Bram Stoker's Dracula (Collector's Edition) |  | Directors: Francis Ford Coppola, Kim Aubry
Actors: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Bill Campbell, Francis Ford Coppola
Studio: Sony Pictures
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.94
Buy Used: $5.32
as of 2/10/2010 00:16 EST details
You Save: $14.62 (73%)
New (36) Used (27) Collectible (2) from $5.32
Seller: tgotomjoad
Rating:  577 reviews
Sales Rank: 4993
Format: Widescreen, Color, Dolby, Subtitled, NTSC
Languages: Bulgarian (Original Language), English (Original Language), Greek (Original Language), Romanian (Original Language), English (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), Korean (Subtitled), Portuguese (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Dubbed), Portuguese (Dubbed), Spanish (Dubbed)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Region: 99
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Number Of Discs: 2
Running Time: 127 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 7.3 x 5.5 x 0.5
MPN: COLD12916D
UPC: 043396129160
EAN: 0043396129160
ASIN: B000TGJ80S
Theatrical Release Date: November 13, 1992
Release Date: October 2, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com essential video
Francis Ford Coppola returns to Stoker's novel for this umpteenth take of the Transylvanian bloodsucker. Gary Oldman plays the vampire, Dracula, doomed to be a creature of the night after forsaking God but aroused by the image of a British woman (Winona Ryder) who resembles his own lost love. Oldman does well by the monster, even if he doesn't register much personality in the process, and Anthony Hopkins is a little overachieving as the vampire killer Van Helsing. The rest of the cast is serviceable, except Keanu Reeves, who--not atypically--is wooden and somehow empty. Coppola seems to approach the film as chunks of experimental opportunity, some of which work out all right while others are mannered or even foolish. What is undeniable is the tremendous buzz of the film's energy, particularly in a fantastic middle sequence that plays like a psychedelic nightmare. The DVD release has optional full-screen and widescreen formats, optional French and Spanish soundtracks, and optional Spanish and Korean subtitles. --Tom Keogh
Amazon.com
Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 Bram Stoker's Dracula is a feverishly inventive movie that often overwhelms its own narrative flow, yet proves irresistible to watch. In the high-definition transfer on this two-disc Collector's Edition, Coppola's baroque, operatic set design, costumes, and cinematography look as lavish as they did on the film's first release. The director's grab-bag of visual effects are still bold and unabashed, if often over-the-top, and the actors still appear caught up in a certain hysterical pitch that feels a little forced but can be a lot of fun to watch. Gary Oldman's imaginative performance as the titular vampire carries the weight of Coppola's vision of Count Dracula as a tragic-romantic hero with Christ-like overtones. Keanu Reeves still looks a little lost in the pivotal role of Jonathan Harker, the London clerk who finds himself a prisoner in a Transylvanian castle while a 400-year-old vampire makes a play for his fiancée back home (Winona Ryder). Anthony Hopkins is fearless as a daft Von Helsing, and Sadie Frost is very good as the doomed Lucy. The second disc in this set includes several good documentaries, including a featurette on the making of the film, involving past and present interviews with the principal artists involved. (Coppola and screenwriter James V. Hart speak persuasively about their commitment to bringing Stoker's vision to the screen, rather than another revision.) Another documentary, "In-Camera: The Naïve Visual Effects of 'Dracula,'" is a fascinating overview of Coppola's sometimes-frustrated effort to get the timeless special effects he was seeking. There are also quite a few deleted scenes among the special features, the best of which is an alternative cut to the film's bloody ending. --Tom Keogh
Product Description
No Description Available.
Genre: Horror
Rating: R
Release Date: 2-OCT-2007
Media Type: DVD
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 577
A Quick review of Bram Stoker's Dracula January 30, 2010
Michael A. Garcia (Miami)
This 3 time Academy Award winning movie is based upon Bram Stoker's original novel, Dracula. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather) this film is highly original and creative. Coppola takes full advantage of the movie's eerie nature and plays with shadows, settings and costumes. In this version of "Dracula" Coppola tries to bring out Dracula's psychological and emotional aspects. It shows how Dracula had lost his soul and was forced to remain undead for the rest of his life while feeding off the blood of the living. This movie is definitely not for the faint-hearted. In fact, I do not recommend this film for everyone. Starring Anthony Hopkins, Winona Ryder & Keanu Reeves. Warning: This film contains excessive gore, strong & heavy sexuality and nudity.
