Bram Stoker's Dracula (US - DVD R1 | BD RA)
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has now provided us with the Blu-ray artwork
Title: Bram Stoker's Dracula (IMDb)
Starring: Gary Oldman
Released: 2nd October 2007
SRP: $24.96
Further Details:
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has announced a new special edition of Bram Stoker's Dracula which stars Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, and Keanu Reeves. The two-disc special edition will include a newly remastered anamorphic widescreen presentation, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track. Extras will include a video introduction by Francis Ford Coppola, an audio commentary by Coppola, a documentary, deleted scenes, the trailer, and more. A Blu-ray edition will also be available for around $28.95. We've attached the official package artwork below:
News by Tom Woodward
Starring: Gary Oldman
Released: 2nd October 2007
SRP: $24.96
Further Details:
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has announced a new special edition of Bram Stoker's Dracula which stars Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, and Keanu Reeves. The two-disc special edition will include a newly remastered anamorphic widescreen presentation, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track. Extras will include a video introduction by Francis Ford Coppola, an audio commentary by Coppola, a documentary, deleted scenes, the trailer, and more. A Blu-ray edition will also be available for around $28.95. We've attached the official package artwork below:
News by Tom Woodward
Advertisements
Existing Posts
I'm someone who was almost forced to read this book, (its my husbands favorite book, reads from cover to cover and then starts again) so I needed to know what was keeping him at it, I found the film a bit of a departure from the book. The film is initially a love story. The book however is scary, my own opinion is that Dracula is not actually in the book that much, his presence however is very in the book, very clever and made him even more sinister, the way he gets into your head. The film I belive has to be looked at in its own right, and thats where Coppola made his mistake - he should have not called it Bram Stokers - Just Francis Ford Coppolas. Good movie, some bad acting and some really over acting which works a treat I think, Hopkins and Oldham are just amazing. Ryder and Reeves could have been kept out, but he needed their names in lights.
heetae wrote: I like the net but sometimes I liked the old pre net era.
You went to see a movies and you liked it or not regardless
of what any self appointed critics thought.
BAH!
So you never read any magazines/fanzines and saw a different view?
You never read letters from readers that disagreed?
You never met up with a mate and found he disagreed with you on your opinion of the movie?
The Net may make it easier to give views to a wider range of people...but quite frankly EVERYONE who sess a film is a critic ( I don't get paid for it, it's not my job) because they come away with a view on a film and reasons for that view...and someone else will have the opposite view with their reasons also.
pre-Net days simply meant you had far, far less ways to share your view on a film to far, far less people. Is that a good thing?
You went to see a movies and you liked it or not regardless
of what any self appointed critics thought.
BAH!
So you never read any magazines/fanzines and saw a different view?
You never read letters from readers that disagreed?
You never met up with a mate and found he disagreed with you on your opinion of the movie?
The Net may make it easier to give views to a wider range of people...but quite frankly EVERYONE who sess a film is a critic ( I don't get paid for it, it's not my job) because they come away with a view on a film and reasons for that view...and someone else will have the opposite view with their reasons also.
pre-Net days simply meant you had far, far less ways to share your view on a film to far, far less people. Is that a good thing?
I like the net but sometimes I liked the old pre net era.
You went to see a movies and you liked it or not regardless
of what any self appointed critics thought.
You went to see a movies and you liked it or not regardless
of what any self appointed critics thought.
Great movie, shame the artwork looks like something you would see in a Blockbuster as a straight to DVD sequel / spin off...
Artwork added for the Blu-ray release...
Dark Jedi wrote: Coppola did Patton too. One of the greatest war films of all time thank you very much.
No he didn't. Franklin J. Schaffner did Patton. Coppola only co-wrote the screenplay.
No he didn't. Franklin J. Schaffner did Patton. Coppola only co-wrote the screenplay.
Yeah, I can understand people's dissatisfaction with this one, but I've always liked it. I love how it's all like a surreal dream. My main complaint would be that the film is much more of a supernatural drama/love story than a horror movie; the film never really tries to scare you.
Anyway, that's not even the reason I'm posting. Does anyone know if the commentary is just a port from the Criterion laser?
Anyway, that's not even the reason I'm posting. Does anyone know if the commentary is just a port from the Criterion laser?
For those that have read the book, you'll remember how the diary thing only works so well. How could that ever be "faithfully" adapted? Coppola's version is undoubtedly the closest to the book, but that isn't the same thing as saying it's a page-for-page retelling. Personally I like the stylized departures from the text. They really add to the cinematic expericence. BTW, Reeves does blow, but it doesn't damper the film *too* much. I love Eiko Ishioka's costumes on the cover art. The typeset is fine, it just looks odd rendered floating like it is.
der Lohmi wrote: gnomekid wrote: It's strange; Francis Ford Coppola made three of the greatest films ever made with the first two Godfather films and Apocalypse Now (three and a half if you count the third Godfather), but aside from those his filmography has been pretty sh*tty, if you ask me.
