This movie is actually pretty good!

Rating: Null/10 (10 October 2004)

I grow tired of reading all the criticism this movie has received on this site about how this movie isn't really Bram Stoker's Dracula.
If anyone did their research well, you'd know that Bram Stoker based his novel on a real life person named Vlad Tepes.
Bram Stoker visited the real Transylvania which is located in Romania, this city and country as well as the story of Vlad Tepes became the inspiration for Bram Stokers novel "Dracula"
I will explain who Vlad Tepes was for those of you who do not know who Vlad Tepes was.
Vlad Tepes was a warrior, a very bloodthirsty warrior who was known for his brutal methods of torture, in fact he acquired quite a nickname for himself, Vlad The Impaler, he is also known as Vlad Dracula.
Vlad was imprisoned for a while, he drank the blood of rats while in his cell, when freed he would fight again.
The Turks eventually killed Vlad Tepes in Battle, decapitating him. The head of Vlad Tepes was put on display on a stake. The body of Vlad Tepes disappeared, one theory is that perhaps the Turks burned his body after taking his head, another theory is that his body was buried but stolen, the third theory is what spurned the myth of Count Dracula.
Eventually The Head of Vlad Tepes disappeared as well. To this day neither the head nor the body of Vlad Tepes have been recovered.
Francis Ford Coppola attempted to combine History with Fiction in his version of Dracula.
This film remains true to the book for the most part, however Coppola gives us more background on the Character of Dracula himself, using the theory that Dracula is Vlad Tepes resurrected.
This film took home one academy award if I am not mistaken. Coppola did not disrespect the book at all. The changes Coppola made were in fact for the better not the worst.