People can bitch about the love story not being in the book, but I thought it was an inspired choice for an adaption (albeit vaguely loose adaption). It made Dracula really tragic and more interesting than just an angry monster. He experiences a whole plethora of emotions in this film, and Oldman delivers one hell of an amazing performance.
Yeah. the original book infers this sort of thing between him and Elzbeta. But bring it out just adds that sort of dimension to the visual story. But adding Vlad Tepes (pronounced Tzepesh, like old Slavonic, my mother's tongue) to the story is spot on on the part of Stoker. But the cowboy could've been researched and thus done better by Bram. His version is pure Victorian corn, I dare say. I would love to find his wolf armor, and his head. So I could put head, body and armor back together and give him a proper burial befitting a man with such a difficult set of circumstances to deal with in his time.
It's odd bc the scene where Dracula tells his wives that he is capable of love and will love again IS in the book, but in the book he really does nothing for love. That line makes more sense when the love story aspect is introduced.
I wouldn't have minded the movie inventing a love story if it had been done right. However, the love element is rushed and forced, resulting in a trainwreck of a story.
Leonardo's Truth Take it easy there buddy, you'll give yourself a heart attack. While it definitely strays from the original material, the movie is a cinematic masterpiece, no doubt about it. I enjoyed both.
Incredible how difficult yet practical the visuals and the sets were achieved. Coppola was pushed to use more CG but he wanted the look and feel of a movie from the 30's and it works really well.
*_Hundreds of thousands of fans who bought this movie on VHS had no idea that after the end credits; this documentary was there. It's one of the best behind the scenes ever made._*
@@angeliquemarquis So much dwelling upon the depth and variety of the movie's subject, costumes and the characters, etc. Yet, to be honest, one cannot escape the pure absurdity of the conceptual idea behind this take on Dracula, the vampire simply renouncing God with a sword that will not be able to pierce the crucifix with streams slowly flowing into blood in a type of desecrated parody to disgust anyone remotely involved in a belief toward the church, and a fair amount who are not, especially in that particular scene; setting the pace of a disheartening and alarming view to the myth - as this presented aspects of evil so ridiculous it is mind numbing, and it does not even relate any kind of cruel death as a cause of his condition either. Which is also false as well, of course, as it was never developed by Stoker and this is not his vision of the story. Inexorably leading the moviegoer from one deviation to another, away from the book. And besides the apparent blasphemy, in actuality, a real problem inherent of a mostly forgotten and ignored historical person, a real leader that existed in troubling times who committed some very violent acts, it is true. Vlad also did not engage in this behavior for these reasons at all, and in his battles with the Turks he never renounced his association or dedication to his God at all. This is why he is still a great hero of the region he lived in to this very day and the resentment this causes so many Eastern Europeans is shameful in this respect, and rightly so. Acting and fantasy aside, I have no dog in the fight and it is still inescapable to me as well.
@@angeliquemarquis *_Jup, they forgot to add the sticker that said the behind the scenes was added after the end credits. In later editions they added the sticker._*
It's not on my VHS version. I've watched it hundreds of times. The movie shuts off and rewinds. Sticker has nothing to do with anything because it would keep playing all the way through the doc.
I don't know the right word in English to describe Gary Oldman's work in every move he has been in -but it's near perfection. Unlike Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman, and even Samuel L. Jackson (all great actors) he transforms in someone else!! I was telling my bro what other movies he's in and he was amazed as I was telling him "he was this guy, he was that guy..."
Unlike Jack Nicholson? You haven't seen Chinatown? About Schmidt? You think Jack Torrance from the Shining is actually what Nicholson is normally like? There are plenty of other examples, especially from his 70s movies.
@@immanuelcunt7296 Nicholson is excellent but he does not have the range of Oldman. Gary is in a class by himself. Each of Oldman's characters are so completely distinctive that the actor is difficult to identify even when he's not disguised in prosthetics and costume.
I am just amazed on how Francis Ford Coppola works and how well he prepares and lengths he's willing to go to, to get his message across and the unorthodox means he utilizes to train the actors and get them to actually wear the charterer and become one with it. Hands down this is the best Dracula movie ever made and one of the finest movies of all times and funny enough I felt the same when I first saw it in the cinema in Odeon Leicester square in England and despite the endless criticism this movie received at the time yet all those critics proved simply pointless and pretentious as had no idea how well and intriguing this movie really was and still is to this day
So wonderful to see them working as ensemble together and the sense of play they had as a cast. I love watching Oldman argue with Coppola and that both of them respect each other enough that it's okay. A lot of productions don't have that atmosphere that encourage idea making. How wonderful the actors gave input about their characters from the book. There are things about the movie that I don't entirely agree with, particularly Van Helsing's representation but I STILL love love this movie.