Have you seen THE CONVERSATION and RUMBLE FISH? Also, ONE FROM THE HEART is one of the most magical and unfairly maligned films of all time (just IMHO, of course).
Coppola did Patton too. One of the greatest war films of all time thank you very much.
Have you seen THE CONVERSATION and RUMBLE FISH? Also, ONE FROM THE HEART is one of the most magical and unfairly maligned films of all time (just IMHO, of course).
Coppola did Patton too. One of the greatest war films of all time thank you very much.
Aretak wrote: Awful, awful cover.
Why, do you miss the floating heads?
This is one of the best covers I've seen in quite some time. I don't have a copy of that film so I'll definitely be buying this!
Why, do you miss the floating heads?
This is one of the best covers I've seen in quite some time. I don't have a copy of that film so I'll definitely be buying this!
Fantastic cover of a long overdue Special Edition for a great film. I'll be picking up the BD!
I'll just stick with my Superbit edition thanks.
I thought it wasn't too bad a movie - but I only looked at it as being one persons interpritation of the book, not "the be all and end all" version of the book.
Like who has ever really made a fantastic movie of a Stephen King Horror? (Yes, there have been a few good ones but many, many bad ones!)
I thought it wasn't too bad a movie - but I only looked at it as being one persons interpritation of the book, not "the be all and end all" version of the book.
Like who has ever really made a fantastic movie of a Stephen King Horror? (Yes, there have been a few good ones but many, many bad ones!)
finally quality cover and everybodys complains ! you get your conventional covers and everybodys cries "its always the same" ... now this is something unsual so be happy ... there should be more something daring like this out there.
Rob Clark wrote: Dave Brock wrote: Sam Spade wrote: One of the best versions of Dracula ever.
OH PLEASE!!! Have you even read the book?
Reeves 'acting' and delivery utterly destroyed the essential Harker diary readings and almost all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Bram Stoker's anything!
A huge Mina/Dracula love plot?
Wolf sex?
Bendy morphing Brides?
A dead poodle wig?
John Lennon glasses?
Must have all been in the unpublished, secret verion of "Dracula" as none of this crud was in the novel i read!
Acting that's as hammy as something from the local butchers or as skilled as your average school play with 5 year olds is the order of the day here as well.
Hideous turd of a movie.
I have to agree. I saw this in a crowded theater. And the comments from the people filing out afterwards, NOT good. I had such high hopes for this film too. But it was just terrible. Skip this and rent or buy John Badman's "Dracula" with Frank Langella. Now that's a classy movie.
Oh, yeah, John Badman's "Dracula" is SOOOOO much closer to the book! *eyes*
OH PLEASE!!! Have you even read the book?
Reeves 'acting' and delivery utterly destroyed the essential Harker diary readings and almost all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Bram Stoker's anything!
A huge Mina/Dracula love plot?
Wolf sex?
Bendy morphing Brides?
A dead poodle wig?
John Lennon glasses?
Must have all been in the unpublished, secret verion of "Dracula" as none of this crud was in the novel i read!
Acting that's as hammy as something from the local butchers or as skilled as your average school play with 5 year olds is the order of the day here as well.
Hideous turd of a movie.
I have to agree. I saw this in a crowded theater. And the comments from the people filing out afterwards, NOT good. I had such high hopes for this film too. But it was just terrible. Skip this and rent or buy John Badman's "Dracula" with Frank Langella. Now that's a classy movie.
Oh, yeah, John Badman's "Dracula" is SOOOOO much closer to the book! *eyes*
Rick McGrath wrote: For the under-educated...The cover is showing Prince Vlads armour from when he was a defender of the church/christianity...and the lower picture is of Dracula repulsed at the image of his old armour, and what it represents....fairly simple and very clever, i think anyway..
Nah I think he just saw a big scary spider. "Ooh, get it, get it!"
Nah I think he just saw a big scary spider. "Ooh, get it, get it!"
Dave Brock wrote: Sam Spade wrote: One of the best versions of Dracula ever.
OH PLEASE!!! Have you even read the book?
Reeves 'acting' and delivery utterly destroyed the essential Harker diary readings and almost all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Bram Stoker's anything!
A huge Mina/Dracula love plot?
Wolf sex?
Bendy morphing Brides?
A dead poodle wig?
John Lennon glasses?
