Bram Stoker's Dracula [DVD] [1992]

The Movie: Very little needs to be written about the plot and production values of this 15 year old film. Chances are you've seen it at least once, if not then I would suggest looking further afield for detailed reviews, a few critics have been snippy about small details or overblown minor flaws. This is to be expected regarding a film of such high caliber, there really isn't anything substantial to berate. The movie is one of the all time greats of the 1990's, great plot (faithful to the book) which has been enhanced by F.F. Coppola's production to make the transition from book to film flawless. Rarely dull with real emotion and exciting action and horror sequences.

The Blu-ray Presentation: First of all, the major concern is that this film is advertised as being 2.40:1 aspect ratio - it isn't - it's the same as the original DVD release which is 16:9. Neither is the sound format made entirely clear, the packaging states simply '5.1' but doesn't say weather it's Dolby Digital or DTS. It isn't until you play the film that it becomes clear that it's DD. The picture clarity is excellent - and that's only on a 1080i TV - I'm sure it would be even better with a 1080p capable TV. It's amazing to think that this movie was made before High Definition was an option. The make-up and set design is absolutely flawless - really, quite stunning. Of interesting note, Gary Oldman's make-up is actually much more convincing whist he's portraying the old and decrepit Dracula; His make-up whilst in his 'young' mid 30's guise is actually less believable, but not so much as to be distracting. Winona Ryder's make-up is barely visible as is that of Keanu Reeves. The sets look realistic, solid and vivid, showing up extremely well in HD. The costumes are also flawless and vivid, with great detail visible throughout. This is a subtle movie and is well underplayed. The same can be said of the details that stand out due to the HD presentation. The viewer notices small details such as the beauty of props, sets and costumes that really stand out among the darkness of the overall film. The character of Lucy now stands out as a vivid bold character due to costume, hair and make-up whereas in the SD DVD version of the movie the character is too strong compared to the muted image portrayed, instead coming across as somewhat tarty an scandalous - the bold contrast, colours and clarity now give the character's image a very strong look which matches the personality of the character. The lower price than many Blu-ray movies is also attractive. This release offers a lot, the sound, despite not being DTS is vivid and busy with a lot of attention paid to channel separation and positioning.

Special features: These are numerous, of special note is the collection of deleted scenes, while presented in a rather muddy SD format, they are none-the-less engaging and interesting. There's a whole lot more besides, including several documentaries, trailers and commentaries. You really get the impression that a lot of care and attention has been invested in this movie, from its initial production in 1992 to its late 90's DVD presentation and on to its High Definition Special Edition release. Obviously not the very best Blu-ray release available but certainly apt and well realized treatment for a brilliant movie.

I have been a fan of this film for many years. It first prompted me to buy the accompanying book back in 1992. This book was actually the novel as Bram Stoker wrote it. Be careful; I notice Amazon are now selling an accompanying book with a very similar cover to mine but it is about the film rather than the novel.

Once I started collecting DVD's, the standard version, which Amazon also offers, became one of the first to be added. I have recently upgraded to the 2 disc deluxe version.

Comparing the 2 versions, the film is actually the same length on both, no additions or deletions. The deluxe version houses a brand new HD transfer of the original 1992 film. The picture quality seemed much the same on both versions on my HD TV screen. However, I felt the voice dialogue was slightly clearer on the deluxe version.

Well everybody knows Dracula or at least thinks they do. In reality most film portrayals emphasize the gory bloodlust horror aspects of the character, excluding everything else. These stereo-types probably do for Dracula what "Jaws" did for the white shark. Bram Stoker intended his novel to be a Gothic Romance. Although Francis Coppola does not stick faithfully to the novel, his film is probably the closest so far.

Coppola's Dracula, superbly portrayed by Gary Oldman, is definitely not human but at times displays some distinctly human qualities. He hopes and dreams, he laughs and cries. He can be afraid. Also, he is cultured and above all, he can love.

The ruthlessly single-minded monster is still present; he deals with Jonathan, Lucy, Renfield and anybody else who gets in the way with the usual expected cold-bloodedness. However, when it comes to Mina, the possible reincarnation of his late wife, Dracula actually needs some persuading to grant her eternal life. He loves Mina too much to condemn her to a soulless existence and it is not until she willingly participates that he relents. A Dracula that can show compassion is something very different. This is what Coppola intended to add to the story.

Furthermore, we are introduced to Vlad the Impaler, a Romanian prince who is said to be the real life Dracula. The film does take liberties with history; it is thought that Vlad's wife, whose name is unknown, threw herself to her death to evade capture by the advancing Turks, rather than because she thought her prince was dead. The storyline followed by the film, which I believe again to be Coppola's mark gives Dracula a motive. He is not being evil for the sake of it and this somehow helps to soften the character even further.

