Yeah, I saw it...

Rating: Null/10 (21 August 2001)

I can't understand why everyone raved about this film. The art direction wasn't so great. Its only purpose was to give an MTV gloss over to an incurably weak film and try to sell it to teenyboppers. A ploy which, I'm sorry to say, worked. It shouldn't have, however, because everything looked completely cheesy like it was some kind of live action cartoon. The movie was done entirely on sound stages, and it shows. Like we would be fooled when everything looks plastic and fake. Maybe thats OK for made-for-TV movies and mini-series, but for a major theatrical release I'd expect some effort(actually, it was originally intended for the small screen until SOMEONE(you know who you are)had the bright idea to make it into a theatrical release). Coppola, who has admitted to directing films via radio from a bathtub, has realy gone downhill since......the invention of film!! Neither Keanu Reeves or Wynona Rider have convincing accents. They're probably proud of themselves too; infuriating, isn't it? Another point I find....interesting...is that Bram Stoker not only wrote the book(which isn't that great, I barely could get through the first quarter) he also wrote the stageplay which was adapted into the 1931 version. Yet Coppola's version(which was adapted into a new screenplay, which they take license with anyway)is called "Bram Stoker's Dracula", when the 1931 version was the one actually written by Bram Stoker! The poor devil is probably turning in his grave. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was an aweful movie, and I wish it never had to exist, and if YOU are one of the people who likes it...STOP IT, NOW! There might still be hope for you. There are plenty of good movies out there, WHY THIS ONE!? WHYYYYY!? I mean, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I swear, if I have to listen to one more person try and tell me "Oh, Bram Stoker's Dracula was SUCH a good movie" and "That Wynona Rider is SOOO talented" I'll just scream.