I give it 2 thumbs up. It could have a better more connection series of storylines to make the overall plot, a better climax and ending but its designed to be watched many times at a most calm present moment concentration. Great visuals and "mini stories" its comprised of. Perhaps it could use some more music intertwined into the story. 😆
This movie survives the cruel test of time in a strange way. Yes it does have many flaws but it looks so refreshing to our CGI-damaged eyes. Just look at all the practical effects, elaborate makeup, monster costumes and production designs. Everything that happens in the frame actually happened. Also it is interesting to see how skilled Oldman already was in his early career and how Keanu's wooden acting hasn't improved much even in his 50s. lol
Disorganisd is a good word to use for it, but I also think that Ebert nailed it on how exciting the film is to watch, just how good visually it is, the sets and the ripe performances. Oldman was excellent. There are too many ideas thrown into the mix and it does drag a bit, but mostly I enjoyed this.
+Bored Now I agree, it could have been streamlined slightly with regards to the abundance of ideas. For me, the definitive version of Bram Stoker's text adapted for screen is the 1977 BBC version Count Dracula with Louis Jourdan as the central character.
The book was disorganized. If 1000 years from now there was only one copy left and no knowledge of it, people would take it for truth. It's comprised of pseudo journal entries, letters, newspaper clippings etc.
@@lordfriezaUK For me, Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) is the definitive version of Dracula. Count Dracula (1977) is probably the most loyal to Stoker's text and it has a beatiful photography, especially the scenes filmed in Whitby with that sea view. Mina is amazing in that movie. It's a good movie, no doubt, but it has not aged very well. To put it simply, it has no special effects. At all. Consequently, future generations (anyone born from the 1990s onwards) will feel thoroughly bored with the movie. How can a vampire movie have no special effects? It's not scary, and Dracula is only presented in human form. In contrast, Bram Stoker's Dracula presents Dracula in bat-creature form and beast-form (or "wolf"-form), which is essential to the nature of vampires. A vampire is not simply a human with long teeth, it must transform into a beast form. And because Bram Stoker's Dracula has practical effects, it has aged well. CGI ages bad, but the practical effects stand the test of time. Add to that the soundtrakck factor. Bram Stoker's Dracula has the best soundtrack in a Dracula movie by a gigantic margin. It's also the only Dracula movie in which the characters speak through diaries like in the novel. I know Bram Stoker's Dracula takes some freedoms (especially adding that romantic side of Dracula), but that adds complexity to the character of Dracula IMO. In the book, Dracula is a bit one-dimensional, in the 1992 movie Dracula is a complex character in which love and evil combine. Anyhow, it's just my personal preference, I know cinematic taste is subjective. If you prefer Count Dracula from 1977 so be it.
I remember my boyfriend named Robert, rented this movie and he invited me over to watch it with him, so we had a bowl full of popcorn with hot butter and salt, and a two soda pops on the table, and Robert put the movie in his VCR, and we started watching it, and it was awesome.
I like how Ebert reviews this the same way as Tim Burton's Batman, yet he gives this a good review. And Siskel is the same way, yet he gives it a bad one.
Yeah, they're all over the map. The reasons they go up or down on a film seem totally arbitrary sometimes. Like maybe they happened to be having a bad day on some occasions.
The movie was pretty good, albeit a little over the top. Keanu Reeves was predictably horrible with his attempted English accent and stiff mannerisms. But the the movie was a visual feast.
Agreed. And I just watched it for the first time. I never cared for Dracula, its huge relevance in cinematic history or vampire subject matter in general, but this movie was awesome. And Winona was so damn fine. Damn, that woman is truly blessed. I believe Gary Oldman was given the greatest privilege probably in all of cinema by getting to act out those seductive scenes with Winona just at the beginning of her prime. Super, super lucky.
sum of u say the movie sucked,but im glad it was created,,,it such a powerful movie..it sux when actors dont perfrom as well as others but mr (gary oldman)..he was amazing... my life is complete knowing i saw the best vampire ever...great film
One of my favorite 90s movies despite some flaws, Gary Oldman saved what could have been a campy horror movie with Hopkins and Keanu "interesting" versions of two classic characters.
"Do not put your faith in such insignificant trinkets of deceit".... This move has the best 1 liners in it. Next time you watch it listen for them. Let's not forget Tom Waitts is in this as well.
RIP Ebert, he is 100% right, the mood & atmosphere of this film is intoxicating. I thought there was chemistry between Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder; her character was supposed to have this virginal bride-like aura to it, and she delivered. Anthony Hopkins's acting was over the top, and Keanu was....well, terrible. I did not like how much time was devoted to Lucy's ordeal. If more time was put on the romance between Dracula & Mina the film would have been more "emotive." The potential for emotion was there, but the progression of the love story was rushed. One minute Mina runs into Dracula on the streets, then she has dinner with him once or twice, then she is ready to run off with him. It was a shame because Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder's chemistry with each other was wasted. Still, one of my favorite vampire films.