Must have all been in the unpublished, secret verion of "Dracula" as none of this crud was in the novel i read!
Acting that's as hammy as something from the local butchers or as skilled as your average school play with 5 year olds is the order of the day here as well.
Hideous turd of a movie.
I have to agree. I saw this in a crowded theater. And the comments from the people filing out afterwards, NOT good. I had such high hopes for this film too. But it was just terrible. Skip this and rent or buy John Badman's "Dracula" with Frank Langella. Now that's a classy movie.
OH PLEASE!!! Have you even read the book?
Reeves 'acting' and delivery utterly destroyed the essential Harker diary readings and almost all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Bram Stoker's anything!
A huge Mina/Dracula love plot?
Wolf sex?
Bendy morphing Brides?
A dead poodle wig?
John Lennon glasses?
Must have all been in the unpublished, secret verion of "Dracula" as none of this crud was in the novel i read!
Acting that's as hammy as something from the local butchers or as skilled as your average school play with 5 year olds is the order of the day here as well.
Hideous turd of a movie.
I have to agree. I saw this in a crowded theater. And the comments from the people filing out afterwards, NOT good. I had such high hopes for this film too. But it was just terrible. Skip this and rent or buy John Badman's "Dracula" with Frank Langella. Now that's a classy movie.
For all those griping about the font used for the title, it's the same that was used in the opening titles, so it's not much of a departure. I didn't despise the movie, despite it's numerous negatives, but I won't be double-dipping. I do like the cover though.
I love this adaptation. Great film. One of my favorites. This will be my first triple-dip DVD. :: proclaims self DVD w***e:: Not too sure about the cover art, play-dough indeed.
Rick McGrath wrote: For the under-educated...The cover is showing Prince Vlads armour from when he was a defender of the church/christianity...and the lower picture is of Dracula repulsed at the image of his old armour, and what it represents....fairly simple and very clever, i think anyway..
That is simply your interpretation.
I can counter it simply by stating, for one, Dracula in the corner isn't looking at the Armour.
That is simply your interpretation.
I can counter it simply by stating, for one, Dracula in the corner isn't looking at the Armour.
Lotsa liberties taken with the novel (2 or 3 invented plot lines I can think of) but it does retain the "journal entry" structure of the book & yes, Keanu's horrible accent could be source material for a "how to do the most unconvincing english accent ever" thesis but this film does have some rather breathtaking visuals and remarkable in-camera special effects. Coppola always gives every film he makes it's own pure visual stylization and Dracula with it's use of soundstage bound sets has an oddly fantastical look which is purely it's own. The score is extremely good as well. I have the superbit version but the commentary will alone be enough for me to pick this up and as the film is such an almost experimental technical feat I am intrigued to see what the documentary consists of as well.
i liked it. kinda c**ppy cover. that font is hideous. clearly someone was looking around in photoshop and thought "hm this font looks alright, i'll just use this one then". i doubt i'd double dip unless this got down to $10.
Ha.
I just bought this movie a few weeks ago. I'll probably pick this version up though, as it looks pimp.
I just bought this movie a few weeks ago. I'll probably pick this version up though, as it looks pimp.
Special editions of this AND "Caligula" on 10-02-07?!?!?! Wow... This is like Hannukah in October!
I remember an editing teacher at my film school told us how when he was a post-production student, Francis Forda Copola and his editors were guest speakers and brought a scene from "Dracula" (where Mina and Harker say goodbye in the beginging) for the students to cut together... The twist was that they were supposed to cut around Keanu Reeves' bad acting, they all did their best, but when they screened the actual cut of the scene, they noticed that practically all of Keanu's close-ups and lines of dialogue were DELETED.
I remember an editing teacher at my film school told us how when he was a post-production student, Francis Forda Copola and his editors were guest speakers and brought a scene from "Dracula" (where Mina and Harker say goodbye in the beginging) for the students to cut together... The twist was that they were supposed to cut around Keanu Reeves' bad acting, they all did their best, but when they screened the actual cut of the scene, they noticed that practically all of Keanu's close-ups and lines of dialogue were DELETED.
f**k all you haters...oldman rules and this movie does too
Cheddar J. Cheese wrote:
Coppola does that to everything he makes, to make sure people know who the author of the source is, and to give them credit for the story.
Does he? I think you'll find it was really to sucker the public into thinking they were getting something no one else had done. And all they got was the same 'nothing much to do with Dracula really' flick.
I do agree that it does do things from the book that others have not...but the main bulk of the entire film is this romance plot. And that has nothing to do with Stoker and completely changes the character of Dracula.