 Great movie, horrible Blu-Ray quality January 21, 2010
Jason Cook (New Britain, CT United States)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I gave this product a five, because the film is fantastic and Amazon hasn't figured out how to separate the various mediums of a single movie version yet, but THE QUALITY OF THE BLU-RAY DISC IS HORRIBLE. This is one of my all-time favorite films, but I quickly traded it in, despite having already sold off my DVD copy (which was of better quality), because it looked that bad...and I'm not particularly picky! How can studios be allowed to rip off the public like this? "Here's your nifty new Blu-Ray version of your favorite movie! Oh wait, did we forget to tell you that we made the transfer from an old VCR tape we had laying around? Sorry, but you can't return it, because you've already opened it." I'd love to see some class action suits filed for this and other movies I've heard similar reviews of, because this is seriously defrauding the public.
In regard to the film itself, the costumes, sets, storyline and music are all top notch, despite a miniscule budget. The movie follows fairly closely to the novel and those changes that are made, due justice to the story, in my opinion. Most of the acting is good, if not great, the exceptions being typically-dull Keanu and Oldman's best performance to date, in my opinion. That this film got so little Academy consideration in a week Oscar year has always befuddled me. If you like the book, horror movies or Gary Oldman, don't miss this one.
Problematic but Theatrically Brilliant 85% January 13, 2010
Quentin Tarantino Fan (nowhere)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
When it comes to vampires, there are many, many ways to approach such a creature and it's whole sorrounding aura. Some people seem to take it seriously and actually see these creatures as terrifying personifcations of evil. Some, like the Twilight people, believe some ham handed epic crap (seriously. What was wit the horribly hammy and maddenigly silly New Moon anyway?). Others have, well, I don't know just how many you can name since all people are different and have different visions. There are tons and tons of ways of portraying one of fiction's most celebrated and loved figures, the vampire. And if you ask some people, I'll bet that everybody will give a different answer on their personal preference on the take of the Vampire (screwy wording, I know).
For me? Unlike some people, I never find the vampire to be a terrifying personification of evil, as the vampire is largely a fictional character and the whole evil notion never clicked with me. Don't even get me started on Twilight (hate that movie). I like my vampire stories to be theatrical, somewhat over the top, one that absolutely BATHES in lush visuals, sound, and characters that are equally as theatrical, so much it's like playing dress up (okay that just sounds plain gay). I don't quite know how to put it in words, but it's the similar feeling I share with a Nightwish song. You just love the whole theatricality but still know how to treat it like a theater production.
Bram Stoker's Dracula (though not quite as faithful as you would want to believe) is such a movie, one that has so much lushness, so much theatricality, and so much heavy handedness that it's more of an opera than anything else. It's an acquired taste, and to begin with, I have to be in a certain mood to even think of enjoying this movie. Sometimes, I feel absolutely nothing when watching, only sterility and not engaged with this movie on any emotional level. Other times, the movie is so hamhanded and theatrical that I can't help but go into fits of laugher at how stupid some of the movie sounds. But when I get into that mood, nothing quite draws me into this movie.
ACTING AND CHARACTERS 7/10
Bram Stoker's Dracula has lot's of heavy hitters in it's large ensemble cast, starting with Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, who make up the starring cast. Unlike some people, I think the cast does a great job, even if some of the dialogue coming from Ryder and (especially Reeves) sometimes makes me laugh. Gary Oldman is easily the best actor out of all this movie, considering he has to play young Dracula, Vllad Dracula, creepy Dracula monster, old Dracula, and wolf Dracula. He does all of these with ease. Anthony Hopkins is great as Van Helsing as well. He's sometimes strangely hilarious, but As far as women go, Sadie Frost, Winona Ryder and the three actresses that make up Dracula's brides are all sexy. I suppose Reeves is the worst, and when I laugh at the movie, it mostly comes from his stupid attempts at drama (his only real performance is Bill and Ted's, but even I could have played that role). But I digress at the performances. They may be highly operatic, but given the reasons why I like this movie, asking anything less would ruin the whole thing.
Oh, and did I mention Tom Waits is in this as Reinfield? Amazing weird music master blows every other Reinfold out of the water.
The characters are probably the weakest point of the movie, they are great and all, but I never really thought the other characters of Dracula stand out well on their own, you have to have good portayles to make me care (thankfully they did a pretty good job). But Dracula has always, in my opinion, been memorable because, well, it's friggin' Dracula.
PLOT 7/10
Judging from the title of the movie, you would probably think that Bram Stoker's Dracula is very much faithful to the source book, but as many people have said before, this is not true. Minor characters have been deleted, there is not much nudity in the book, and Dracula ultimately is more evil than he is in the movie. Most of all, the novel does not fall into the romance genre, and while this movie is not entirely a romance movie (thank god), it still has a romantic subplot thrown in. Even though Dracula is a more sympathetic character this time around, it still has the same type of plot for the most part, with him hunting down Mina, buying up land in London, killing Lucy, and so forth. Reincarnation, redemption, damnation, curses, and living for centuries makes it's way into this movie.