I think they didn't get it. It's meant to be ilaberate like a dark comic book, it's not meant to be William Shakespeare, and I thought Gary Oldman was incredible. All the other performances were solid enough to hold the picture as one of the best of the year, and the visuals make it one of the most interesting films of the decade.
This is one of the most underrated films of the early 90s (save for maybe Keanu Reeves performance which is still effective). These 'critics' share good points about the film but when you become too critical of film in general, too formulaic about the process (as they do), you begin to lose what makes films like this one so magical and sustainable. People today are still obsessed with the movie, like me, for imagery, dialogue and strong performances (particularly the Oscar-snubbed Gary Oldman).
Though I understand their complaints, this remains one of my favorite films ever. My wife refuses to sit in the same room with me when its on because I'm quoting entire chunks of it, I can't help it. My favorite part about this movie as a whole, is that the story with Mina could well fit in the novel. There are gaps in the novel that the love story with Mina could fit into. And if you notice in the movie itself, when she is traveling by ship to go back to Jonathan, she is tossing pages of her diary overboard into the water so that he will never know of her secret love. Which...would explain why those passages are not in the novel, as hers would be the only account (Dracula never gets a POV chapter or segment of any kind.) This little touch alone, that scene, really enhances the movie for me and makes the liberties it takes on that account seem genuine and believable. Well, as believable as a 500 year old vampire leaping around and turning into rats and wolves and bats, anyway.
It's funny how they talk about the movie not having a single narrative that propels throughout the entire film, because the original novel is written as snippets of diaries and journals from multiple characters and thus multiple points of view. Maybe that was the stylistic choice Copolla was going for in his movie.
I Remember when this was when this was in theaters, my friend and I was driving my car to the movie theater, when we got to the movie theater, i chickened-out and i told my friend i'm not going to see this movie, my friend went in the movie theater to see this movie, about an hour later, my friend came out of the movie theater, and went in the car, and told me all about it.
This is a great example of a S&E review where I love the film and disagree with both of them but I DO get their complaints. Blade Runner and Dracula suffer from the same faults, I believe. I would consider them barely faults anymore because the films have aged like wine into rightful classics..
i would have to disagree with their opinions here, this film was a masterpiece and one of the great vampire movies of the century, look no further than anything that francis ford coppolla directs to be stunning
I agree. I think he was a pretty lure for all the teenage and college girls who thought he was good-looking at the time. He was a prime example of an actor who benefited from emerging during the golden age of MTV because of his youth and good looks and likable presence.
This Dracula isn't _too_ bad, but I really prefer 1979's Dracula with Frank Langella and Kate Nelligan. The underground scene in that movie could qualify for one of the ten scariest scenes of all time. And I really like Christopher Lee's Dracula too.
gspendlove Agree 100%. Its by far my favorite version. Unbeatable atmosphere and I agree about the underground scene. The appearance of Van Helsing's daughter is the stuff of nightmares.
How did these two never get into nasty little slap fights or hair pulling battles-- it's a miracle. The last moment here ("mind reader") is the best part. 😁
Interesting: they are showing clips of the movie without music, although in the final movie there´s also music playing. Where did they get the musicless version of the film?
Unreal how they can be split on this. To date, without comparison, the single best Dracula film ever made, yet this is how they review it. Both of them were overrated hacks.
It's amazing how a movie this good used to get a thumbs down. I wonder if it would be the same thumbs down today, considering all the crap Hollywood has put out in the last 20 years. In the 80s and 90s you used to go to the video store and 9/10 movies were good. Now only 1/10 movies are good. I'm not saying the move is perfect, but it is a pretty strong showing, and an excellent and original version of Dracula by a clearly talented filmmaker. In my opinion, films used to be so good back in the day that they got held to a higher standard. Today I think BS Dracula would get thumbs up as it would stand out from the sea of mediocrity and CGI garbage we are fed today.
+DarthHater100 Because Hollywood as figured out they can churn out the same movie 35 times a year and make a hundred billion dollars. They don't have to risk anything anymore and the public just eats it up.
As someone who lived through that time, let me tell you that there were plenty of terrible movies back then. It's just that things have gotten so much worse by comparison. A lot of their criticisms are valid. Telling people not to see it is foolish. Implying that anyone with a even scintilla of taste would be "bored" by this movie is just idiotic.
I completely agree with you 100%. A lot of the Hollywood films today are real shit 101. They used to make excellent films with less special effects technology than what they produce today with the most advance gee whiz machines money can buy. The 70's Hammer films were fantastic, the 80's and 90's movies were also spectacular in comparison to Y2K and this dumbed down decade of endless superhero special effects mega films.