Dracula does not love Mina. He barely has anything at all to do with her. In fact the only time they actually meet properly is when he's physically forcing her to lick the blood from his lacerated chest "like someone forcing a kitten's head into a bowl of milk to drink". Ain't nothing romantic there!
The point of Stoker's Dracula (in fact the entire plan of Dracula) wa that he was a sodded, decayed creature looking to escape 'the old country' to the 'new world' to give life to his pitiful undead existence.
He's a ruthless creature that uses people and lies to them to get what he wants.
That he ONCE loved is made explicit in that superb scene with the Brides when he 'saves' Harker (and throws them the crying baby in the sack to feed on, so well done in the BBC version) but it was obviously a 'love' that we don't recognise as love and not to one specific person. It was said the the Brides in a way that implied he had loved each of them, in HIS way, as he turned them. "Yes...I too can love! You yourselves can tell it from the past".
Stoker's novel may need heavy trimming of certain elements to move them along for a film but there is nothing that needs changing and no set-piece that is not expertly written in narrative and dialogue.
I have no love (and HATE IT as an adpatation as it removes literally every single good sequence and stupidly changes the entire Harker character) for the Hammer "Dracula" either and get annoyed as hell when people say it's the best adaptation when it actually adapts almost nothing at all (literally!) from the novel.
But that did not call itself 'Bram Stoker's'.
Quote: However, I don't really think people will appreciate the term 'unenlightened', why not just 'those who haven't already', makes you sound less condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention,
Point taken. Yes it was rather snooty, but the fact millions have heard Reeves' version but almost no one has heard John Stuart Anderson's amazing portrayal irks greatly. And his readings really show how damn good (and at times chilling) Stoker's writing of them was.
Apologies.
Coppola does that to everything he makes, to make sure people know who the author of the source is, and to give them credit for the story.
Does he? I think you'll find it was really to sucker the public into thinking they were getting something no one else had done. And all they got was the same 'nothing much to do with Dracula really' flick.
I do agree that it does do things from the book that others have not...but the main bulk of the entire film is this romance plot. And that has nothing to do with Stoker and completely changes the character of Dracula.
Dracula does not love Mina. He barely has anything at all to do with her. In fact the only time they actually meet properly is when he's physically forcing her to lick the blood from his lacerated chest "like someone forcing a kitten's head into a bowl of milk to drink". Ain't nothing romantic there!
The point of Stoker's Dracula (in fact the entire plan of Dracula) wa that he was a sodded, decayed creature looking to escape 'the old country' to the 'new world' to give life to his pitiful undead existence.
He's a ruthless creature that uses people and lies to them to get what he wants.
That he ONCE loved is made explicit in that superb scene with the Brides when he 'saves' Harker (and throws them the crying baby in the sack to feed on, so well done in the BBC version) but it was obviously a 'love' that we don't recognise as love and not to one specific person. It was said the the Brides in a way that implied he had loved each of them, in HIS way, as he turned them. "Yes...I too can love! You yourselves can tell it from the past".
Stoker's novel may need heavy trimming of certain elements to move them along for a film but there is nothing that needs changing and no set-piece that is not expertly written in narrative and dialogue.
I have no love (and HATE IT as an adpatation as it removes literally every single good sequence and stupidly changes the entire Harker character) for the Hammer "Dracula" either and get annoyed as hell when people say it's the best adaptation when it actually adapts almost nothing at all (literally!) from the novel.
But that did not call itself 'Bram Stoker's'.
Quote: However, I don't really think people will appreciate the term 'unenlightened', why not just 'those who haven't already', makes you sound less condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention,
Point taken. Yes it was rather snooty, but the fact millions have heard Reeves' version but almost no one has heard John Stuart Anderson's amazing portrayal irks greatly. And his readings really show how damn good (and at times chilling) Stoker's writing of them was.
Apologies.
Dave Brock wrote: Yeah, but guess what!!?? That version, or indeed any other version, did not have the nerve to name themselves "BRAM STOKER'S Dracula".
Nor did it have people who've obviously never read the damn book say it was one of the best versio of Dracula ever!
Coppola does that to everything he makes, to make sure people know who the author of the source is, and to give them credit for the story. I wouldn't get too worked up about that.
And, yes, I have read the book (surprise surprise), and yes, this does take a few liberties (you'll respond by saying "A few?", and then list them all, or... I think you've already done that, nevermind,) but this is the closest adaptation of the book I've seen. Nosferatu came pretty close in terms of basic plot, Lugosi forget it. Hammer pretty much just made up their own stories, although most were excellent films on their own. I don't remember the Langella one enough, but Mina/Lucy, there's faith to the source for you.
