Visually stunning

Rating: 8/10 (8 January 2011)

This movie came out in 1992. I like this movie. It's visually stunning with great special effects, sets, and costumes. However, the movie doesn't follow Bram Stoker's novel exactly. I know a lot of people dislike this, but I don't mind when it comes to this movie and also Dracula (1979). I'm more fussy when OTHER movies out there don't follow the novel they're based on exactly, or they massacre the story completely, such as what was done in the "remake" of The Haunting (1999). Now that, I have a problem with.
How is the acting in this movie? It's very good, for the most part. I like Winona Ryder in her role as Mina Harker. She did a good job. Gary Oldman as Dracula was pretty good. I don't care for his long hair and sunglasses later in the movie, but I like when he's an old guy in the beginning of the movie. Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker was OK, while Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing was good.
When I compare the Draculas from this movie and the 1979 movie, my favorite is Frank Langella from the 1979 movie. He had more of the classic look of Dracula.
The Gothic atmosphere, darkness, and overall feel is hard to beat. The movie definitely has a Transylvania feel to it and is visually stunning. The night scenes are especially good. Excellent use of lighting, darkness, shadows, and everything macabre.
The musical score by Wojciech Kilar is good.
I think the second half of the movie isn't as good as the first half. I also think that Dracula got pretty wimpy late in the movie. To me, he showed tremendous weakness when it came to his relationship with Mina.
Overall, a good movie that should hold your attention.