DarthHater100 Dumbass Dumbass Dumbass Please watch Doug Walkers Video: The Dark Age of Movies and you see how good Cinema has become today instead of every crap they put on in the past especially the late 90s
THIS FILM MOVES AND SCARES ME! ITS TERRIFYING AND BLOODY AND HORRIFYING AND SO SEXY AND HOT AND EMOTIONAL AND MASTERFUL.... ITS A MASTERPIECE OF HORROR ROMANCE DRAMA FILMMAKING!
I really liked this movie although I think they have a good point. I think the key difference in my opinion is that I think this film does have 2 interesting characters: Dracula and Dr. Van Helsing. They are essentially the most important characters besides Mina. It could´ve been a truly wonderful film if the supporting cast was as great. In many older versions of Dracula the Count's actions are also driven by his obsession with Mina. But why does he fall in love with a woman he just met? Why that particular one? He's the prince of the underworld, shouldn't he have a grander scheme? In this movie it's the loss of his wife that caused him to sell his soul, so it makes perfect sense that he would fall for her reincarnation. It's this 500 year obsession that makes him interesting. Van Helsing is just so fun to watch because he's excentric. The scene Where he does his research and discovers that the evil he's facing is non other than Dracula, he thoroughly enjoys it: ´She is the willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower, I dare say, a devoted disciple and the devil's concubine, do you understand me? Yet we may still save her precious soul but not on an empty stomach. Jack? I starve, feed me!´
Oh, come on, Gene. The Dracula story has been told so many times in so many films that moviegoers are completely familiar with the story. There's nothing new there; you know exactly what's gonna happen. You don't go to see a Dracula movie to be surprised by the story. You go to see a familiar story being told in a visually enticing way. _Bram Stoker's Dracula_ had a lot of visual flair, beautiful cinematography and some pretty good effects. It's entertaining eye candy and that's the best you can hope for from a new adaptation of that classic story. That and the performances, which I thought were....okay. Except for Anthony Hopkins. His was great, by far the best performance in the film. I loved the seriocomic attitude he brought to the part of Van Helsing. PS: Has anybody seen the BTS footage of Sadie Frost where her makeup is terrifying that poor little kid, and Sadie is trying the best she can to make the kid understand it's all pretend? Sadie is such a sweetheart in that footage, and you feel so sorry for the poor scared little kid. You just wanna give both of them a hug.
@@killboggins Sorry. I'm into manly movies, not chick flicks, so I've never seen that boring crap. Maybe if it were "Little Women vs. Zombies" I might watch it. But if I want to hear two hours of girl problems, I'll just call my fiancee in from the kitchen and ask her about her day.
@SparksDrinker Okay maybe minor was the wrong word but still, just because I have one problem with a movie (whether it's big or small) doesn't mean I can't like it.
They were right about all their criticisms about the movie but Roger explained what made the movie so good - the atmosphere, music, costumes, special effects and the visuals.
I usually find myself agreeing with Siskel more than Ebert, but I have to agree with Ebert this time. This was a good movie, I understand that it is slightly over-the-top and Keanu Reeve’s acting kind of sucks here. But come on, this is a very entertaining horror flick with great performances from Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins. I disagree with Siskel here.
Sorry to disagree but I'd put Nosferatu at the top. Still the creepiest vampire ever put on film. There is nothing "romantic" about him......he is portrayed as the parasite that he is.
I forgot about that one,you're right...Did you see Willem Dafoe in Shadow of the Vampire (2000)?..Might be a good complement to the original. The two movies affirm each other as real.
I saw Shadow of the Vampire when it was first released. I enjoyed it but it made no great impression on me. Willem Defoe as a parasitic vampire was just smart casting. John Malkovich proves himself to an a great ham actor. I really caannot remember much of it all. Not even a single scene springs to mind. Check out the Werner Herzog remake of Nosferatu. No where near as scary as the original but Klaus Kinski makes for a creepy vampire. It has some good moments but not really a great film.
I give it 2 thumbs up. It could have a better more connection series of storylines to make the overall plot, a better climax and ending but its designed to be watched many times at a most calm present moment concentration. Great visuals and "mini stories" its comprised of. Perhaps it could use some more music intertwined into the story. 😆
Keanu did a exceptional job with his performance and his accent. Winona does a perfect job and Keanu was working on his accent for the role but it's not bad at all.
Besides being superior to every other Vampire film,this is the 1st and only version that gives a reason of HOW he became.LOVE.That establishes a beliveable credibility.Not as a monster but a victum of love. This film shows Dracula with human weakness, but highlights his supernatural powers, with the best effects of any film.Todays versions are wrong. Vampires are non-corporal beings. Bullets or karate kicks DON'T kill them. 2 sticks or fingers made into a cross,also WON'T work.Gotta have faith.
I respect their reviews, but I don't agree witj them: Actually I found the characters and the story as much as interesting as the rest of the movie. I think it's a matter of porsonal conception, and the script was flawless to me, everything was fit to work as a good movie to me.
