I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this movie! One of my favorites. Delights absolutely everything - music, cinematography, entourage, adored actors. Gary Oldman is the best Dracula, after this film I consider other versions of Dracula treason.
What a beautiful Keanu Reeves! And Monica Bellucci's eyes off her! A restrained
more
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this movie! One of my favorites. Delights absolutely everything - music, cinematography, entourage, adored actors. Gary Oldman is the best Dracula, after this film I consider other versions of Dracula treason. What a beautiful Keanu Reeves! And Monica Bellucci's eyes off her! A restrained Anthony Hopkins dilutes the tangle of passions. And what a beautiful eternal love, where Dracula himself appears as the "sacrificial lamb" of love and fate.
Vampires are boring. Francis Ford Coppola is a great director, and the film shows that. But all the talent of the director goes into the sand, because it is impossible to take vampires seriously in the XXI century. Maybe the movie would look like it if we saw the action through the eyes of the people of an era in which belief in vampires
more
Vampires are boring. Francis Ford Coppola is a great director, and the film shows that. But all the talent of the director goes into the sand, because it is impossible to take vampires seriously in the XXI century. Maybe the movie would look like it if we saw the action through the eyes of the people of an era in which belief in vampires was commonplace. But there is no such presentation in the movies. Visually, the film is close to a masterpiece. And very atmospheric. But there must be some content attached to the atmosphere and problems with it. Coppola said he wanted to shoot Stoker in a new way, like he had never done before. He mixed vampire obsession with eroticism and passion. The relevant scenes are staged with incredible skill. Plus, the director expanded the conflict, portraying love for a living corpse and fighting it in one head. He did this before vampire movies became teen-snotty. It turned out a rather strange thriller, destroying the canons of the genre and reminiscent of the author’s experiment. I must say that the action develops decently in the beginning and the final, but in the middle the script shows gaps. Renfield is only needed to advance the plot. Van Helsing begins to teleport in some way. He is suddenly transformed into a Catholic priest. Coppola said that this part of the film was inspired by The Exorcist, but the result was a discrepancy in the script. And then there is a feelingless vampire who feels love. In terms of its own logic, the film is good. Gary Oldman embodied a half-demon creature well. But the young sensual vampire did worse. Winona Ryder gracefully showed the range of fortunes the director wanted. Coppola noted that he did not like the image of Van Helsing in the book, so he had to create it from scratch. But, unfortunately, the hero of Anthony Hopkins turned out to be somewhat undrawn. Little detail. Since the action takes place in Victorian England, the characters must have a British reprimand. The Americans had to portray the British. Keanu Reeves handled the worst of all with imitation of British pronunciation. His English spoils the atmosphere. Good thing he doesn't talk that much. Generally speaking, the film doesn’t make any sense. Yes, love for something beautiful, then disgusting makes an impression. But empathizing with vampires or wrestlers does not work. I get 7 points for good visuals and stunningly stylized scenes.
Late 19th century. Jonathan Harked (Keanu Reeves) to sell houses in London to a certain Count Dracula (Gary Oldman) goes far, to Transylvania. When the Count arrives, he shows little hospitality, and Jonathan has already decided that everything, the contract is signed, can go home, as Dracula offers him to stay
more
Late 19th century. Jonathan Harked (Keanu Reeves) to sell houses in London to a certain Count Dracula (Gary Oldman) goes far, to Transylvania. When the Count arrives, he shows little hospitality, and Jonathan has already decided that everything, the contract is signed, can go home, as Dracula offers him to stay with him for a month. Or rather insists on it. Jonathan naturally could not refuse the Count and ... here it all begins the most interesting. Many people think that comparing movies is silly, that each of them is different in its own way. I personally do not hold that view. I can compare, for example, such two different genres as comedy and drama, as action and melodrama, the genre does not matter to me. So now I’ll compare the action movie and the mystical thriller. Van Helsing and Dracula. Let me tell you right away that everything has to be in moderation. That’s the problem with both films. If "Van Helsing" is too militant, then "Dracula" is quite the opposite - too mystical, too absorbed in the thriller. In the beginning, I confess, I was delighted. Hero Keanu Reeves goes to Transylvania, comes, such an environment of wild horror, especially in the house of Dracula, the Count himself is very charismatic (not that from “Van Helsing”), but in the course of the film, frankly, I got bored. The course of the film did not change at all, Coppola both pulled his line from the very beginning of the film and pulled it to the end. There's not even a hint of action. Another thing I didn’t like was that Dracula was too romantic. Too much time is devoted to the love theme in the film, while in "Van Helsing" Graf appears before us a very harsh vampire. Now the actors. From the title of both films, it is clear that Van Helsing soloed in Van Helsing, and Dracula in Dracula. But if Hugh Jackman wasn’t fish and meat in Van Helsing, then all the actors played very well. Even the same Van Helsing performed by the famous actor Anthony Hopkins. After the triumphant role in the film “Silence of the Lambs” on this image of him somehow look not very interesting, then on Gary Oldman in the role of Dracula, which, by and large, became his first famous role in the movie, to look very nice, despite the fact that he is Dracula. Very well conveyed the image of his character on the screen, of course, in some places replayed, in my opinion, especially in the image of a young Dracula, but still, even though I watched very few films about this character, I can say that this is one of the best Dracula in cinema. I also want to mention Keanu Reeves. Although he appeared for a couple of minutes and showed nothing special, but his character is very important for this film. With his help, the true character of the Count is very clearly revealed, and his gray hair, which looks very ridiculous on his young face, fully shows who Dracula really is. All right. I liked it personally, but it was annoying again. If we finally compare the two films, Van Helsing and Dracula, we can say that the shortcomings of one film are the advantages of another, and vice versa. If you take all the best of these two films and put together, you get a masterpiece, but for now only good. Original
