Lamest piece of junk I've ever seen

Rating: 1/10 (6 March 2010)

What did I just see? Where is "Bram Stocker's" Dracula? How is this accurate? I could go on and one writing ten pages here on how and why this movie sucked. I'll just point out some major flaws:
1.Lucy wasn't a whore looking at porn, she was actually a decent and rather timid person.
2. Mina didn't want to be a vampire and she was never in love with Dracula(not even under hypnosis) nor Dracula in love with her, if anything Mina gave directions to the monster's whereabouts.
3.Dracula was an intelligent, infantile blood sucking monster not a Don Juan. 4.The relationship between Lucy and Van Helsing, in this movie it's nonexistent where as in the novel Van Helsing cared for her much. He actually said that he has to cut her head in a sarcastical, funny way!! What the hell? These four denaturations are the main reasons of why this movie hasn't anything to do with what Stocker wrote, this isn't a romantic novel, at least not relating to the monster and anyway, not this cheesy.
Coppola takes out 60% of the original story, takes out what made the novel actually creepy: insinuations, shadows, and strange landscapes and turns them all into rubbish.
The "Transylvanian" scenes were a joke even for 1992 and did not deliver the feel of the novel's first pages, I could notice a mile away that they were in a studio, I'm curios how much money were involved in those scenes, it was all soooo artificial.
Gary Oldman and A. Hopkins delivered some decent acting but Keanu Reeves should stick to Matrix. Oldman's and the other actor's Romanian(except for the vampire women whom are Romanian for sure) sucks big time(I admit I ask too much here as I'm a native and it isn't an easy language)
There are hungreds of small things that further accentuate the alienations with the novel:
1.Most of the initial Transylvanian story line was shrunken down to a lame carriage scene and replaced with that "story" in the 1400s that had NOTHING to do with the book and its only purpose was to induce further false plots further into the movie.
2.Dracula's shadow and hair, OMG what the hell? He had a pair of boobs on his head and a comical shadow, I nearly *** myself laughing (and I was supposed to be scared!!!)Dracula (in the novel) didn't have a shadow as he didn't have a reflection and I don't know where Coppola read that he had hair like that.
3.The scene with those three vampire women, I must admit that was the single thing I liked about this movie but it was fake too, if the novel were newer and if Stocker afforded to be more "libertine" maybe he would have done it that way but he didn't! That wasn't a porn scene in the book.
4.Dracula didn't break Harker's mirror just by thinking it, he just threw it away.
5.Lucy wasn't raped by a big(poorly looking) Dracula wolf.
I could go on and on in how this movie sucked in terms of plot, landscapes, acting etc etc etc but it wouldn't make it better. This movie could have been very well a comedy or a parody, a lame one too, it almost makes Nielson's "Dracula, Dead and Lovin' It" (a parody after this movie) unnecessary and I recommend that one cause it is at least funnier. Coppola shouldn't named the movie that way if he wanted to do his own vampire movie(I think it sucked even with other names).
Don't waste your time with this, awful. Sorry for my errors in spelling and/or grammar, not a native.