I thought Dracula was great in that Coppolla's version really explored the murky sexual under belly of the novel, which is never entirely absent from any adaptation of Dracula, but particularly bought to the fore here. Especially in Sadie Frosts great interpretation of Lucy, which is probably the best version of the character I have seen. Also, like the book, the film is episodic and, in my opinion, that contributes to the strange, disturbing atmosphere of the film.
I thought this was a classic and the best adaptation ever even with its flaws. Gary Oldman simply excelled at this role. Most of all the low budget special effects or Non-CGI effect is what really gave this movie an atmosphere that was creepy.
And then 32 years later, the Megalopolis trailer claimed that Roger Ebert called this movie "style over substance." Eh, still better than the inflated ego of a trailer Spellbound was.
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
This movie has the best opening of all time. Just the most metal fucking thing I've ever seen.
The fucking river of blooooood
The bleeding cross that image always stuck with me and how his armor looked like flesh
That ain't no shit..
I give it 2 thumbs up. It could have a better more connection series of storylines to make the overall plot, a better climax and ending but its designed to be watched many times at a most calm present moment concentration. Great visuals and "mini stories" its comprised of. Perhaps it could use some more music intertwined into the story. 😆
Rest in peace, Siskel and Ebert. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
This movie survives the cruel test of time in a strange way. Yes it does have many flaws but it looks so refreshing to our CGI-damaged eyes. Just look at all the practical effects, elaborate makeup, monster costumes and production designs. Everything that happens in the frame actually happened. Also it is interesting to see how skilled Oldman already was in his early career and how Keanu's wooden acting hasn't improved much even in his 50s. lol
The 1979 Dracula and also Nosferatu the Vampyre were both better for me than this version. I think you might like them both more.
Disorganisd is a good word to use for it, but I also think that Ebert nailed it on how exciting the film is to watch, just how good visually it is, the sets and the ripe performances. Oldman was excellent. There are too many ideas thrown into the mix and it does drag a bit, but mostly I enjoyed this.
+Bored Now I agree, it could have been streamlined slightly with regards to the abundance of ideas. For me, the definitive version of Bram Stoker's text adapted for screen is the 1977 BBC version Count Dracula with Louis Jourdan as the central character.
Not seen that version, will have to check it out, thanks.
The book was disorganized. If 1000 years from now there was only one copy left and no knowledge of it, people would take it for truth. It's comprised of pseudo journal entries, letters, newspaper clippings etc.
@@lordfriezaUK For me, Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) is the definitive version of Dracula. Count Dracula (1977) is probably the most loyal to Stoker's text and it has a beatiful photography, especially the scenes filmed in Whitby with that sea view. Mina is amazing in that movie. It's a good movie, no doubt, but it has not aged very well. To put it simply, it has no special effects. At all. Consequently, future generations (anyone born from the 1990s onwards) will feel thoroughly bored with the movie. How can a vampire movie have no special effects? It's not scary, and Dracula is only presented in human form. In contrast, Bram Stoker's Dracula presents Dracula in bat-creature form and beast-form (or "wolf"-form), which is essential to the nature of vampires. A vampire is not simply a human with long teeth, it must transform into a beast form. And because Bram Stoker's Dracula has practical effects, it has aged well. CGI ages bad, but the practical effects stand the test of time. Add to that the soundtrakck factor. Bram Stoker's Dracula has the best soundtrack in a Dracula movie by a gigantic margin. It's also the only Dracula movie in which the characters speak through diaries like in the novel. I know Bram Stoker's Dracula takes some freedoms (especially adding that romantic side of Dracula), but that adds complexity to the character of Dracula IMO. In the book, Dracula is a bit one-dimensional, in the 1992 movie Dracula is a complex character in which love and evil combine. Anyhow, it's just my personal preference, I know cinematic taste is subjective. If you prefer Count Dracula from 1977 so be it.
All the ingredients are there for a great film, they just weren’t prepared well.
"Well, I'm glad you are a mind reader"
Roger was the best!
Keanu Reeves and Winnona Ryder can't do British accents. Yet the real Brits (Oldman and Hopkins) do great at their non-British accents
"He's grown young again...the bawwstard"
More proof that most yanks can’t act
YPA Reviews Reeves is Canadian.
Keanu can't act at all. He made Patrick Swayze in Point Break look like Laurence Olivier.
Winona was ok, keanu was terrible
Ebert got it 100%. I am on his side. But I honestly can't blame Gene for giving it thumbs down.
I can! Gene could be so stuffy at times. His stuffiness reminded me of stale bread, that'd been sitting around for at least a week or two!
loved this dracula movie excellent performance by gary oldman!!!
+jay love, I would have to agree with you.
Honestly my favorite vampire film. It had it's flaws but it still gives me chills every time I watch it.
It was on tv last night, and I still can't watch it without muting or changing the channel. Visually it is a very captivating film.
