like the overacting from many of the other cast members like Cary Elwes in some scenes for instance.
Tom Waits did a good job as Renfield, he betrays Dracula by trying to tell Mina to flee. I just liked the ensemble cast!
Waits was AMAZING as Renfield, there is no better!
Coppola’s old buddy Marlon Brando would have made a very interesting Van Helsing but there’s no topping Anthony Hopkins!
Fun Fact:Heath Ledger based his Joker voice on an awkward interview his friend Tom Waits did whilst promoting his band a couple years before making this film.
Outside of Keanu and Winona’s English accents I love this movie.
Winonas English accent was ok but Keanu Reeves English accent was bad still really like the movie best draucla film for me
I don't find them anymore cringe worthy than when English actors try to effect an American accent.
@@kingjellybean9795 I can do Cockney, but then I also can do Liverpudlian. It's not difficult. Hell, I've even convinced strangers that I was Irish just for the hell of it. I've never watched walking dead so I really have no idea about the program. I've always preferred my zombies to be the result of a Hatian witch doctor, providing labor to the sugar cane fields using the resurrected recently deceased. You have to feed them the most pallid mash. If someone accidentally gives them salt they realize that they are dead and hasten back to their graves. :)
@@kingjellybean9795 well not really, American’s do a posh accent when attempting an English accent, because you think they all sound like the Queen.
@@mikebarratt4802 The ironic thing about Keanu and his buddy Alex Winter`s bad English accents is both their mothers were English and Winter was actually born in England!
No vampire series is complete without “Shadow of the Vampire,” a black comedy about the making of “Nosferatu,” with Willem Dafoe and John Malkovitch.
Don't forget Buffy the Vampire Slayer. :)
I don't even think of it as a black comedy, just serious as a heart attack. Best movie
@@1000dots Hmmnnn … Well, I have to admit that people have told me I have a rather warped sense of humor …
@@1000dots I love Shadow of the Vampire…watching it back to back with the original Nosferatu is a lot of fun.
I love this movie. It has some weaknesses, but as a gothic romance, it is wholly gorgeous.
Agreed, love the genre. The 1994 Frankenstein also has a spot in my heart.
@@runki9413 Haven't seen that one yet. Might have to add it to my list :)
Just say what that weakness was, Keanu fucking Reeves
@@WillsonT011 Yeah, but he's still one of the best human beings on the planet, so it's okay. But yeah, him XD
@@WillsonT011 As a person who isn't native to the English language I didn't know people thought his accent was strange until this review. I've just thought his acting wasn't quite on point for it.
The ending in the book was a bit different. Mina didn’t kill Dracula, nor did she love him in the book. In the book, Quincy stabs him in the heart and Johnathan beheads him. Quincy was mortally wounded as shown. Johnathan and Mina name their first son after him.
A lot of people don’t realize Dracula is killed by a Texas cowboy with a Bowie knife!
@@scottmoore1614 And remember, "Well, I wasn't planning on getting that close Doc!"
@@JnEricsonx I’ve always thought that this decidedly “American” character was pretty cool. When I saw that Quincey was in this particular version of Dracula I knew it was going to be awesome. Coppola’s Dracula is one of the very few times the character of Quincey Morris (unaltered in any way) was portrayed on screen by an actor.
All things considered, I think I prefer this version of the ending. Going off to live happily ever after seems at odds with the overall tone of the story.
Yes! This right here is the most amazing comment. I didn’t realize it- until I watched it very recently.
I’ve watched this movie dozens of times; growing up and never realized it!!
The most amazing accomplishment about this film is that is was 100% shot inside the Culver City Studios, EVERYTHING!!!
IMO it's kind of obvious the whole thing was shot in studio. All of the scenes set "outside" look fake as hell. But it just adds to the surreal, dream-like atmosphere and it works IMO
Dracula supposed to be gothic. Along with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Bram Stoker's story defined the genre.
Dracula doesn't mean vampire. It means son of the Dragon. The real king of Wallachia, Vlad III Tepes Dracula, was the son of Vlad II Dracul, who had been inducted into the religious military order of the dragon, and who took the name Dracul or dragon in Romanian. Vlad III Dracula was also known as Vlad the Impaler because of his very notorious use of impaling as capital punishment and as a tactic to so fear against his enemies. He scared the living daylights out of and invading Turkish army, which is led by his brother, by sewing the invasion root with thousands of impaled corpses. Among those who are impaled were many German Saxons who had settled the area and whose community has cited with be nobleman who had previously deposed to Dracula. When Dracula returned to power, he returned disloyalty with mass murder. Surviving Saxons who fled back to Germany brought tales of his bloodshed and use of impaling. Germany was the center of book production in Europe and he gained a reputation because of this.