Now, when it comes to movies, there is NO genre I hate more than romance. However I still thought I was drawn into the energy Oldman and Ryder put into their performances. Besides, I like the fact that Dracula was unhinged, while Harker was completely stiff and very typical of a person that probalby existed in the late 19th century. Even though. And I'm not quite sure if Dracula's reaction to the suicide of his wife is still a very good thing to do. Are you quite sure there are other things that are worth your attention. How about the breakthroughs of art and science?
Still though, I would have to go with my real feelings and say the romance didn't really bother me thanks to the fact I never take this movie too seriously. Was I moved by the romance? Nope. Anybody who takes this seriously needs to grow some balls. However, I think it's pretty interesting actually to see something like a 400 year old curse being lifted thanks to virtue or something be restored. Remember, were dealing with reincarnation of a 400 year old vampire who renounced god in the 14th century. I feel, that, despite some advances in art and science, in the 15th century there was a lot less to believe in besides a lovely bride (well, Winona is damn good looking anyway) and god. This was a time where we didn't have as many people who really knew religion is a bunch of _______. For me it makes the story a bit more believable than drake bell's latest cinematic turd.
However, I'm still going to take some points off for the romance. I just think this movie would be much better if it didn't have the romanntic subplot, and just went with the man who practiced black magic. Sorry, but that's much cooler even though it's obviously a bunch of baloney as much as the love story.
DIRECTING (EDITING, SPECIAL EFFECTS, SOUND DESIGN) 10/10
One of the most well known things about this movie are the special effects, which are all done with old fashioned cinematic tricks instead of the newly emerging CGI. And it's not subtle, as it's everywhere, and really adds to the story. Dracula casts shadows, walks down walls like a friggin's spider, green fog, and even turns into rats. It doesn't stop with Dracula either. Coppola's visual tricks include putting three images on screen at once (such as the part where Harker is on the train), Flowers deterioating into a dead flower, making rats walk upside down, and even friggin' waves of blood coming from both sides of the room. This movie never let's up in giving you a godly amount of great special effects that enchance the movie. The only CGI in the whole movie is the blue ring of fire near the beginning of the movie.
Coppola's directing is also very great, as it's probably as effective as the special effects. It's kind of hyperkinetic, but I wouldn't lie if I said it's just beautiful to look at. I love his many shots he uses, especially those close ups. An example of this beauty would be the scene with the absinthe. Never before and never again will a movie capture something as trivial as alcohol again. Oh, and he even uses cameras to make the scene in London look like...what is that camera called? I digress.
Another great thing I love about this movie is the sound design, which actually won an academy award. With it's ambience, it's library of ghostly and creepy sounds, and intense sound effects from the creatures, it's so well done that I can't help but be immeresed in the movie thanks to it. Sound design is a lot more important than one might think, and this movie would definitely be lost without it. How come nobody mentions how great it is?
ART DIRECTION 10/10
I have only one word for this aspect: _____! Sure, the razzle dazzle of this movie will some of it's freshness if I watch it way too much, but I don't anyway. Coppola and company pull no punches in toning down anything regarding art direction (probably nothing even subtle), and the result is a theatrically stunning and meticolous jewel of art direction. The whole movie just looks and feels amazing, and even somebody who normally doesn't care much about things like costume design can't help but sit up and take notice at everything of it's design. The music, the sets, the costumes (or make up even! Someone had to make Oldman look old), you just have to give props for everything. I don't quite know how to describe the look of the film, since I have little to no explanations on what architecture is used, what kind of style the costumes are, or the music's style. However, I'm still kind of burned this movie didn't win all Four Oscars instead of three. I thought the art direction was amazingly well done. Overall, the art direction is so good I really excalimed something the first time I saw this movie on Television.
In my mind, this is probably my favorite Dracula movie, for the reason that it's totally theatrical and bombastic. I never take vampire movies too seriously to begin with, so what makes you think I'm going to be scared by the outtdated Tod Browning movie? Sure, Bela Lugosi's portrayle is actually much better than Oldman (then again, what is?), but it's clunky and hasn't held up very well in my opinion (while it's not a bad movie, it just has problems). One could say this movie hasn't held up well, but I beg to differ as far as I'm concered. This is a great vampire movie, and for the right audiences, it's a definite version. Recommended.
Bram Stoker's Dracula December 31, 2009
Arnita D. Brown (USA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I enjoyed the movie simply for the way it looked and felt. A newer version of Bram Stoker's masterpiece. I must say that this thrilling movie is close to that masterpiece. Oldman is phenomanal as Count Dracul. Anthony Hopkins is brilliant as professor Von Helsing. The visuals are just amazing and heart stopping. A must see movie.
dracula December 13, 2009
M. Pinkard
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
The movie was good, a diifrent kind of dracula. I recevied product in a timely manner, would purchase from this buyer again
Showing reviews 1-5 of 577
|
|
|