4:11 Ebert looks incredibly appalled by what Siskel just said
Because Siskel was wrong or right?
Siskel was just trolling him lol. Ebert got mad.
Love the last part where Ebert snubbed him.
I remember my boyfriend named Robert, rented this movie and he invited me over to watch it with him, so we had a bowl full of popcorn with hot butter and salt, and a two soda pops on the table, and Robert put the movie in his VCR, and we started watching it, and it was awesome.
wait ?! so nothing happen after that
@@Jo34457 Then after that, they fucked. Is that what you wanted to hear? Sicko.
Did he, at any time, try to "Put the bite" on you?
For me...This the best DRACULA movie i ever see!!!!!
I like how Ebert reviews this the same way as Tim Burton's Batman, yet he gives this a good review. And Siskel is the same way, yet he gives it a bad one.
Yeah, they're all over the map. The reasons they go up or down on a film seem totally arbitrary sometimes. Like maybe they happened to be having a bad day on some occasions.
Ebert gave a thumb up to The Haunting (1999) because of the same reason too.
The score was awesome.
Underrated masterpiece
The movie was pretty good, albeit a little over the top. Keanu Reeves was predictably horrible with his attempted English accent and stiff mannerisms. But the the movie was a visual feast.
Tommy Udo, he's playing Harker. Harker is a stiff.
Ya but that look keanu gives on the train into his eyes is all you need to know he became a superstar
The over the topness is what makes it any good
Bored? One of the best vampire movies ever made.
Gene was just like that...very stuffy, and, at times, very... snobbish!
Agreed. And I just watched it for the first time. I never cared for Dracula, its huge relevance in cinematic history or vampire subject matter in general, but this movie was awesome. And Winona was so damn fine. Damn, that woman is truly blessed. I believe Gary Oldman was given the greatest privilege probably in all of cinema by getting to act out those seductive scenes with Winona just at the beginning of her prime. Super, super lucky.
One of the best movies of all time. Show it to someone young whos into the arts.
sum of u say the movie sucked,but im glad it was created,,,it such a powerful movie..it sux when actors dont perfrom as well as others but mr (gary oldman)..he was amazing...
my life is complete knowing i saw the best vampire ever...great film
I'm still trying to figure out where Cahfax Abbeh is.
One of my favorite 90s movies despite some flaws, Gary Oldman saved what could have been a campy horror movie with Hopkins and Keanu "interesting" versions of two classic characters.
"Do not put your faith in such insignificant trinkets of deceit".... This move has the best 1 liners in it. Next time you watch it listen for them. Let's not forget Tom Waitts is in this as well.
WELL YOU'RE A SICK OLD BUZZARD!
I own this soundtrack and it is fabulous. The music certainly is effective in making this movie even better.
RIP Ebert, he is 100% right, the mood & atmosphere of this film is intoxicating. I thought there was chemistry between Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder; her character was supposed to have this virginal bride-like aura to it, and she delivered. Anthony Hopkins's acting was over the top, and Keanu was....well, terrible. I did not like how much time was devoted to Lucy's ordeal. If more time was put on the romance between Dracula & Mina the film would have been more "emotive." The potential for emotion was there, but the progression of the love story was rushed. One minute Mina runs into Dracula on the streets, then she has dinner with him once or twice, then she is ready to run off with him. It was a shame because Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder's chemistry with each other was wasted. Still, one of my favorite vampire films.
I think they didn't get it. It's meant to be ilaberate like a dark comic book, it's not meant to be William Shakespeare, and I thought Gary Oldman was incredible. All the other performances were solid enough to hold the picture as one of the best of the year, and the visuals make it one of the most interesting films of the decade.
The intro of this movie always terrified me. It was a visual feast.
This is one of the most underrated films of the early 90s (save for maybe Keanu Reeves performance which is still effective). These 'critics' share good points about the film but when you become too critical of film in general, too formulaic about the process (as they do), you begin to lose what makes films like this one so magical and sustainable. People today are still obsessed with the movie, like me, for imagery, dialogue and strong performances (particularly the Oscar-snubbed Gary Oldman).
Though I understand their complaints, this remains one of my favorite films ever. My wife refuses to sit in the same room with me when its on because I'm quoting entire chunks of it, I can't help it.
My favorite part about this movie as a whole, is that the story with Mina could well fit in the novel. There are gaps in the novel that the love story with Mina could fit into. And if you notice in the movie itself, when she is traveling by ship to go back to Jonathan, she is tossing pages of her diary overboard into the water so that he will never know of her secret love. Which...would explain why those passages are not in the novel, as hers would be the only account (Dracula never gets a POV chapter or segment of any kind.)
This little touch alone, that scene, really enhances the movie for me and makes the liberties it takes on that account seem genuine and believable. Well, as believable as a 500 year old vampire leaping around and turning into rats and wolves and bats, anyway.