Bram Stoker borrowed elements from the real life Dracula. But for the purposes of the story, he downgraded a king to a count.
Mina's wound healing meant that she was no longer a vampire.
I saw this in the cinema on release in Liverpool, UK.
As my girlfriend and I walked into the auditorium there was a coffin on a stand in front of the screen. As the lights went down, the cinema was filled with smoke, the coffin lid slowly opened, (complete with creaking sound effects), and an actor dressed as Dracula emerged from the coffin and ran amok amongst the audience.
Great memories.
In spite of Reeves and Ryder's shocking performances, I love this movie. Oldman is incredible and the film is really a love letter to the history of filmmaking. Coppola used every single trick in the book to shoot this. Every visual effect you see was done in-camera, nothing in post (except for the one shot of blue flames at the castle's entrance).
I think Francis's son Roman headed the effects team
The main issue I had with this wasn't really the fault of anyone, but it was having Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins play dramatic roles opposite the majority of the rest of the cast...they were all serviceable, some wonky accents but in general passable, but putting them next to those two is like watching a municipal basketball team play against the 1992 US Olympic basketball team...the local team can all be great players but they're just being set up to pale in comparison...I like all the actors in this, all great in their own right, reeves is even I'd dare say great if you put him in just the right role, John wick or the matrix for example, and he seems one of the nicest guys in the world in interviews and such. What they needed here were people who had the sheer chops Hopkins and Oldman had. Someone like Daniel day Lewis or Philip Hoffman at his peak as van helsing...unsure for Mina, an actress like Naomi watts or Natalie Portman who were nothing short of breathtaking in Mulholland drive and black swan respectively.
Again, no shade on the other actors, they're all great and I love them in what I've seen them in for the most part, but they were all quote young here and just hadn't quite found their voices or styles yet and it's noticeable when they act next to god-tier virtuoso like Hopkins or Oldman.
Rather than being accurate to the mythos, it could be noted that the Bram Stoker novel is what started a lot of the vampire tropes. For instance, vampires being able to move around in the daylight actually predates the idea of them spontaneously bursting into flames in sunlight, which surprisingly is a much more recent addition to the lore I think. This is why I generally don't mind if a setting says its vampires work differently, because it's all just tropes with varying degrees of popularity anyway.
It was actually Nosferatu, as Dracula's first unofficial film adaptation, that had the vampire destroyed by sunlight for the first time. So in a way Dracula didn't invent that trope, but in another sense it did. I wouldn't say much more recent though, since Nosferatu was 1922, only 25 years after the book.
A note on the production of this film. Coppala wanted a very old-school feel for the film. He wanted to use old-school techniques for the whole film. As a result, all of the effects that you see are done in-camera. All of them. *ALL* of them! Coppala had to fire his previous production team and hire his son, Roman, because they kept trying to get him to abandon the idea.
It wasn't changed, in the book Dracula was able to move around in the day, it was the vampires that he sired that had to stay out of the sun light.
I got the impression it was an age thing. Dracula was old as fuck and very strong as a result while his brides significantly less so, and lucy was weak sauce.
Actually it wasn't just Dracula who could move about by day. ALL of them could; they just typically didn't because they're by nature nocturnal predators. Dracula was a special case only because he had a functioning brain beyond just the hunger and so was able to do a lot more than just lure in prey and feed.
The costume and set design in this film was extraordinary. One of the best adaptations of this book without doubt.
All of the film’s visual effects were done in-camera with techniques that would have been available at the turn of the century. When Coppola proposed this, his special effects team told him it was impossible. He promptly fired all of them and hired his son, Roman, who had some training as a magician. Together they pulled it off. The behind-the-scenes of how they did some of it is fascinating.
Except for that one morph shot...
@@justinplayfair4638 which one is that? In the behind the scenes they say the only optical effect added in post production was the animated blue rings of fire.
@@matthewganong1730 That would be Dracula's transformation at the very end of the film before he "dies". He goes from vampire-ghoule to middle-aged Dracula to young Dracula.
I love this movie for its sets, costumes, and visual effects. It was shot almost entirely on sets and using in-camera practical and optical effects using methods from the early days of film.
Seeing this, in a movie theater in 1991 is another thing
To see another great Dracula film, check out German director Werner Herzog's 1979 Nosferatu the Vampyre, starring the entirely appropriate Klaus Kinski. It's a more modern remake of Murnau's 1922 original. Beautifully realized.