Quote: And anyone who has any love for the novel could not stand to hear the abuse handed down to the superbly written and atmospheric Harker diary entries by Reeves in this laughable Hollywood exec dross.
I advise the unenlightened to hunt out the superb, SUPERB, recording of "Dracula's Guest" by John Stuart Anderson on L.P. As it is THE finest delivery of the Harker diaries (and the finest acting of them) you will ever hear.
It shows, to an even greater degree, how loathsome the Reeves' desecration was.
Yes, Reeves was pretty pitiful, no argument there. I will try to find that recording, thanks for the tip. However, I don't really think people will appreciate the term 'unenlightened', why not just 'those who haven't already', makes you sound less condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention, but it can be easily mis-interpreted.
Quote: Failing that, watch the BBC version (lousy optical FX and dubious location footage aside) to see a faithful adpatation as well as a scene more disturbing than any of the crud in "BS Dracula" where they adapt the 'baby food' sequence.
Again, will seek out. Thank you.
Quote: And there was a very good reason why Mel Brooks kept the exact same wig in a (lame) parody as the one in this (supposedly) serious film...because quite frankly a dead poodle on one's head is pure comedy and death to any version of Dracula himself being taken remotely seriously.
Yes, his hairdo does look very queer (the boy said it), but I wouldn't say it was pure comedy. If you haven't cut your hair in a few centuries, there's only so far you can let it trail behind you before you start stacking it up on your head.
I'm just very surprised at the apparent universal hatred of this movie. Next you'll all be saying Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was terrible and wasn't Mary Shelley... Granted the one and pretty much only deviation where he re-animates Elizabeth...
Nor did it have people who've obviously never read the damn book say it was one of the best versio of Dracula ever!
Coppola does that to everything he makes, to make sure people know who the author of the source is, and to give them credit for the story. I wouldn't get too worked up about that.
And, yes, I have read the book (surprise surprise), and yes, this does take a few liberties (you'll respond by saying "A few?", and then list them all, or... I think you've already done that, nevermind,) but this is the closest adaptation of the book I've seen. Nosferatu came pretty close in terms of basic plot, Lugosi forget it. Hammer pretty much just made up their own stories, although most were excellent films on their own. I don't remember the Langella one enough, but Mina/Lucy, there's faith to the source for you.
Quote: And anyone who has any love for the novel could not stand to hear the abuse handed down to the superbly written and atmospheric Harker diary entries by Reeves in this laughable Hollywood exec dross.
I advise the unenlightened to hunt out the superb, SUPERB, recording of "Dracula's Guest" by John Stuart Anderson on L.P. As it is THE finest delivery of the Harker diaries (and the finest acting of them) you will ever hear.
It shows, to an even greater degree, how loathsome the Reeves' desecration was.
Yes, Reeves was pretty pitiful, no argument there. I will try to find that recording, thanks for the tip. However, I don't really think people will appreciate the term 'unenlightened', why not just 'those who haven't already', makes you sound less condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention, but it can be easily mis-interpreted.
Quote: Failing that, watch the BBC version (lousy optical FX and dubious location footage aside) to see a faithful adpatation as well as a scene more disturbing than any of the crud in "BS Dracula" where they adapt the 'baby food' sequence.
Again, will seek out. Thank you.
Quote: And there was a very good reason why Mel Brooks kept the exact same wig in a (lame) parody as the one in this (supposedly) serious film...because quite frankly a dead poodle on one's head is pure comedy and death to any version of Dracula himself being taken remotely seriously.
Yes, his hairdo does look very queer (the boy said it), but I wouldn't say it was pure comedy. If you haven't cut your hair in a few centuries, there's only so far you can let it trail behind you before you start stacking it up on your head.
I'm just very surprised at the apparent universal hatred of this movie. Next you'll all be saying Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was terrible and wasn't Mary Shelley... Granted the one and pretty much only deviation where he re-animates Elizabeth...
Damn! Dave Brock means business! I have to agree with him, this movie sucked and it's mostly Keanu's fault. Other than the obvious plot changes, it could've been a good film without him and Winona. I read this book in high school, the same year the movie came out, and upon watching it I was stunned at how much hollywood can change a story that claims to be true to the book. The only movie I've seen that remains true to the original book is Frank Miller's Sin City.
I just got this one for $5 in the bargin bin at Wal-mart. Haven't even seen it yet. Unless I fall in love with the movie, there will be no need to upgrade. I just like Dracula, and was curious to this version.
I loved this movie and have the Superbit edition. I've also got the 3-disc Criterion Collection laserdisc with some fairly neat extras on it; I wonder if Coppola's commentary's completely new. The artwork's beautiful, I think, but I don't know if this is worth the triple-dip for me...