Gary Oldman is the best incarnation of Dracula since Bela Legosi :)
the hairdo
+Thomas Baron Siskel and Ebert are the real Dracula and Renfield
David Topchiev your ass!
"Yeah. Why not?" 😆
Ah, these two had such great chemistry together.
I thought this review was fair but I still love this film.
It's funny how they talk about the movie not having a single narrative that propels throughout the entire film, because the original novel is written as snippets of diaries and journals from multiple characters and thus multiple points of view. Maybe that was the stylistic choice Copolla was going for in his movie.
Such an incredible and visual masterpiece. Gary Oldman and the creature effects are still disturbing and memorable. Creepy would be an understatement
This movie is spectacular and breathtaking
I miss watching them, and I miss reading Ebert's reviews in the newspaper :(
Had they picked Johnny Depp for Harker, this film would have been perfect.
Totally agree
OMG yes Depp would have murdered it
I Remember when this was when this was in theaters, my friend and I was driving my car to the movie theater, when we got to the movie theater, i chickened-out and i told my friend i'm not going to see this movie, my friend went in the movie theater to see this movie, about an hour later, my friend came out of the movie theater, and went in the car, and told me all about it.
Agree with them on this films many strengths and its glaring weaknesses. I really liked the 1st half but not the second.
One of Coppola's very best.
This is a great example of a S&E review where I love the film and disagree with both of them but I DO get their complaints. Blade Runner and Dracula suffer from the same faults, I believe. I would consider them barely faults anymore because the films have aged like wine into rightful classics..
i would have to disagree with their opinions here, this film was a masterpiece and one of the great vampire movies of the century, look no further than anything that francis ford coppolla directs to be stunning
Does anyone know whether Siskel & Ebert's review of "The Accused" is available for viewing? I would be interested in seeing an uncut version.
3:09 Another century *for sure* 😂💯
It was a fresh twist on the old classic, visually speaking! I’m with Roger.
Still don't know why Reeves is in this movie. :P
Reeves was great. I don't know why he gets so much hate.
star power...but he's inept here
I agree. I think he was a pretty lure for all the teenage and college girls who thought he was good-looking at the time. He was a prime example of an actor who benefited from emerging during the golden age of MTV because of his youth and good looks and likable presence.
^that is correct above. The Director even confirmed that in an interview.
agreed. I like Reeves but he was the wrong choice for this role.
Keanu reeves: "you're count dracula? wow¡¡ cool¡¡"
Oldman should have got an Oscar nod for his performance. Shows the Academy awards are total BS .
Durins Bane Nomination, yes. Oscar, no.
This Dracula isn't _too_ bad, but I really prefer 1979's Dracula with Frank Langella and Kate Nelligan. The underground scene in that movie could qualify for one of the ten scariest scenes of all time. And I really like Christopher Lee's Dracula too.
lol the Langella movie looks even more staged than this one. And the performances are either lifeless and laughable.
Johnny Skinwalker You're certainly entitled to your wrong opinion.
gspendlove Agree 100%. Its by far my favorite version. Unbeatable atmosphere and I agree about the underground scene. The appearance of Van Helsing's daughter is the stuff of nightmares.
You nailed it.
I'm glad ur a mind reader lol oh my Ebert always delivers..
Ah, great couple they were, Siskel and Ebert! Their reviews were always fun to watch and informative as well.
How did these two never get into nasty little slap fights or hair pulling battles-- it's a miracle. The last moment here ("mind reader") is the best part. 😁
Has it occurred to you that this is contrived? Watch WWE.
@@YD-uq5fi Not into wrestling and all its pageantry and nonsense but you give some food for thought.
Interesting: they are showing clips of the movie without music, although in the final movie there´s also music playing. Where did they get the musicless version of the film?
Unreal how they can be split on this. To date, without comparison, the single best Dracula film ever made, yet this is how they review it. Both of them were overrated hacks.
Agreed. Watching this movie on Halloween night has become a tradition of mine, and has become the de facto favorite film of my girlfriend and I.
It's amazing how a movie this good used to get a thumbs down. I wonder if it would be the same thumbs down today, considering all the crap Hollywood has put out in the last 20 years. In the 80s and 90s you used to go to the video store and 9/10 movies were good. Now only 1/10 movies are good. I'm not saying the move is perfect, but it is a pretty strong showing, and an excellent and original version of Dracula by a clearly talented filmmaker. In my opinion, films used to be so good back in the day that they got held to a higher standard. Today I think BS Dracula would get thumbs up as it would stand out from the sea of mediocrity and CGI garbage we are fed today.
+DarthHater100 Because Hollywood as figured out they can churn out the same movie 35 times a year and make a hundred billion dollars. They don't have to risk anything anymore and the public just eats it up.
As someone who lived through that time, let me tell you that there were plenty of terrible movies back then. It's just that things have gotten so much worse by comparison.