Please watch Shadow Of The Vampire (2000), a re-imagining of the filming of the 1922 classic Nosferatu, with John Malkovich as original director Murnau and Willem Dafoe as his lead actor. Directed by E. Elias Merhige.
Also the patient, Renfield, is played by jazz/blues/rock legend Tom Waits.
Elias Merhige??? the one that created Begotten?
Love this movie!
Yes, Willem Defoe's vampire was an interesting movie! Id love to see your take on it.
Shan - the traits of the vampire shown in this movie are very much in line with Bram Stoker's novel, which - while not the origination of the vampire myth - was certainly the novel that started the modern (ie. twentieth and twenty-first century) conception of vampires. The powers depicted are not word for word what Stoker conceived, but are closer than what is typically put in movies. The key to enjoying this movie is ignoring Reeves accent. I like to pretend that in the late 1800s that is how english people spoke as opposed to today ; )
The thing I love about this movie is that it's all about Dracula.
Every account from the beginning leads up to his arrival, then it's about the characters interactions with him and once he was dead (truly) the story was over.
I probably stand alone being happy with the open ending 🖤
Keanu does an Indian accent in Little Buddha, and apparently didn’t know it was a requirement till he turned up on set!
I really like that movie.
When this first came out, at Halloween many people dressed up as Dracula in the purple outfit with the John Lennon glasses
I would have. I absolutely loved those costumes --all of them, but especially in those London scenes.
Take those glasses off, the suit was actually grey.
I don’t know any better actors than Oldman the accents the roles he can play anyone thanks Shan this is another art piece I enjoy watching for the visual much like Rumble Fish
Yes please check out Coppola's 'Rumble Fish'.
Coppola’s lush photography certainly captures the lurid atmosphere of the dark age politics of the Turkish jihad and the Christian response. There are a number of historical channels that explore the facts. Vlad had a twisted sense of humor, to say the least.
I saw this movie in the theater as a young teen and thus began my utter love of Gary Oldman.
FYI and FWIW, There is a video elsewhere on YT that compares *all* the Dracula movies both from the cinema and on TV. Coppola’s version was a very close second to a BBC miniseries as far as being true to the Stoker book.
Dracula on Netflix was good it could have been better some of the new ideas that were established were not fleshed out as much as could have been but they were still pretty interesting
Accents aside, this is one of the best movies I had ever seen.
Poor Keanu, has such a good heart, has limitations.
We all do.
Probably doesn't help that he's acting opposite to Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins at their scenery-chewing best, either.
@@JBuddis Johnny Depp, who was originally going to do it, probably would have handled that situation a lot better.
I went to go see this movie at the theatures when I was 18. Still lives up to it's name today.
Yeah me too. It was amazing on the big screen.
Since you admire Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins I recommend films starring Jeremy Irons, Geoffrey Rush or Alan Rickman (RIP). I would say these gentlemen are the most charismatic actors of our time. One less known but interesting film would be The best offer (2013) with Geoffrey Rush.
I love how amused you are by Keanu's accent. It's so bad that it's unintentionally hilarious.
Vampires having wolves as protectors or controlling them or turning into them is a typical trope. Not sure if it's from the book but it's definitely part of vampire lore.
Wow I didn't expect this one. This is my favorite vampire/Dracula movie, as well as the most faithful to the original novel of all the adaptations I've seen. Even with the romance subplot. First time I saw the intro scene, with that haunting, demonic score, I was just enthralled. Glad you enjoyed the movie, it really is bursting with gothic creativity, especially through the special effects.
This is a visual masterpiece
"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" would be a great watch, the one starring Robert DeNiro and Kenneth Branagh. Was made in 1994.
Also I'd hope you'd check out "One Hour Photo", its a psychological thriller starring Robin Williams!
I'll give three votes for that version of Frankenstein.
YES. I put these two films in the same category.
They are similar in many ways both spectacular films.
I watched that Frankenstein in its theater release and I felt embarrasment almost all the time, not a recommendation... the first 2 Universal Pictures movies from the 30s are still the best ones, even if they aren't close to the original Mary Shelley story. Not a fan of Mary Shelley's book either, though
@@JulioLeonFandinho I actually agree on some level.
I am not a huge fan of the novel.
But I do love the film.
But. While I do love the film. I still prefer the 30s versions. I prefer the gothic horror vibes.