Late 19th century. Jonathan Harked (Keanu Reeves) to sell houses in London to a certain Count Dracula (Gary Oldman) goes far, to Transylvania. When the Count arrives, he shows little hospitality, and Jonathan has already decided that everything, the contract is signed, can go home, as Dracula offers him to stay
more
Late 19th century. Jonathan Harked (Keanu Reeves) to sell houses in London to a certain Count Dracula (Gary Oldman) goes far, to Transylvania. When the Count arrives, he shows little hospitality, and Jonathan has already decided that everything, the contract is signed, can go home, as Dracula offers him to stay with him for a month. Or rather insists on it. Jonathan naturally could not refuse the Count and ... here it all begins the most interesting. Many people think that comparing movies is silly, that each of them is different in its own way. I personally do not hold that view. I can compare, for example, such two different genres as comedy and drama, as action and melodrama, the genre does not matter to me. So now I’ll compare the action movie and the mystical thriller. Van Helsing and Dracula. Let me tell you right away that everything has to be in moderation. That’s the problem with both films. If "Van Helsing" is too militant, then "Dracula" is quite the opposite - too mystical, too absorbed in the thriller. In the beginning, I confess, I was delighted. Hero Keanu Reeves goes to Transylvania, comes, such an environment of wild horror, especially in the house of Dracula, the Count himself is very charismatic (not that from “Van Helsing”), but in the course of the film, frankly, I got bored. The course of the film did not change at all, Coppola both pulled his line from the very beginning of the film and pulled it to the end. There's not even a hint of action. Another thing I didn’t like was that Dracula was too romantic. Too much time is devoted to the love theme in the film, while in "Van Helsing" Graf appears before us a very harsh vampire. Now the actors. From the title of both films, it is clear that Van Helsing soloed in Van Helsing, and Dracula in Dracula. But if Hugh Jackman wasn’t fish and meat in Van Helsing, then all the actors played very well. Even the same Van Helsing performed by the famous actor Anthony Hopkins. After the triumphant role in the film “Silence of the Lambs” on this image of him somehow look not very interesting, then on Gary Oldman in the role of Dracula, which, by and large, became his first famous role in the movie, to look very nice, despite the fact that he is Dracula. Very well conveyed the image of his character on the screen, of course, in some places replayed, in my opinion, especially in the image of a young Dracula, but still, even though I watched very few films about this character, I can say that this is one of the best Dracula in cinema. I also want to mention Keanu Reeves. Although he appeared for a couple of minutes and showed nothing special, but his character is very important for this film. With his help, the true character of the Count is very clearly revealed, and his gray hair, which looks very ridiculous on his young face, fully shows who Dracula really is. All right. I liked it personally, but it was annoying again. If we finally compare the two films, Van Helsing and Dracula, we can say that the shortcomings of one film are the advantages of another, and vice versa. If you take all the best of these two films and put together, you get a masterpiece, but for now only good. Original
Romance + Horror, the strangest mixture of the seen Of course, everything is cool, beautiful scenery, a lot of colors. Make-up artists did a great job, they recreated the ugly freak Dracula, who is nauseous to look at, it is interesting what hairdresser he did his hair, it is not a pity to ask. And in general, the
more
Romance + Horror, the strangest mixture of the seen
Of course, everything is cool, beautiful scenery, a lot of colors. Make-up artists did a great job, they recreated the ugly freak Dracula, who is nauseous to look at, it is interesting what hairdresser he did his hair, it is not a pity to ask. And in general, the film is quite strong, but the idea does not impress me at all. Love under all this filth, blood, some perversion, better than something human, such a love story is clearly not for me.
Francis Ford Coppola managed to recruit many famous actors. Gary Oldman played the role of Dracula, however, he portrayed Dracula realistically, and he played quite well, although nothing supernatural. Anthony Hopkins looked best as Professor Van Helsing, his character turned out to be a bit versatile, he played dramatically well, and he amused a little. Still very pleased psycho, like Tom Waits played, funny character turned out, the face looks like a crazy professor. Keanu Reeves looked gray, and it's not his role. In the game Winona Ryder did not notice anything interesting. I really liked the music, it seems creepy, but still uplifts. In general, the film turned out to be an amateur, although the movie is very even worthy, if it were not so beautifully shot, and even without such actors, it would be a failed movie. In this movie, the most disgusting kiss the world has ever seen, with a terrible dracula, and even with blood. Strangely, Dracula and the other characters are always presented in different ways, perhaps in this film the best images. Original
Frederick Abberline is an opium-huffing inspector from Scotland Yard who falls for one of Jack the Ripper's prostitute targets in this Hughes brothers more
Frederick Abberline is an opium-huffing inspector from Scotland Yard who falls for one of Jack the Ripper's prostitute targets in this Hughes brothers adaption of a graphic novel that posits the Ripper's true identity. close
Aging publisher Will Randall is at the end of his rope when a younger co-worker snatches his job out from under his nose. But after being bitten by a more
Aging publisher Will Randall is at the end of his rope when a younger co-worker snatches his job out from under his nose. But after being bitten by a wolf, Will suddenly finds himself full of youthful vigor. As he struggles to regain his position, he becomes enthralled with Laura Alden, his former boss's daughter. And, as increasingly animal-like urges begin to overwhelm him, Randall worries that he may be turning into the creature that bit him. close
Harry Angel, a down-and-out Brooklyn detective, is hired to track down a singer on an odyssey that will take him through the desperate streets of Harlem, more
Harry Angel, a down-and-out Brooklyn detective, is hired to track down a singer on an odyssey that will take him through the desperate streets of Harlem, the smoke-filled jazz clubs of New Orleans, and the swamps of Louisiana and its seedy underworld of voodoo. close
