One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Rating: 1/10 (5 May 2001)

I was excited when I saw the previews for "Bram Stoker's Dracula". It was expressly marketed as the first movie to tell the story the way Bram Stoker wrote it.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Calling it "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is an insult to the author of this classic tale. It's not just that it doesn't compare to the book. That rarely happens with any screen adaptation of a great novel. However, Coppola completely changed massive amounts of important aspects of the story. I find it amusing that after going on and on about how it was going to adhere so strictly to the original story, they had to release a new novel of Coppola's version so people would "get it".
Most of the acting is terrible throughout. The nature of characters are completely different from Stoker's (most notably Van Helsing, Mina, and Lucy). The love story added in is lame (at one point reminiscent of a Monty Python skit), and some of the "imagery" is cheesy. There were some decent effects, though, which made about 1% of the movie interesting. Some of the costumes aren't bad, others aren't good.
After seeing an interview with Coppola, one really gets the sense that he believes this is the way the story "should have" or "would have" been told had Stoker been allowed to write openly about certain topics. That is, however, utter nonsense and arrogance.
Coppola has made some astounding films, but this ain't one of them. It's amongst the worst movies I've ever seen.