Cheddar J. Cheese wrote: Yeah, Mina's never been Dracula's love interest (or rather, object of desire) before... 
The Langella 70s one was changed around a lot, if anything, that's the one to complain about, not this one.
Yeah, but guess what!!?? That version, or indeed any other version, did not have the nerve to name themselves "BRAM STOKER'S Dracula".
Nor did it have people who've obviously never read the damn book say it was one of the best versio of Dracula ever!
Once you call yourself 'BRAM STOKER'S' you better be f**kin like Bram Stoker!! And a huge bulk of plot with a romantic Dracula and a syrupy 'across the ages' romance with Mina HAS NOTHING AT ALL to do with Bram Stoker.
And yeah, as said, It's a forum where views are stated. You lot drooling love all over this fetid excuse for a Dracula (and indeed horror) film means I can state the opposite.
And anyone who has any love for the novel could not stand to hear the abuse handed down to the superbly written and atmospheric Harker diary entries by Reeves in this laughable Hollywood exec dross.
I advise the unenlightened to hunt out the superb, SUPERB, recording of "Dracula's Guest" by John Stuart Anderson on L.P. As it is THE finest delivery of the Harker diaries (and the finest acting of them) you will ever hear.
It shows, to an even greater degree, how loathsome the Reeves' desecration was.
Failing that, watch the BBC version (lousy optical FX and dubious location footage aside) to see a faithful adpatation as well as a scene more disturbing than any of the crud in "BS Dracula" where they adapt the 'baby food' sequence.
And there was a very good reason why Mel Brooks kept the exact same wig in a (lame) parody as the one in this (supposedly) serious film...because quite frankly a dead poodle on one's head is pure comedy and death to any version of Dracula himself being taken remotely seriously.
The Langella 70s one was changed around a lot, if anything, that's the one to complain about, not this one.
Yeah, but guess what!!?? That version, or indeed any other version, did not have the nerve to name themselves "BRAM STOKER'S Dracula".
Nor did it have people who've obviously never read the damn book say it was one of the best versio of Dracula ever!
Once you call yourself 'BRAM STOKER'S' you better be f**kin like Bram Stoker!! And a huge bulk of plot with a romantic Dracula and a syrupy 'across the ages' romance with Mina HAS NOTHING AT ALL to do with Bram Stoker.
And yeah, as said, It's a forum where views are stated. You lot drooling love all over this fetid excuse for a Dracula (and indeed horror) film means I can state the opposite.
And anyone who has any love for the novel could not stand to hear the abuse handed down to the superbly written and atmospheric Harker diary entries by Reeves in this laughable Hollywood exec dross.
I advise the unenlightened to hunt out the superb, SUPERB, recording of "Dracula's Guest" by John Stuart Anderson on L.P. As it is THE finest delivery of the Harker diaries (and the finest acting of them) you will ever hear.
It shows, to an even greater degree, how loathsome the Reeves' desecration was.
Failing that, watch the BBC version (lousy optical FX and dubious location footage aside) to see a faithful adpatation as well as a scene more disturbing than any of the crud in "BS Dracula" where they adapt the 'baby food' sequence.
And there was a very good reason why Mel Brooks kept the exact same wig in a (lame) parody as the one in this (supposedly) serious film...because quite frankly a dead poodle on one's head is pure comedy and death to any version of Dracula himself being taken remotely seriously.
The film is pretty weird (to say the least), but it's still great fun. The novel isn't really that interesting; real estate business and about a dozen blood transfusions on Lucy(?) seem to take up most of the story.
The cover sure is odd, but at least it's interesting. Love the colors.
The cover sure is odd, but at least it's interesting. Love the colors.
For the under-educated...The cover is showing Prince Vlads armour from when he was a defender of the church/christianity...and the lower picture is of Dracula repulsed at the image of his old armour, and what it represents....fairly simple and very clever, i think anyway..
gay cover i liike my superbit cover more!!
THE only reason I want this movie is because of Gary F+++ing Oldman! I knew they'd pull this sooner or later! C**p! Oh, well! This definitely looks a whole lot better than the old release that's out now.
I'm loving that artwork - it captures the film in a clever way. And hat's off to them for using the font from the film's credits.
Love the film, love the cover art, the set looks solid. I'm sold.
Love the film, love the cover art, the set looks solid. I'm sold.
Oldman and Hopkins are great in this movie but as a whole it was interesting to see Coppola's interpretation of this great novel. My belief is that no one will ever make the perfect Dracula movie. I've seen a bunch and some come closer than others but as whole most fail. Someday I'm hoping someone will make the consumate Dracula film but it's been done so many times I wonder if anyone in will.
