Bram Stoker's Dracula (R)

Bloody, sexy, scary Dracula for mature teens only!

(Flash is loading. If this text does not disappear you need to install the latest flash version)

Common Sense rates it
3
Seen the movie? Review it
3730_orig.jpg
Movie details
  • Studio: Columbia Tristar
  • Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola
  • Cast: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder
  • Running Time: 127 minutes
  • Release Date: 11/13/1992
  • Video/DVD Release Date: 09/30/1997
  • Genre: Horror
  • MPAA Rating: R
  • MPAA Explanation: sexuality and horror violence

Parents need to know

Parents need to know that this movie is not your average run-of-the-mill Dracula flick but a highly sexualized and violent version. It's for mature audiences only because the movie is filled with multiple, graphic images of violent, blood-letting sex. Parents should be very careful in allowing even remotely squeamish teens to watch this film.

Families can talk about issues regarding religion and the supernatural as both subjects arise throughout the film in unsettling ways. It may be useful to explore their teen's feelings here, even if it is just to make sure they are not too spooked. This may also be a good time to discuss style in horror films. Why does this film feel the same as or different from scary movies set in more commonplace contemporary settings?

Message

Social Behavior:

Consumerism:

Drugs/Alcohol/Tobacco:

One brief incident of laudanum use by the doctor in the asylum and drinking of absinthe.

Violence

Graphic violence from the beginning (people impaled on spears and arrows, rivers of blood), self-cutting, cannibalism (including of a baby), torture of the insane, wolf attack, decapitation, stake through the heart.

Sex

Sexually suggestive discussion, drawings of sexual positions, brief lesbianism, evil topless women writhing on and sucking blood from Harker, sadistic sex with a wolf man.

Language

Common Sense says

What's the story?

Reviewed by Kelly Kessler

Blood soaked and highly sexed, this movie based on Bram Stoker's classic novel, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA tells the story of the Count's pursuit of Mina (Winona Rider), the reincarnated embodiment of his lost love, Elisabeta whom he lost to suicide while he was off defending the cross in a great battle. Upon the discovery of her death, Dracula (Gary Oldman) rejects the church and vows everlasting life and vengeance. The movie takes place in the nineteenth century beginning in London, where the count lures Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) --the present-day fiancé of his deceased love--to his castle in Transylvania. Through the duration of the film, individuals fall victim to the undead Count and his lascivious minions as wolves, rivers of blood, and overall turmoil set up the ultimate battle between good and evil.

Is it any good?

3
Bram Stoker's Dracula has been said to have saved Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope Studios, by recovering from the previous years' underperformers (Wind, The Godfather: Part III). The movie found critical acclaim with Academy Awards for Costume Design, Sound Effects Editing, and Makeup.

Like much of Coppola's work, this film walks a fine line between the visually stunning and the bizarre or grotesque (The Godfather, One From the Heart, Apocalypse Now). Tom Waits gives a characteristically out-there performance as the insane bug-eater Renfield, and Keanu Reeves appears to have strayed little from his Bill and Ted days. Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, and Winona Rider give good performances.

Support Common Sense Media
Common Sense Media is a non-profit and will receive a portion of your purchase from Pricegrabber. Learn more.

Parents and kids say

All Reviews

There are 4 reviews.

5


Posted on 06/03/08 by broadwaybaby Adult contributor

A classic!

Blood, sex, and more blood - what more can you ask for with a movie starring Gary Oldman and Winona Rider? Though thoroughly enjoyable, this movie definitely isn't for the kids, unless you know them well enough. I saw it at thirteen and was pretty shocked at some points, but the fantastic plot, acting, and occasional corny (yet delightful) special effects make this flick what it is: the best vampire movie, ever.
5

Posted on 03/16/08 by Anonymous Kid contributor, age 17

i love this movie and own the new dvd

3


Posted on 01/14/08 by Mina Kid contributor, age 14

Visually Stunning, but not for Fans of the Book

Let me start out by saying that the original novel is one of my all-time favorites, and that I recently decided to see the most popular movie versions. A more appropriate title would have been "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula". It's not exactly, shall we say... *true* to the original novel in anything more than basic plot. Some (or rather, most) of the casting was badly done. I played Mina in my high school's production and I felt that the preformances given there were MUCH more realistic and emotionally complex. I did enjoy Sir Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing, though. He is a marvelous actor and the only one of the bunch who doesn't seem to think a little facial expression will kill him. Having said this, the movie in itself is gorgeous (set, costuming, etc.), and it's a wonderfully creepy horror flick.
5


