Dracula (1992)

Top comments

1. 

   nowhereman136

   Its trying to balance tradition horror camp with legitimate story telling and scares. In the end, its just a film of its time and hasnt aged very gracefully. The effects are dated, acting over the top, and additional backstory just not needed.
   
   6/10 2 years 4 months ago
2. 

   Petrux

   This movie makes me love even more 1979's Herzog's Nosferatu. 4 years 7 months ago
3. 

   crazy_bitch

   Considering the great director and all the astounding previous adaptations, both of the vampire legend in general and Stoker's work in particular, I find this film very disappointing. It comes across as boring and ridiculous - in my opinion, Mel Brooks' "Dracula - Dead and Loving It" is to be taken more serious than this film (in addition to be being more true to the source material's vision).
   There's nothing bad to be said about the acting (though several casting decisions are rather questionable), but the characters themselves aren't really convincing - most notably the original motivations for Vlad Țepeș to just wish himself into becoming the first vampire and haunt the living are absurd [minor spoiler - if you can call it that]: To get back at the christian church (that generally disapproves of suicide), because the muslim Turks tricked his wife into killing herself, by nonchalantly proclaiming that Țepeș had died in battle? Did I get that right? It's a cute idea to bring elements from "Romeo and Juliett" into the story, but this just makes no sense. By this film's logic, every third teenager wtih a heartache should turn into an vampire to get back at the world.
   Well, just my opinion; watch it, if you're interested, but don't miss out on better films like "Nosferatu" or the 1931 film with Bela Lugosi. The best thing this film has going for it is the music by Wojciech Kilar. 6 years 3 months ago

Friends