WORST
ARTWORK
EVER.
It's very, very, very unclassy cover.
The person who made up the cover obviously hated the movie.
A "Collector's Edition" cover need not a figure that only had 10 seconds of screentime [the wolf armor] OR a bad photo of "Dracula"....[see: Another actor posing as Gary Oldman].
It should've been classy: A Digipack, with an engraving style cover...sort of like the original teaser poster and DVD cover without the pictures on the bottom.
I might get this, it's a great comedy, honestly. Sometimes you have to look at the bad (Keanu+wolf rape+Winona) and make it glorious.
ARTWORK
EVER.
It's very, very, very unclassy cover.
The person who made up the cover obviously hated the movie.
A "Collector's Edition" cover need not a figure that only had 10 seconds of screentime [the wolf armor] OR a bad photo of "Dracula"....[see: Another actor posing as Gary Oldman].
It should've been classy: A Digipack, with an engraving style cover...sort of like the original teaser poster and DVD cover without the pictures on the bottom.
I might get this, it's a great comedy, honestly. Sometimes you have to look at the bad (Keanu+wolf rape+Winona) and make it glorious.
Finally got around to seeing this a few years ago. I truly hated everything about it. And that cover is probably the weirdest thing I've ever seen. I liked the VHS cover art better.
I'd choose to watch Mel Brooks' Dracula: Dead & Loving It over this any day.
Bouncy X wrote: if you hate a movie, why even bother reading let alone posting in a forum about it? i just never understood those people..lol
Um, cuz it's a forum and people post their opinions, whether they be positive or negative? Just a hunch...
I'd choose to watch Mel Brooks' Dracula: Dead & Loving It over this any day.
Bouncy X wrote: if you hate a movie, why even bother reading let alone posting in a forum about it? i just never understood those people..lol
Um, cuz it's a forum and people post their opinions, whether they be positive or negative? Just a hunch...
That cover is... odd.
No need to double dip here folks, just move along.
No need to double dip here folks, just move along.
I think I will hang on to my Superbit version. I might netflix it just to see the deleted scenes.
I can't stand this movie...looks like it'll be a good set, but no way am I going to waste money on it. Coppola was awesome in the 70s, but he realllly slipped after that.
The cover is neat. The movie sucks (I never realized just how much until recently, when I watched a handful of GOOD Dracula films) but maybe I can rent the extra disk on Netflix.
the cover has me confused.
Yeah, Mina's never been Dracula's love interest (or rather, object of desire) before...
The Langella 70s one was changed around a lot, if anything, that's the one to complain about, not this one. Lucy and Mina's roles were switched in the 70s one.
But I honestly don't get why everyone seems to hate what is the most accurate, faithful version of Dracula made, not to mention a damn good movie in its own right.
The Langella 70s one was changed around a lot, if anything, that's the one to complain about, not this one. Lucy and Mina's roles were switched in the 70s one.
But I honestly don't get why everyone seems to hate what is the most accurate, faithful version of Dracula made, not to mention a damn good movie in its own right.
if you hate a movie, why even bother reading let alone posting in a forum about it? i just never understood those people..lol
anyway i rememeber hearing about a 2 disc edition of this YEARS ago..its the reason i never bought the dvd.....about freakin time it comes....its such a pretty movie, surreal movie and annie lennox's song works so well with it
i never read the book but something interesting...in this, mina falls for dracula and lucy becomes a vampire...in the 70s version mina is turned while lucy falls, so which one is right?
anyway i rememeber hearing about a 2 disc edition of this YEARS ago..its the reason i never bought the dvd.....about freakin time it comes....its such a pretty movie, surreal movie and annie lennox's song works so well with it
i never read the book but something interesting...in this, mina falls for dracula and lucy becomes a vampire...in the 70s version mina is turned while lucy falls, so which one is right?
Sam Spade wrote: One of the best versions of Dracula ever.
OH PLEASE!!! Have you even read the book?
Reeves 'acting' and delivery utterly destroyed the essential Harker diary readings and almost all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Bram Stoker's anything!
A huge Mina/Dracula love plot?
Wolf sex?
Bendy morphing Brides?
A dead poodle wig?
John Lennon glasses?
Must have all been in the unpublished, secret verion of "Dracula" as none of this crud was in the novel i read!
Acting that's as hammy as something from the local butchers or as skilled as your average school play with 5 year olds is the order of the day here as well.
Hideous turd of a movie.
OH PLEASE!!! Have you even read the book?
Reeves 'acting' and delivery utterly destroyed the essential Harker diary readings and almost all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Bram Stoker's anything!
A huge Mina/Dracula love plot?