Clearly at the beginning of the film Dracula is shown to be victorious in battle, but curiously when Van Helsing later confronts him in Seward's quarters he taunts him that his armies were defeated! It is known that Vlad fought the Turks more than once and spent some time in captivity. It is possible that he was brutally murdered. Is this an error in the script that was not spotted during final editing or a hint at the real history of the man?

Usually a Dracula film is a straightforward fight between the Count and Van Helsing. Here all the characters are portrayed much as Bram Stoker intended. The Count is killed in this version by a combination of Jonathan and Mina and their lesser known companions rather than by Van Helsing himself.

The film has been criticised for bad English accents particularly those of Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves. I think fairly good editing has limited the problem. However, when Jonathan is telling Van Helsing about Carfax abbey, I couldn't help thinking "The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain"!

If you take advantage of the extras in the deluxe version the unseen deleted scenes are of great interest. Some lengthy dialogues which would have made the film follow the novel more closely but would have caused problems, have been cut and the overall film is better for it.

It is really if you are interested in the extras that you would buy the deluxe version. The production interviews are more comprehensive than before. It is amazing to think that the special effects were not computer generated. The time and trouble taken with the photography and the stunning costumes made for a huge budget and probably mean that this film too is the last of its kind.

When Dubliner Bram Stoker died in 1912 from overwork and exhaustion he was in debt and almost penniless. His widow Florence lived long enough to reap some rewards from his writings, especially from the royalties of his masterpiece Dracula. Stoker himself having seen only one stage production (staged to protect copyright) and payment enough to keep his family in breakfast cereal, died never realising the fictional legend he had created

Many attempts have been made by some visionary directors to put the ultimate version of Dracula on the screen. And in 1992 Godfather director, Francis Ford Coppola got his chance. With a screenplay by James V.Hart and acknowledgement to Stoker.
This version encompasses two stories gelled together, Rumanian ruler Vlad Tepes also known as 'Dracul' and Stoker's fictional Count Dracula. Coppola gathered some fine actors together with Gary Oldman in the title role, Oldman gave the role his own touch, especially his Bela Lugosi imitated accent. There were arguments with Coppola over some the star's renditions of Dracula's personality. Oldman won out, the proof is in the final cut, a fantastic performance.

Anthony Hopkins plays a rather more eccentric Professor Abraham Van Helsing and plays it as if the part was made for him. Sadie Frost's portrayal of the extroverted Lucy was the best performance of this character Which I have seen to date, While Keanu Reeves came over as a wimpish Jonathan Harker, which by Stoker's description, he was not, No fault of Reeves, but rather a directorial error.

Wynona Ryder as Mina Murray was a basic performance, in the novel she was the focus of the story and kept everyone else on their toes until Dracula gets to her, then its Van Helsing to the rescue. The movie itself was a cinematic vision to behold. Costumes, sets, art direction, Wojeich Kilar's soundtrack, it had everything. But what of the storyline?

Every decade has had its Dracula, and this version was aimed at a 1990's audience. Time has shown that it went down well, especially with the female audience with its slogan "Love Never Dies". Dracula (Vlad) pining for his dead loved one sees in Mina the image of his wife and pursues her, with tragic consequences for all.

I have no doubt that this movie was influential to the movies and never ending TV serials that finally came along ie 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer' 'The Twilight Saga' 'Vampire Diaries' 'True Blood'. Sex between vampires and mortals have now become the norm on screen (and less scary). Have you noticed the heroine in these plots never become vampires themselves, but are usually in love with the main nemesis.
I cannot wait for the sexy, romantic remake version of 'Dawn Of The Dead'

Bram Stoker's Dracula was a fabulous film and very scary, in spite of the fact Coppla went for romance and sentimentality. Vampires by nature, if we are to believe legend, feed on human blood for their very existence, to stay alive and grow younger. Romance has nothing to with it. If a vampire cannot find a human he/she will procure a cat, a dog, a rat to sustain itself. For all of its faults and there are very few, this was the best effort so far to screen the ultimate Vampire.

I do hope that the romantic vision of Stoker's fictional creation as depicted in this movie, will not be too embedded in the human psyche for all time. My memories still retain a figure of a man dressed totally in black with skin deathly pale, ruby red lips and (slightly) protruding fangs, uttering the words " I am Dracula and I bid you welcome"

.......Last one to bed please lock the doors and turn out the lights.
I think I will stick with Christopher Lee's opinion the The ultimate Dracula has still to be filmed.