With, a honorable mention going to the Hammer Frankenstein series
@@TheRealMediaMan the Hammer movies are still a doubt I have with myself, never watched any 🤦♂️
This film is a masterpiece. All in camera visual effects, no CGI, no green screen. Incredible music and production design - this is the closes to book to screen adaptation there is.
For a laugh, if you haven't already, check out Mel Brooks' "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" (1995) with Leslie Nielsen, it takes mainly from the old Lugosi version and the modern Coppola films.
:D
I remember Richard E. Grant from one of his earlier films "Warlock" (1989), not a bad film to pass the time :)
I second that!
"She's ALMOST DEAD!"
Completely agree. Love 'Dracula: Dead and Loving It'. It's Mel Brooks. You can never go wrong with Mel Brooks.
"Warlock"! It's a very interesting movie, I think, Shan would appreciate it.
"-But Lucy, I'm british... -So are these!" :)
"Is it me or does this film have a very Gothic tone to it?" Well "Dracula" is one of the foremost examples of Gothic horror.
If I remember correctly in the original book by Bram Stoker it's stated or at least implied that Vampires have the power to turn into "lesser" life forms, including wolves, bats, etc.
Also, it's actually "Mina", not "Mira". Mina Harker.
Also rats and green gas, but it cannot cross water in that form. A black dog with clear eyebrows is supposed to drive him away as well. But that's added lore I think.
@@pablom-f8762 Wasn't it that vampires can't cross moving bodies of water under their own power? I remember it being an important thing in the Hellsing anime, where the bad guys trap Alucard on a crippled ship, knowing he can't escape on his own over the water. They also kept the ability to move in sunlight (albeit reduced in power), shape shifting, needing to rest in their native soil, etc.
@@Jay-ln1co not entirely sure, the gas thing is referenced in the game Vampire: the Masquerade and the dog thing appeared in Stephen King's "Salem's Lot"
They can turn into any creature of the night, as well as eyes (or any facial part) in the sky and mist.
This is one of those films where the visual narrative uplifts the weaker points. The effects, costumes and sets are just so artful and breathtaking. Thanks for the reaction!
FYI - Francis Ford Coppola, in addition to directing, was also a producer for the films, THX 1138 (George Lucas - creator of Star Wars & Indiana Jones - very first movie), Paper Moon, American Graffiti, The Black Stallion (and it's sequel), The Escape Artist, Rumble Fish, The Secret Garden, Don Juan DeMarco, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (the Robert De Niro one), White Dwarf (tv series), The Odyssey (1997), Moby Dick (1998), The Virgin Suicides, Sleepy Hollow (the Tim Burton movie), the Jeepers Creepers films, Lost In Translation, Marie Antoinette, The Good Shepherd & On The Road....all great films and shows 😁✌️
Funny fact Keanu and Winona where in the film married by an actual priest making them legally married however they obviously are not romantically involve they still make jokes about that and Coppola's stubbornness about detail and cool fact why there is narration is because in the book Dracula it is written in the journal style.
about the bat shapechanging we need to put a couple matters straight: Dracula is a novel written by Stoker at 1897 after watching some exchibits in British Museum as well researching the legend of the cruelty of Vlad Tepes Dracula. The Tepes part of his name means "impaller" and is related to how he treated prisoners of war as well collaborators in his fight to stop the Ottoman expanding into Wallachia as a form of Terror tactics combined with his guerilla warfare.The Dracula part is based on his father nickname "Dracul" = dragon...so he kinda was nicknamed "son of dragon" in turn and had a reputation of being ferocious in battles as well in the aftermaths and that legend included post mortem exploits and fame. The Wallachian legends were combined by Stoker with the "reverant" legends common in 18 century central europe and particularly Germany about people who came back from the dead because of unfinished business and often praying on their former life mates. The Wallachian legends about Dracula's post mortem exploits included shapeshifting into black birds and rats ( Stoker seems had a certain fascination about rats given he based another novel on them) but no bats as Wallachia had at the time of Dracula's lifetime and legends creation not seen any vampire bats as the ones in Europe are mostly either fruit or insect diet based and the first vampire bats seen by Europeans were found in American continent. Vlad died around 1477 while Colombus left Castille at 1492 for the first trip that made landfall to America (unless of course Eric the red's expedition encountered vampire bats so much earlier but never seems to brought up stores of them to Europe). Stoker of course writting at 1897 combined bats among Dracula' s transformation powers based on the vampire bats discovered by then.
“ I love you too much to condemn you to all this death “ ❤️❤️
Gary Oldman was in a movie called The Fifth Element which I had also seen, and I had not recognized him at all.