Wolf sex?
Bendy morphing Brides?
A dead poodle wig?
John Lennon glasses?
Must have all been in the unpublished, secret verion of "Dracula" as none of this crud was in the novel i read!
Acting that's as hammy as something from the local butchers or as skilled as your average school play with 5 year olds is the order of the day here as well.
Hideous turd of a movie.
One of the best versions of Dracula ever.SOLD!!!This is a great week in upcoming DVD releases.
Best. Week. Ever.
I guess I'm keeping the Superbit Edition.
The Curmudgeon wrote: I don't like the stupid dog thing in the background,
That's his armour, if anyone isn't remembering, from when he was alive.
I always loved that armour...
That's his armour, if anyone isn't remembering, from when he was alive.
I always loved that armour...
Awful, awful cover.
Damn, I was REALLY hoping this to was going to include the extended cut but it looks like the extra scenes will only been shown as deleted scenes, and I don't know if I like the new artwork or not, Dracula's armor only had about thirty seconds of screen time (I am talking with the helmet) and most of them were in silhouette so it hardly warrants being on the cover, do you think Gary Olman wanted some sort of compensation for his face being on the CE DVD cover or something?
On a side note, I feel exactly as Wired Earp does....so many freaking great releases today! GEEZ!
On a side note, I feel exactly as Wired Earp does....so many freaking great releases today! GEEZ!
coverart makes no sense.
I don't like the stupid dog thing in the background, and surely they could have made Dracula himself look a bit more intimidating?
I actually really liked this film, but the version I have will do.
I actually really liked this film, but the version I have will do.
What a great movie! Even Keanu Reeves is stomachable in this, but, it's Gary Oldman who practically carries the entire film as The Count. Definitley worth the upgrade & much needed.
The lettering looks like it was made in Playdough
That's the goofiest cover art I've ever seen.
gnomekid wrote: It's strange; Francis Ford Coppola made three of the greatest films ever made with the first two Godfather films and Apocalypse Now (three and a half if you count the third Godfather), but aside from those his filmography has been pretty sh*tty, if you ask me.
Have you seen THE CONVERSATION and RUMBLE FISH? Also, ONE FROM THE HEART is one of the most magical and unfairly maligned films of all time (just IMHO, of course).
Have you seen THE CONVERSATION and RUMBLE FISH? Also, ONE FROM THE HEART is one of the most magical and unfairly maligned films of all time (just IMHO, of course).
Will this look and sound any better than the Superbit. That DVD had a great dts track. Because the special features suck and i wont double dip for them. The presentation matters more to me on this film.
Nice artwork!! I've been waiting for a 2 disc edition for a long time.
wow. Today cost me about 200 dollars and i haven´t even ordered yet.
There are few films in the world that I can say that I truly "HATE." This abomination is one of them. I wouldn't even have minded it so much, if only they had taken the "Bram Stoker's" out of the title; the film proclaims itself to be the most faithful to Bram Stoker's original novel, when it is in fact a travesty. Dracula's a drama queen who turns into a big hairy bat thing and rapes women, Van Helsing is a horny old creep, and Mina Harker actually falls in love with Dracula?! Ugh.
It's strange; Francis Ford Coppola made three of the greatest films ever made with the first two Godfather films and Apocalypse Now (three and a half if you count the third Godfather), but aside from those his filmography has been pretty sh*tty, if you ask me.
It's strange; Francis Ford Coppola made three of the greatest films ever made with the first two Godfather films and Apocalypse Now (three and a half if you count the third Godfather), but aside from those his filmography has been pretty sh*tty, if you ask me.
i don't remember if i was a fan of the movie...i think gary oldman was good in it. but this cover is really cool!!! even cool enough to buy.
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
New Editorials
SXSW Film 2013 - Part 1
US - DVD | HD | BD
Will streaming kill physical media?
DVD | HD | BD
Gabe's 2012 Wrap-Up
DVD | BD
Netflix Reviewed
UK - DVD | HD | BD
Guest Column: Dark Shadows on DVD
US - DVD R1
Horrific Reviews
May
US - DVD R1
Pandemic
UK - DVD R2
Abominable
US - DVD R1
Vampyres
US - BD
28 Days Later
UK - DVD R2
Thrilling Reviews
Indie Horror Bonanza
US - BD RA
Meeting Evil
US - DVD R1
Sony Blu-ray Wrap Up
US - BD RA
Devil Times Five
US - DVD
Game of Thrones
US - BD RA
Most Talked About
The Fault in Our Stars
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Godzilla
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Disney Animation
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
WB October 2/3/4 Film Collections
US - BD RA
Draft Day
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
