Damn, This Movie Didn't Have To Be As Long As Dracula's Life

Rating: 6/10 (17 June 2001)

This movie is unnecessarily long. No, it's not a three hour film, but it didn't have to be as long as it was. It just kept going on and on. At least `Nosferatu (1922)' made it's point and was done. This film had every little detail, and kept going on.
Gary Oldman was a terrible Dracula. They could've at least made him look like Count Orlock rather than a stylish character. Or, if they wanted a stylistic character, than they could've casted a better actor, that wasn't so ugly. Maybe more of a nice face. It just seemed too weird that a guy as ugly as Gary Oldman, could get with a hot woman like Winona Ryder. But it wasn't just his looks, he was too old also. If you want to see a good Dracula movie, see Nosferatu.
On the upside, the casting and acting was great; besides Gary Oldman. It really respected it's story, and made it one of a kind. Although I had a lot of disappointments, I still think this film deserves a 7/10. I am being very harsh on this movie, since it's a remake, but I suggest you go out and rent it and judge it for yourself. Trust me, it is certainly not a waste of money. This is a movie that'll give one another various opinions. Watch it.
7/10