Best, movie ever. I was kid when I saw this trailer. And I promised I will watch it when i am teenager. Best, movie ever. Chill's me. Music. Everything
The vampire Lucy part basically scarred me when I was a kiddo. For the longest time, I couldn't go to sleep at night without having to put my noggin under the cover I was so scared.
Roman Coppola is brilliant, he made such a phenomenal movie . It’s amazing what this man is truly capable of , making fantastic movies. Bram Stoker’s Dracula was probably the finest piece of Draconian legend to be put on the Silver Screen. Yes I realize the legendary actors who came before were quite impeccable as well, Frank Langella , Bela Lugosi ... etc . But Gary Oldman really made this picture interesting. Such a perfectly casted movie , I was quite impressed. I had my husband buy it for me without even seeing it in the theater. What a great movie , and for the fist time I saw it , I admit I jumped a little, but one good scare deserves another, and I just couldn’t wait to see it again. It’s in my collection somewhere, I should pull my stuff out of storage.
Amen. Terrible bit of casting in an otherwise decent cast. I kind of wished they had used maybe Jennifer Connelly for Mina, rather than Wynona. Or it could have been a great part for young Kate Beckinsale. As far as Harker: Did you know Keanu tried out for the part of Pinocchio in a live-action film? Yeah, the story goes that the studio was gonna do the puppet CGI until they realized that Keanu is ACTUALLY made of wood. I forget who wrote that little joke.
If Antony Hopkins was 10 years younger he would have played Dracula himself I think and it would've been amazing.This came out just after Silence of the Lambs Hopkins was at his peak
I love the BBC version. I do think Stoker's novel had a sort of....darkly erotic allure that could be SOMEWHAT romantic to some... but that's different. The problem with most modern vampire fiction is it forgets one thing. Dracula at his heart is an evil creature. His possession of Lucy and stalking of Mina were not born of romance, but of a predatory to desire to take from Jonathan and others the ones they most treasured. Dracula is very much a hunter.
well in a way I agree with you, I didn't really like the fact they made Dracula a lovesick person who becomes a vampire just to avenge her spouse, but I liked the atmosphere, the costumes and Oldman is simply perfect to play Dracula, both he and Hopkins were the best actors in the movie. And despite the main theme being love, at least many of the scenes followed the book, a fact that I greatly appreciated.
But more than that, Dracula was far ahead of its time in its depiction of Jonathan and Mina Harker as the main protagonists, as well as a married couple where husband and wife were equals and partners, each totally devoted to the other and willing to sacrifice all for each other. Dramatically different from the standard of the time, where a wife was little more than a husband's property. Dracula is THEIR story, which is what Coppola's lurid sex fantasy failed to realize.
2:58 - And it's widely known now, although the mistruth still exists, that Vlad Tepis was likely not any kind of honest-to-goodness inspiration for Stoker's Dracula, other than the name.
Yeah, well they never said Frodo and Sam "didn't" meet Bombadil in the woods, but that scene doesn't really move the plot at all, so they just omitted it. :)
Pretty sure that "moment" when the actors click with their characters happened very, very late for Keanu Reeves. As in after they finished filming late
this is tipical for the balcanic people - we love to spit on our history. i'm from Bulgaria and sometimes we, the bulgarians,make the same thing with our history.sad,but true!!!!!!!!
How the f..ing F U C K this didn't get the best Original Score nomination?I heard that Kilar was accused for copying some other piece of music maybe that's why he was disqualified That year was stellar for film music Dracula ,Last of the Mohicans,1492(all snubbed by the Academy)
Dracula is no more the main character of the story than the great white shark is in Jaws. He is a lurking, sinister outside force that threatens to destroy the lives of the main characters, Jonathan and Mina, who go through hell and back for each other and come out stronger in the end. Their bond is a sharp contrast to the rather shallow dalliances of Lucy Westenra and her suitors, John Seward, Quincy Morris, and Arthur Holmwood, who were all more consistent with the Victorian era.
Que tal alguém colocar uma legenda em português ou espanhol nesse documentário?! Tenho certeza que muito mais pessoas irão assisti-lo, pois é muito bom!
@@marquelleivey4910 Every time, no less. I don't think there's any performance where people have shrugged and said "eh, Gary was ok in that I guess." I don't think he's capable of a mediocre performance.
@@natalie8212 , I don't think mediocre is in his vocabulary. It's all or nothing. From way back then to currently, he is always fantastic. He doesn't do any performance half ass. I mean in True Romance, he had teeth made, a wig, studied the voice he did, got the scar and eye for a 10 minute scene. If that's not dedication I don't know what is!
wrong...its called creative difference. Gary is one hell of an actor, Francis one hell of a director and both are very demanding (on themselves and others). Two highley volatile creative personalities together creates a high intensity atmophere.
