I honestly cannot fathom the reason as to why this film is called 'Bram Stoker's Dracula', when it hardly resembles his infamous book. I was.. disappointed, to say the least, when I first saw this movie. The cast was dreadful, the acting appalling, the story-line way too dramatically changed. Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were just.. too young and amateur to play their parts convincingly. Reeves managed to look cute and innocent on screen, but also very wooden; and what on earth was with the accent?! Anthony Hopkins put himself across as a mad, disturbingly perverted old Van Helsing. The parts of Lucy Westenra and the mentally instable Renfield were played rather well; in fact, they were the only redeeming aspects of this film. Dracula himself.. was done quite admirably, in essence. But portraying Gary Oldman as a tragic romantic hero, was not a good move; it just doesn't work. What I am annoyed about, is the inappropriately named title. It is NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula, it is Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. C'est tout. With my criticisms in mind; for the viewer that has been untainted by any former knowledge of the original Count Dracula, it is a rather good film. But for me, Dracula is not just the fictions of a demented Irishman.