A lot of their criticisms are valid. Telling people not to see it is foolish. Implying that anyone with a even scintilla of taste would be "bored" by this movie is just idiotic.
you're not looking in the right places.
I completely agree with you 100%. A lot of the Hollywood films today are real shit 101. They used to make excellent films with less special effects technology than what they produce today with the most advance gee whiz machines money can buy. The 70's Hammer films were fantastic, the 80's and 90's movies were also spectacular in comparison to Y2K and this dumbed down decade of endless superhero special effects mega films.
DarthHater100 Dumbass
Dumbass
Dumbass
Please watch Doug Walkers Video: The Dark Age of Movies and you see how good Cinema has become today instead of every crap they put on in the past especially the late 90s
Bram stoker's Dracula is the best.
THIS FILM MOVES AND SCARES ME! ITS TERRIFYING AND BLOODY AND HORRIFYING AND SO SEXY AND HOT AND EMOTIONAL AND MASTERFUL.... ITS A MASTERPIECE OF HORROR ROMANCE DRAMA FILMMAKING!
2:50 The old Dracula. Dennis Cunningham, a NY critic of the time, said "Gary Oldman looked like he was the guy home from Woodstock."
That’s how the book is. It’s not very linear. It’s all a bunch of letters.
This is my favourite film of all time, the only fault is Keanu Reeve's acting. Gary Oldman is the best Dracula...YES, even better than Bela Lugosi.
I really liked this movie although I think they have a good point. I think the key difference in my opinion is that I think this film does have 2 interesting characters: Dracula and Dr. Van Helsing. They are essentially the most important characters besides Mina. It could´ve been a truly wonderful film if the supporting cast was as great.
In many older versions of Dracula the Count's actions are also driven by his obsession with Mina. But why does he fall in love with a woman he just met? Why that particular one? He's the prince of the underworld, shouldn't he have a grander scheme? In this movie it's the loss of his wife that caused him to sell his soul, so it makes perfect sense that he would fall for her reincarnation. It's this 500 year obsession that makes him interesting.
Van Helsing is just so fun to watch because he's excentric. The scene Where he does his research and discovers that the evil he's facing is non other than Dracula, he thoroughly enjoys it: ´She is the willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower, I dare say, a devoted disciple and the devil's concubine, do you understand me? Yet we may still save her precious soul but not on an empty stomach. Jack? I starve, feed me!´
Siskel & Ebert should just stop talking. Just stop. This movie is amazing. Brilliant acting and visuals.
Novel idea for a film review program. Sit in silence. There's a ratings winner.
Not everybody likes what you like. Gay sex, for example. Get over it.
Gary Oldman and Art Direction of this film is the best parts of this movie!
this movie is WAY better than 80% of movies that come out now. it's a CGI fest now.
Oh, come on, Gene. The Dracula story has been told so many times in so many films that moviegoers are completely familiar with the story. There's nothing new there; you know exactly what's gonna happen. You don't go to see a Dracula movie to be surprised by the story. You go to see a familiar story being told in a visually enticing way. _Bram Stoker's Dracula_ had a lot of visual flair, beautiful cinematography and some pretty good effects. It's entertaining eye candy and that's the best you can hope for from a new adaptation of that classic story. That and the performances, which I thought were....okay. Except for Anthony Hopkins. His was great, by far the best performance in the film. I loved the seriocomic attitude he brought to the part of Van Helsing.
PS: Has anybody seen the BTS footage of Sadie Frost where her makeup is terrifying that poor little kid, and Sadie is trying the best she can to make the kid understand it's all pretend? Sadie is such a sweetheart in that footage, and you feel so sorry for the poor scared little kid. You just wanna give both of them a hug.
That's a bollocks argument. There's plenty of interesting ways to interpret old material. 2019s Little Women being the most recent example.
@@killboggins Sorry. I'm into manly movies, not chick flicks, so I've never seen that boring crap. Maybe if it were "Little Women vs. Zombies" I might watch it. But if I want to hear two hours of girl problems, I'll just call my fiancee in from the kitchen and ask her about her day.
@@gspendlove poor fiance is about to marry an insecure cretin.
@@gspendlove 👍😅👍
@SparksDrinker Okay maybe minor was the wrong word but still, just because I have one problem with a movie (whether it's big or small) doesn't mean I can't like it.
It's a bit overblown, but you have to admire Coppola's verve, the art direction and Oldman's interpretation of Dracula.
I watch this movie for Gary Oldman and Gary Oldman only. How he didn't even manage a nomination for best actor is beyond me
They were right about all their criticisms about the movie but Roger explained what made the movie so good - the atmosphere, music, costumes, special effects and the visuals.