2:04 - you thank Wojciech Kilar, the Polish composer, for creating such awesomely ominous soundtrack
A bit of awesome trivia about the effects.
Francis Ford Coppola was insistent that he didn't want to use any kind of elaborate special effects or computer trickery when making the movie. He initially was given a standard visual effects team, but they told him that the things he wanted to achieve were impossible without using modern digital technology. Coppola disagreed and fired them, replacing them with his twenty-nine-year-old son Roman Coppola, who set about achieving some of the effects by using old-school cinematic trickery. A thorough exploration of these effects can be found on the 2007 Special Edition DVD in the In Camera: The Naïve Visual Effects of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (2007) featurette and in the "Heart of Darkness" article from Cinefax Magazine (also found on the DVD), but some of the most interesting examples include: When sitting in the train on his way to Transylvania, Jonathan Harker is looking at a map which appears superimposed on his face. This was a live effect achieved simply by projecting the image of the map onto Keanu Reeves' face on-set. In the same scene, outside the window, Dracula's eyes mysteriously appear in the sky, watching Harker as he travels. This was achieved by combining three separate shots. First, the shot of Gary Oldman's eyes was done with him wearing special make-up, so that only his eyes would be visible when the image was projected onto the sky backdrop. The next shot involved the projection of the eyes onto the backdrop of the Carpathian Mountain set, making it appear as if two eyes are appearing in the sky. Then, a shot was taken of Reeves sitting in the train with the combined background/eye shot rear-projected through the window. Another shot in this sequence involves a close-up of Harker's journal, with the train appearing to travel along the top of the book, blowing smoke across the pages. This was a forced perspective shot using a huge book and a tiny miniature train model. After arriving in Translyvania, Harker is met by Dracula's carriage, and the driver seems to magically reach out and lift Harker into the carriage. This shot was achieved by having the rider (Gary Oldman) sitting on a camera crane which reached out and brought him towards Reeves. At the same time, the camera was moved to the right, so it appeared as if the rider's hand wasn't actually stretching, but was simply defying physics. For the lift, Reeves was also standing on a fake floor, which was a movable rostrum which raised him up into the carriage. As the carriage approaches the castle, there is a shot of the castle in the background as the carriage speeds along a narrow driveway. This was achieved by painting the image of the castle onto a piece of glass, and then positioning the glass in front of the camera, while the shot of the carriage was shot on a soundstage. The scene when Harker is shaving, and Dracula approaches him from behind, without a reflection in the mirror, was shot by a classic technique as old as cinema itself. The actor, with his back to the camera, is actually Reeves' double, not Reeves, and the "mirror" is simply a hole in the wall, with the real Reeves standing on the other side in a portion of the set, thus when the hand touches the shoulder of the double, there is no reflection to be seen, because there is no mirror. When Harker is exploring the castle, there is a shot of some rats walking on the ceiling upside-down while Reeves descends a staircase right-way-up. This was achieved by using a double exposure. First, the shot of the rats was done with the camera upside-down. Then the film was rewound, and a matte box was placed in front of the lens so as to ensure only the correct portion of the image would be exposed.
This is really great. The atmosphere of this movie is what makes it my favorite and these effects are doubtless why.
A amazing childhood classic, loved everything about this growing up, even goofy keanu : P Love is Eternal
Also LOL quote of the video: "Is it me, or does this film have a very Gothic feel to it?"
If you want to see a vampire movie with a Bauhaus feel instead, check out "Let The Right One In." lol
If you want to see a very fun, humorous, parody version of this film (and satirizes/pays homage to many other Dracula/vampire films as well), then check out Mel Brooks 'Dracula: Dead & Loving It' (starring Leslie Nielsen as Count Dracula, Peter McNichol as Renfield, Steven Webber as Jonathan Harker, Amy Yazbeck as Mina, Harvey Korman as Doctor Steward & Mel Brooks as Professor Van Helsing). It's a huge laugh, hoot and a holler in my opinion. 😆😁😉
I really like this adaptation. It does a lot of interesting things, especially effects-wise...with most done in camera when possible. Yeah, some of the accents aren't great but its still very worth watching and enjoying.
He tried to use only effects they could have done 100 years ago (or something like that). Everything was shot on sets, no exteriors or locations, like old school Hollywood. Miniatures, back drops, repacking the film, all the old school effects. No CGI, no modern effects.
I really love this movie. Oldman is great as Dracula.
