Must See Movie...

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Fantastic!

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Dracula was disappointing. The filmmakers spend so much time focusing on visual effects (which were impressive), that other areas of the movie suffer. Most of the performances are either flat (*cough*Keanu*cough*) or over the top, and the film itself seems disjointed. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer Tod Browning's Dracula or F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu to Coppola's attempt at Bram Stoker's novel.

Where do I start. The actress playing Lucy, although beautiful, had one mode. Sound like she's orgasming in every scene. When you're that ill and/or dying you don't sound like you're being pleasured. What the hell was the hairy weir beast raping her on a slab of concrete? The male actors except E Grant and Hopkins were all useless. The British Accents were utterly abysmal and there was no tension or creepiness whatsoever from Oldman. Just dreary boredom. Ryder's performance was so depressingly terrible. That same tired rasping noise when she heavy breaths in every scene. There are child actors with more depth than this "actress". I have enjoyed some of her movies such as Beetlejuice, Heathers, Alien Resurrection. However she and Keanu are so painfully bad at British accents. The story in this was a total butchery of Stokers and it's quite shockingly bad for a producer of Coppola's calibre.

It's really a surprise to review a Coppola movie as an erotic, arousing production but the fact it is. Sure it's not as graphic as Showgirls but in a sense, it comes farther but with such maestria in the making that it's almost subliminal. In that light, it's a true erotic (master)piece because nothing is shown but everything is suggested!In addition, the vampire figure is deeply sexual (seduction, kiss, pushing tools) but we'll see that there is more here!I watched this movie at its release with my family and even today on TV, everything happens so fast that you don't really have the time to realize. But your brain recorders everything and stores the data for later. As my #69 babes prove it, sometimes your desire finds its roots in some long forgotten past.So here i'm pretty sure that i have noticed the extraordinary sexual appeal of La Bellucci (then totally unknown) which explains my hot passion for her starting in 1997 (then just a little bit famous): In fact, she was on my list for a long time before dropping it because honestly, she can't act with clothes and talks (except if you like 0 tension, apathetic girl).And for sure, my brain enjoyed the incredible Lucy! Her Werewolf action is just totally unexpected, gross but also deeply allegorical: this sort of bestial, wild, blind sex (see also Dante's Howling and again werewolves) can really happen and this total surrender is hot stuff. In that way, this Lucy recalls me the future Lexi Belle (#45)! Anyway, all the talents are gathered in the movie: wardrobe, sets, music, cast... those old tricks effects, baroque vision and inspired editing really makes a gothic lovestory: Coppola did it once again!

In giving an image to a story written on a book, I suppose there's a very complex difficulty with interpretation. Everyone has a different conception of characters as described in books: we all build the image that best suits the given description by the author, using as many resources as we possess.But in Coppola's film, it is just too extravagant, too excessive. If looked through the filter of Bram Stoker's novel –considering the title of the movie itself declares to be loyal to the author's name, I don't find other filters to be more accurate–, the image portrayed by Coppola is a disgrace.I must say that the story-line is quite complete and does not contain unnecessary changes such as in Browning's version (1931) or in Herzog's (1979), regarding who leads the actions. What these two lack in story-line, Coppola's lacks in image (or exceeds in it and takes it off track). Characters like Jonathan Harker, Quincey Morris and Abraham Van Helsing in Coppola's version are quite well-made; while Lucy Westenra is a complete disaster.