I usually find myself agreeing with Siskel more than Ebert, but I have to agree with Ebert this time. This was a good movie, I understand that it is slightly over-the-top and Keanu Reeve’s acting kind of sucks here. But come on, this is a very entertaining horror flick with great performances from Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins. I disagree with Siskel here.
Prefer the 1979 version and the 1979 Nosferatu the Vampyre.
Let’s not forget how good this movie sounds as well it looks, Wojciech Kilar’s soundtrack is exemplary
Keaunu Reaves accent was atrocious!!!!
They made good points but asides from Keanu's crappy acting, I love it and think it is an excellent film.
this is the best Dracula movie
Sorry to disagree but I'd put Nosferatu at the top. Still the creepiest vampire ever put on film. There is nothing "romantic" about him......he is portrayed as the parasite that he is.
I forgot about that one,you're right...Did you see Willem Dafoe in Shadow of the Vampire (2000)?..Might be a good complement to the original. The two movies affirm each other as real.
I saw Shadow of the Vampire when it was first released. I enjoyed it but it made no great impression on me. Willem Defoe as a parasitic vampire was just smart casting. John Malkovich proves himself to an a great ham actor. I really caannot remember much of it all. Not even a single scene springs to mind. Check out the Werner Herzog remake of Nosferatu. No where near as scary as the original but Klaus Kinski makes for a creepy vampire. It has some good moments but not really a great film.
this is 2nd only to the original 1993 classic with legosi. Bram Stoker's Dracula is very underrated even after all these years.
Eh, I thought the hammer dracula movies were better than both this and Lugosi.
I give it 2 thumbs up. It could have a better more connection series of storylines to make the overall plot, a better climax and ending but its designed to be watched many times at a most calm present moment concentration. Great visuals and "mini stories" its comprised of. Perhaps it could use some more music intertwined into the story. 😆
I used to love watching this show as a kid.
not usually a big fan of this stuff but Gary Oldmans allways makes his roles cool
Keanu did a exceptional job with his performance and his accent. Winona does a perfect job and Keanu was working on his accent for the role but it's not bad at all.
Sadie Frost "Lucy" and Dracula's brides where hot.
i didnt like the movie but ebert is right... its not just thumbs up thumbs down. he enjoyed watching the movie so he gave it thumbs up
I disagree, I thought Dracula was one of the best films of the '90s. I enjoyed every bit of it.
I love this movie. It was the best film in 1992. Better than the book. It has so many strengths that I can overlook Keanu Reeves.
Besides being superior to every other Vampire film,this is the 1st and only version that gives a reason of HOW he became.LOVE.That establishes a beliveable credibility.Not as a monster but a victum of love. This film shows Dracula with human weakness, but highlights his supernatural powers, with the best effects of any film.Todays versions are wrong. Vampires are non-corporal beings. Bullets or karate kicks DON'T kill them. 2 sticks or fingers made into a cross,also WON'T work.Gotta have faith.
Oh come on Siskel and Ebert! This was a really good version, and I'm not even a Dracula fan.
I'm with Siskel here in terms of story. In terms of style and dark vampirism, you can't deny this movie was influential by design.
I respect their reviews, but I don't agree witj them: Actually I found the characters and the story as much as interesting as the rest of the movie. I think it's a matter of porsonal conception, and the script was flawless to me, everything was fit to work as a good movie to me.
I thought Dracula was great in that Coppolla's version really explored the murky sexual under belly of the novel, which is never entirely absent from any adaptation of Dracula, but particularly bought to the fore here. Especially in Sadie Frosts great interpretation of Lucy, which is probably the best version of the character I have seen. Also, like the book, the film is episodic and, in my opinion, that contributes to the strange, disturbing atmosphere of the film.
All the flaws aside this movie is a masterpiece. The part with the shadow alone.
These guys are out of their minds. It was a sexier version of the Dracula movies. It was fun to watch.
One of the best romances ever, also one of the last great art films, before CGI ruined everything.
Dracula 1992 and interview with the vampire are the two greatest vampire movies ever made.
@nmoravec1 So you hate it because it's different then a much longer book?
Hey Bogakeil...a boring book at that
I thought this was a classic and the best adaptation ever even with its flaws. Gary Oldman simply excelled at this role. Most of all the low budget special effects or Non-CGI effect is what really gave this movie an atmosphere that was creepy.
God I miss these guys' reviews.
At 0:41 Roger refers to Francis ford COP-A-LA, at 3:21 Gene refers to him as COPE-A-LA, who is correct?
ertznay It’s actually pronounced Francis Ford Copulate.
Anthony Hopkins is the only actor qualified to portrait Van Helsing.
What is your favorite im looking for a good dracula movie to watch this the only one I really saw.....
And then 32 years later, the Megalopolis trailer claimed that Roger Ebert called this movie "style over substance."
Eh, still better than the inflated ego of a trailer Spellbound was.
How could they not talk about how god-awful Keanu Reeves performance was??
Anthony Hopkins was so funny in this movie!