The music fits so beautifully with each scene's performances. Excellent review/reaction, thank you.
There is indeed a gothic undertone. The book is from the gothic horror novel era (it's from 1897) and Coppola stuck to that style really well and I think he did a good job complimenting it. Other notable gothic horror books from the same era are 'Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley' (the inspiration to all later Frankenstein adaptations) and 'The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde' (but there are many more cool books :D). During that era writers liked to really play into the fears of English society at that time. Any kind of phobia was explored and exaggerated (from the partially xenophobic elements that were hidden in Dracula, to the taboo of dabbling with life and death and being ungodly in... pretty much all books from that age).
The tricky bit about the Bram Stoker book is that a large part of it consists of diary entries from Mina Harker and Jonathan Harker and a klot of newspaper clippings and headings. So the movie makers had to really piece a lot of things together.
To answer a couple of questions:Yes,in the book,Dracula can walk in daylight,and he can turn into a wolf and other animals.The whole "death by sunlight" showed up in Nosferatu,and the bat became a big element in stage and film adaptions
And the thing with the effects was they were done mostly in-camera.Coppola wanted to use early effect techniques from the silent era to give them an old-fashioned feel.
Cinemassacre did an extensively researched video on which movie version followed Stoker's novel the most closely. I believe Coppola's film ranked pretty high on the list.
One of my all time favorites. Absolutely love the visuals. I was lucky enough to see it in theaters several times when it first came out.
I love that all the special effects for this movie were done in-camera, which is very cool.
The heavy association with bats and not walking around in the day are tropes developed with the Bela Lugosi Dracula. So the turning into a wolf and other creatures as well as the ability to move about in the day are present in the book. In fact, even Dracula's look in this film, including having a mustache, are from the book.
Finally someone reacting to it. Coppola's final masterpiece! I agree it's not life-changing amazing, but the story, cinematography, costumes, set design and soundtrack are all top notch and more than make up for it. So is the cast, certain dialects excluded 😄
The cinematography alone is mesmerising, all that labor of love that went into it. Besides those blue ring, all effects are practical. And unique (given it was released in '92). One of my personal favourites.
Yes, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is a lush visual medium.
You’ve gotta know by now that Keanu just isn’t proficient at dialects. If you ever decide to watch “Little Buddha” understand he portrays Siddhartha Gautama. I love a lot of the film, as it’s actually made for kids to understand, so it needs to be kept in context. I absolutely adore the soundtrack by Ryuichi Sakamoto.
The story in the novel is based on diary entries, letters, etc. So, the disjointedness is in the story itself. And you are right...this is a gothic story. A gothic romance.
The visual effects were all based on old-school techniques that would have been available to filmmakers back in the time of the first 'Dracula' film with Bela Lugosi as the Count.
This won Oscars for Make-Up, Sound Effects Editing, and Costumes. The costume designer was Eiko Ishioka, who had only done one other film when she won for this.
The lawyer who went crazy was Renfield and was played by recording artist/actor Tom Waits.
Mina Harker's fate is ambiguous...in fact, the ambiguity has led to a few interesting stories. In particular, Alan Moore incorporated Mina as one of 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' in the comics (she even appeared in the rather flat film adaptation played by Peta Wilson...and she had some vampiric powers).
Coppola did a follow-up film as a producer with 'Mary Shelly's Frankenstein' and handed directing duties to Kenneth Branagh (who starred as Victor Frankenstein). The film also stars Helena Bonham Carter and Robert DeNiro as the creature. It was also an interesting film.
Was glad to see you checking this out - great reactions as always! This movie is both the most faithful, and yet the least faithful, adaptation of Dracula. The biggest difference is that Jonathan and Mina are the only love story in the original. This version with Mina and Dracula and this reincarnation plot was lifted from Carmilla, another vampire novel from that era. Originally he just collects brides (three), it's nothing to do with love. Also, while Bram Stoker lifted the name from a real historical Count who fought the Turks, there's nothing in the novel to link the two. That's all added in.
You also asked about the wolf - that actually comes from the short prequel story that was published posthumously by Stoker's widow, 'Dracula's Guest'. Dracula appears as a wolf in that one.
And on Renfield, his death makes no sense really here because of the story change. Originally he has a change of heart and tries to save Mina from her fate, warning her, despite knowing what it will cost him. He gives his life to save her. In this version it's not quite so well explained.
Mostly this movie really tries to make Dracula a sympathetic figure, while in the original he's pure monster, so the tone is completely different. Regardless, I love a lot about this movie, largely the music and performances (even Keanu!), but it's still not a patch on the novel.