Posted on 07/06/07 by branagh Adult contributor

Faithful, But Blood-Soaked, Adaptation Of The Horror Novel Written In 1897

Francis Ford Coppola ("The Godfather" movies, "Apocalypse Now") takes a bite out of literature with this faithful version of the classic horror novel written in 1897. I have not seen the 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi or any other film version of this story, but I have to say that this one is very faithful to the novel, while changing some bits and improving on others, especially the ending, which in the novel, seemed forced and came off as ridiculous. There's a line in the novel which is really obscure, but the movie did a great job fleshing it out. (When the brides accuse Dracula of not being able to love, he looks intently at Jonathan and says, "Yes. I too can love. You yourselves can tell that from the past." In the novel, this is never explained, while the movie fleshed it out in greater detail). With a mild warning about the violence and brief sexaulity/nudity, I can recommend this movie to mature teenagers. Great cast, awesome performances and a great script make this a true feast for the eyes... and fangs. "Love Never Dies." Rated PG-13.

Adult Reviews

There are 2 reviews.

5


Posted on 06/03/08 by broadwaybaby Adult contributor

A classic!

Blood, sex, and more blood - what more can you ask for with a movie starring Gary Oldman and Winona Rider? Though thoroughly enjoyable, this movie definitely isn't for the kids, unless you know them well enough. I saw it at thirteen and was pretty shocked at some points, but the fantastic plot, acting, and occasional corny (yet delightful) special effects make this flick what it is: the best vampire movie, ever.
5


Posted on 07/06/07 by branagh Adult contributor

Faithful, But Blood-Soaked, Adaptation Of The Horror Novel Written In 1897

Francis Ford Coppola ("The Godfather" movies, "Apocalypse Now") takes a bite out of literature with this faithful version of the classic horror novel written in 1897. I have not seen the 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi or any other film version of this story, but I have to say that this one is very faithful to the novel, while changing some bits and improving on others, especially the ending, which in the novel, seemed forced and came off as ridiculous. There's a line in the novel which is really obscure, but the movie did a great job fleshing it out. (When the brides accuse Dracula of not being able to love, he looks intently at Jonathan and says, "Yes. I too can love. You yourselves can tell that from the past." In the novel, this is never explained, while the movie fleshed it out in greater detail). With a mild warning about the violence and brief sexaulity/nudity, I can recommend this movie to mature teenagers. Great cast, awesome performances and a great script make this a true feast for the eyes... and fangs. "Love Never Dies." Rated PG-13.

Kids Reviews

There are 2 reviews.

5

Posted on 03/16/08 by Anonymous Kid contributor, age 17

i love this movie and own the new dvd

3


Posted on 01/14/08 by Mina Kid contributor, age 14

Visually Stunning, but not for Fans of the Book

Let me start out by saying that the original novel is one of my all-time favorites, and that I recently decided to see the most popular movie versions. A more appropriate title would have been "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula". It's not exactly, shall we say... *true* to the original novel in anything more than basic plot. Some (or rather, most) of the casting was badly done. I played Mina in my high school's production and I felt that the preformances given there were MUCH more realistic and emotionally complex. I did enjoy Sir Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing, though. He is a marvelous actor and the only one of the bunch who doesn't seem to think a little facial expression will kill him. Having said this, the movie in itself is gorgeous (set, costuming, etc.), and it's a wonderfully creepy horror flick.
Review It

Great Fantasy Books for Harry Potter Fans

Great Fantasy Books for Harry Potter Fans
Which fantasy book creature has the best name?
Fluffy (3-headed dog, Harry Potter)
43%
Mister Grin (giant crocodile, Peter and the Starcatchers)
29%
Vermicious Knid (shapeshifting monster, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator)
0%
The Incredibly Deadly Viper (harmless snake, Series of Unfortunate Events)
0%
Bunnicula (vampire bunny, Bunnicula series)
29%
7 votes