@@gspendlove Ha! Ok its you choice. I saw this movie me too but i prefere the old Bella Lugosi. I cant forgot Christopher Lee in Hammer's movie and Nosferatus from Murnau or Herzog.
When people think acting isn't a job then I know they have not seen Gary Oldman. Did u see how it took so much out of him when he was standing on the bed as a bat. He literally threw his whole body into the character. Simply brilliant. I know for a fact acting is hard. I was a theatre geek so my hands are up in applause for all the actors who were in this movie.
Coppola's version was a very very good version of Stoker's classic. The regretted author would be proud. Personally, I didn't have any quarrels with Keanu Reeves.
Keanu was cool in the film. He didn't knock it out the park by any means but he gets a pass, he played his part. If I could grade him, he gets a c+, winona gets an A, Gary oldman gets an A+, Anthony Hopkins gets an A+, Lucy gets an A+,
It's Romanian. Of the three ladies ultimately picked for the Brides, they lucked out by finding a Romanian model. She taught lines in Romanian to her bride co-stars, Ryder, Oldman and Hopkins, giving the movie an added layer of authenticity.
To bad for The Godfather part III...i love the movie,but just like in this movie where everybody hates the casting of Keanu Reeves they hate the casting of Coppola's daughter in The GF3
First time I saw the movie, I liked it. Second time, I cried. Because it just hit me how sad this story was...Also, I tip my hat to Gary Oldman not only for playing so well but also for talking a pretty good Romanian, good job!
Kind of raw footage to be showing Oldman and Coppola apparently arguing all the time for a promo of the film. Kind of refreshing cause these days movies try to sell us that everyone got along great and it was a great time.
When I watched this movie on the cinema many years ago I was expecting to see a horror movie and creepy as it is, the movie is also incredible beautiful. The visuals are stunning, the atmosphere is perfect and as I have grown older I do appreciate even more the underlying love story which is absolutely beautifully portrayed. "We have all become gods madmen, all of us". Now I am not religious, but those words sums up the whole movie as this includes all of the characters in the movie including Dracula. That particular line have been a inspiration to me in life as well - sounds cliche, but it is absolutely true. This is one of my absolute favorite movies of all times.
I was living outside New York, going to art school, when this film came out some thirty years ago. I remember the anticipation...the promos and the ads in the papers. When the film finally did come out, I was blown away. It moved me profoundly and transformed my life. Beautiful, sensuous compelling...a masterpiece. Thank God CGI effects had not taken off yet and Coppola decided to go with beautifully crafted practical effects. From a visual standpoint, the film is unlike anything else ever done, before or since. I also became obsessed with the amazing soundtrack, which I have bought several times. I still think it’s the most perfect score ever composed for a film. Many people have problems with the film and its lose interpretation of Stoker. I have no problems with the liberties taken and still think that, overall, it’s the most faithful adaptation of the novel ever realized on film. It is truly Dracula, in the rawest, most erotic form ever realized. But, this film is also something else. It goes beyond Dracula and touches us in ways we would never expect from a horror film. It still blows me away...still one of my all time favorites.
OK this movie is brilliant (one of my favorites ever). But really I quite disagree with all of them on the fact that it is one of the best adaptation of Stoker's novel. I watched the film and then read the book and was not sure I got a proper version. The love story between Dracula and Mina is non existent. And Dracula is merely depicted as a cold-hearted bastard (excuse my french) who drinks blood and kills people ! Then again, I don't really care because the film is THAT good ;)
Gary Oldman... one of the greatest actors of all time and if he wasn't more than enough.... then there's Anthony Hopkins. Fantastic story, great movie, hauntingly beautiful soundtrack.
This comment makes no sense. If anything, the story has been given better treatment over the years than it did decades ago. I'm talking the original stage production of "Dracula" before the 1931 film. "Dracula" is a decent book (it's ok, but not great), but the only reason it has had any lasting significance is the Universal movie(s) and it's place in popular cult rue. It can be argued the character of Dracula is far more important than the book ever was.
Yes, true. But when he's that good and putting out that much energy, give the guy what he says he needs, whether you understand why he needs it or not! Gimme the feckin' chalk, I'll make the mark for him. Not a director, just a costumer (or have been in my time) -- when the actor wants a little adjustment that will give him support and comfort, and you see what rolls out when he gets that bit of support, you knock yourself out to give it to him. I'd make the mark with my own blood for Oldman.
I love the fact that they actually read the book, while there are some differences (the love story) I think the movie captures the essence of Stokers vision.
Bram Stoker's Dracula lives up to it's name, as it is the closest screen version to the book I have seen. The same goes for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