I'm convinced Coppola"borrowed" the whole reincarnation/love story angle from Dan Curtis' TV adaption with Jack Palance.
@@anthonymunn8633 Possibly! It's funny how ingrained its become in the Dracula lore now. Kind of a shame, since the whole point of Mina is that (unlike Lucy) she is virtuous and strong enough to overcome Dracula's growing control over her long enough to lead the men to him to kill him. It's much more of a classic Victorian morality tale about resisting the lure of sexuality and evil than modern adaptations allow. Jonathan is also a particularly virtuous person, which is the only reason he survives - he resists the lure of the brides and escapes.
love this movie. So glad youre doing it. Very faithful to the book and amazing acting and set design/costume.
The daylight and the wolves are both in the original novel: Dracula is described several times walking around the city in daylight, but it is mentioned that he doesn't have the powers he had at night. And wolves were always his closest allies in the novel. He's shown - during the day - recruiting one at the London Zoo. This wolf then breaks through all the barriers put up to keep Dracula away from Lucy. As others have noted, the back story and love interest with Mina were added wholesale by this version. The novel's Dracula had no redeeming features, at all.
This is a great film. Keanu Reeves has really grown since his early career.
There's a series of novels called "Anno Dracula" by novelist and film historian Kim Newman, based on the idea that Van Helsing and company lose at the end of Bram Stoker's story and Dracula goes on to marry Queen Victoria and turn her into a vampire, becoming the king of England and causing vampires to come out of hiding. It incorporates A LOT of historical figures and situation as well as a fictional characters and situations from other books, movies, TV shows, etc. The series goes on up to 1999 if I remember correctly, and at some point it covers Francis Ford Coppola making "Dracula" but it's based not so much on Bram Stoker's book but on the novel's in-universe events and he shoots it in the late 70's instead of the early 90's and the cast, crew, and the behind the scenes drama are all based on "Apocalypse Now" to the point that it has Martin Sheen playing Jonathan Harker, Marlon Brando playing Dracula and Robert Duvall playing Van Helsing and so on. They're awesome books and more people should know about them.
The score is one of the best orchestral film scores out there. there's not a lot of long-form composition music within the movie like you find with composers like John Williams, but the individual pieces are just brilliant.
One really interesting thing here was how Coppola tried to retain the epistolary structure of the original book, which was written as a collection of letters, recordings, diary entries, newspaper articles, etc...
2 pieces of informations: 1) Dracula is based on the bloody legacy of a historic figure : Vlad III Dracula (dragon) Tepes.
2) Vampires DO have a mirror image, but clean things dont reflect evil, silver for example. And old mirrors have been made with silver. THATS why they didnt have a mirror image. So you could still see them in modern mirrors, which are not made with silver, or just water.
Bless you and your laughing, Shan. Great film though and great review!
Coppola adapts the Stoker's novel and the legend of the real Prince Vlad III of Romania,the real Dracul...
In a way it is the best interpretarion of the novel since it follows the same lone of events,and respects the presence of the secondary characters ( in other versions there are not Quincy Morris or Arthur), but at the same time it intentionally exaggerates everything, to build a fantastic story halfway between historical reenactment and a victorian gothic nightmare.
Color,and the play of light and shadows, plus special effects are the protagonists
Amazing film very classic Bram Stoker's Dracula produced and directed by Francis Ford Coppola screenplay by James V. Hart based on Dracula by Bram Stoker starring Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves and music score by Wojciech Kilar. This film was nominated for 4 Oscars and won 3 for best costume design, best sound editing and best makeup while also being nominated for best art direction. Its score was composed by Wojciech Kilar and its closing credits theme "Love Song for a Vampire", written and performed by Annie Lennox, became an international success. Thank you Shan great reaction very nice excellent😎😎😎👍👍👍
THIS FILM IS AMAZING!!! Gary plays ALLLLLLL of the Draculas forms!
All in camera techniques! and OH MAN THE SCORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But that film wouldn't be what it is without Eiko's costume designs. WOW!
I worked with the guy who sculpted Dracula's armor and some of the make-ups! So bad ass!
The accent never bothered me and only added to the, "stage quality".
It actually helped the film I think become what it is because the director needed to edit around it.
This film is so beautiful.
I love the scene where Dracula drops off Mina.
Entire epilogues were exchanged but no words were spoken.
But in the beginning you forgot, Hopkins, Elwes, and WAITS!
This was one of the first films to portray the vampire romantically and also show a vampire hunter almost as animalistic,psychopathic and sadistic as his prey!Indeed Sir Anthony Hopkins was cast precisely for that reason!
Keanu is a perfect example of its not what you know or how good you are, its who you know in the movie industry. he’s been a star in more blockbusters than any other bad actor. dude is a legend for that 💯😆👍
And now you should immediately watch Mel Brooks "Dracula: Dead and Loving It"
Winona Ryder owed Coppola a good performance. She was supposed to play Mary Corleone in Godfather III and pulled our last minute. So Coppola put his daughter in that role and her performance was universally hated by critics at the time. Winona was a big name and talent back then. I would loved to have seen her play Mary.
The soundtrack is soooo good
the best ever
(9:54) and pause. Yep, definitely one of my Top 10 fantasies involving Monica. (Oh, and Salma is top-ranked, too)
Not 100 percent faithful, but definitely the absolute best adaptation of Stokers novel, and the most beautiful imo
the scene where Dracula gives the baby to the women and Jonathan freaks out, Dracula laughs in combination with the score was hauntingly fantastic.
This movie is a trip. Excellent acting performances by Oldman, Hopkins and Grant. A fantastic Score by Wojchiech Kilar and top-notch Production Design/Sets/Editing/Camerawork. And the Effects were exclusively & deliberately done the old fashioned way, like in decades past with a lot of in-camera stuff and no bluescreen whatsoever. And it just looks cool.
Most importantly, it moves at a feverish pace. Watching it, I alternatively felt like being in a dream or a nightmare.
Literally the *only* thing I didn't like was Keanu. Love him elsewhere, but here he felt woefully out of place.
Shan, you add so much to every review - your facial expressions and pure reactions are what made me subscribe. Hope you'll review many more movies.
9:53 You know Monica Bellucci... And yeah she is naked, lucky for us. ;)
11:02 That werewolf scene left a big impression me in the first time I saw this movie as a child.
16:35 "She was in great pain! Then we cut off her head and drove a stake through her heart and then she found peace." :D
18:32 Dracula turning into rats was fantastic seeing for the first time.
I’m kinda partial to Miss Jane Greathouse’s version of “The June Bride.” It goes, “Hotter than a June bride sitting bareback on a depot stove.” 😂
OMG!!!!!!!!!! I've been nagging every movie reaction channel I follow, including yours, to do this movie for like.. ever! But you're the first one to do it..!
Part of the reason the movie feels disjointed is because the original novel is disjointed...its not a straight narrative but presented as a series of journal entries, news articles, letters and such, all from different points of view.
exactly! my dad got it for me years ago and I remember thinking it was like their version of the find footage back then, lol.
"A walk in the clouds" - young Keanu's underrated movie!
9:00 the trope about Vampires having no reflection is because for centuries, they used silver nitrate (or something the like), to make the reflective layer of the mirrors, and according to folklore, Vampires hates silver.
Its something that is not used anymore in modern mirrors, so a Modern day Vampire, would have his reflection in a mirror.
Never noticed Sir Anthony Hopkins playing the priest at the beginning. Thanks yo!
Plus: Keanu Reeves also stars in "Much Ado About Nothing", directed by Kenneth Brannagh who must have been smoking something good to put Keano in a Shakespearean adaptation. While I'm here might as well recommend "Frankenstein" (1994) known as "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" by the mentioned Mr Brannagh.
Weirdly Reeves seems to have been often cast in period movies at this time and he seems completely out-of-place in every single one. Another one is Dangerous Liaisons with Glenn Close and John Malkovich who act loops around the poor guy.
Great movie! All the transitions and cinematographic tricks where an homage to early cinema history. Also, Dracula can walk in daylight in the book.
The character of Renfield, the mad bug eater, was played by none other than the musician, poet, and actor, Tom Waits.
I agree regarding Gary Oldman.
Chameleon. He has taken on such diverse personas; Rosencratz, Dracula, Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK), BEETHOVEN (Immortal Beloved), Sid Vicious, Winston Churchill, Drexl Spivey (True Romance), Jackie Flannery (State Of Grace). All over the map and good to exceptional in everything he's done. I would recommend those last two films and Immortal Beloved to you for your reaction.
Renfield's betrayal was that he warned Mina away from Dracula.
Van Helsing had pressed a waffer of unleven bread (the body of Christ, the sacrament) onto Mina's forhead and it burned her there - that healed after Dracula's death, perhaps showing restoration, and redemption.
I loved this movie - thanks for reacting to it. Very good job -