Bram Stoker's Dracula - What's the Difference?

'Tis the season for ghouls, goblins and Victorian literature! How did Francis Ford Coppola's lavish adaptation change Bram Stoker's 1897 gothic horror classic Dracula? Fangs at the ready, it's time to ask What's the Difference?!
Follow us Twitter: / cinefixnetwork
And we're on the Facebook: / cinefixnetwork
More Recent CineFix Videos:
Let's Talk About Bad Times at the El Royale!
• Let's Talk About Bad T...
Demolition Man, Orson Welles, and This Week In History!
• Demolition Man, Orson ...
Make Your Own Homemade Venom Costume!
• Make Your Own Venom Co...
Here are our picks for the Top 10 Soundtracks of All Time
• Top 10 Soundtracks of ...
Ridley Scott's Alien and Jeremy Saulnier's Green Room Are the Same Movie
• A Thrill Machine Doubl...
Check out what happened the week of September 24 in movie history!
• Crocodile Dundee, Sere...
Here's Everything You Need To Start Watching Giallo!
• Everything You Need to...

[@drinksanddice9528]

Here's something that might blow your mind. After Mina transcribes everyone's notes and voice recordings Van Helsing orders the vampire hunters to read the compiled book, because the book is epistolary at that moment the reader and the characters have both read the same 2/3 or Bram Stoker's novel. Its the only novel in which the fictional characters have read the same diagetic narrative as the reader. Its an example of extraliterary narrative 23 years before James Joyce's Ulysses... and that's a bonus fact you didn't know.

[@JohnSmith-eo5sp]

Boy that is very deep! It is also less than relevant, and off on a tangent

[@squamish4244]

More like your comment is. Part of the point of these kinds of videos is facts like these.

[@JohnSmith-eo5sp]

Indeed, my comments are very deep :-)

[@squamish4244]

Deeply irrelevant, and off on a tangent. In case you missed what I meant. Did you know that the Eastern Roman Empire existed until nine years before the beginning of this movie? Now THAT'S a tangent.

[@drinksanddice9528]

Stoker also wrote Dracula to mock Oscar Wilde who had married Stoker's ex-fiance. Dracula is the embodiment of bigotry towards homosexual men in Victorian London. His hands are hairy because when he's not taking mens blood through their wives he's a onaist living under a bench.

[@Em-kg7qn]

After reading the book I was mostly shocked by the fact that every single adaptation has turned Lucy into a promiscuous character while she wasn't.

[@deborahpichardo8396]

Thank you! Finally, someone says it!

[@Michael-bk5nz]

I don't think that's true, in the book, during the very first Lucy chapter, she talks about how she has received marriage proposals from two different men and she wishes that she could marry both of them, a statement which doesn't exactly make her seem virginal.

[@Em-kg7qn]

But that's the full extent of it... I thought she was actually very sweet and caring to Mina and she did love her fiance...

[@Michael-bk5nz]

It was 1897, Stoker was not able to be more explicit without being censored, he had to leave broad hints that implied risque things rather than spelling them out explicitly. It's true that Lucy isn't portrayed as engaging in any kind of sexual activity, but Stoker clearly distinguished Lucy from Mina by making Lucy the more 'unconventional one' in terms of her attitude towards sex and relationships, again, Stoker was only able to hint at it, which he did. IIn fact, some commentators have suggested that the fact that Lucy tells Mina about the fact that she received 3 marriage proposals on the same day, was her way of 'bragging' to Mina about how much men like her. One of the most common tropes of the horror genre, in general, is that the characters that die tend to be the ones that are in some way immoral, they are being punished for their sins, and the ones that live are the virtuous ones. This is why, in slasher movies like Friday the 13th, the teenagers who get killed are generally the ones who are having sex, using drugs, getting drunk, etc and the 'final girl' who lives is the one character who is still a virgin. Dracula is one of the earliest examples of this trope, Lucy, the more unconventional one, dies, while Mina, the virtuous one, survives to the end.

[@craigbreuwet2029]

But if only this movie was a close film adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel because I have read Bram Stoker's novel multiple times and Bram Stoker's novel is quite different from this 1992 movie

[@wren9713]

We’re just not gonna mention Renfield? Ok...

[@stephaniesummer2663]

I honestly thought he was the best part of the book. He was just so interesting.

[@jonflora1]

@mrcarepig yeah, Tom Waits was pretty good in that in role

[@smithwesson1896]

Dracula?? Dracula?? Dracula?? Shhedule?

[@pridelander06]

@@smithwesson1896 "Take him back to his cell and give him a you-know-what!" "No! No! Not another enema!"

[@Laurtew]

Right? In the book, the man who was afraid enough of dying to eat raw birds, gave up his life to fight evil. That was a heck of a journey.

[@tremorsfan]

Something you didn't mention, although you alluded to it, was how violent the scene in which Dracula make Mina drink his blood is in the book. I believe Mina says she had only two options drink or choke.

[@reidmason2551]

That is indeed the case. Even worse, if she didn't comply, he vowed to cave Jonathan's head in right in front of her. (He'd rendered Jonathan unconscious before attacking Mina, thus there was no chance Jonathan could have fought back.)

[@johntabler349]

An incredibly disturbing but exceptionally well written scene

[@snowyfootofwindclan8691]

@@reidmason2551 I don't remember that, but I'll check my copy of Dracula later. That's honestly a pretty interesting threat.

[@MyBrunohp]

That's the scene that makes me hate the movie, in the book she was forced to drink, and dracula only does it because he wanted revenge against the man who was hunting him. The movie destroyed the scene by making it a sex scene and her wanting the blood and him hesitating to give to her. He's a monster and she is one of the hero, not the other way around

[@yaroslavonyshchuk]

@@MyBrunohp And in the movie, Mina was just out of her mind at that moment. Since Dracula constantly used a telepathic link against her. The vampire previously drove Renfield insane this way.

[@lucideandre]

You could’ve added that Mina, in the books, not only is not in love with Dracula, but is downright terrified of him, describing him as hideous.

[@yaroslavonyshchuk]

In the film, Mina doesn't really love Dracula either. Because of the vampire, Mina was out of her mind, as were Lucy and Renfield.

[@lucideandre]

@@yaroslavonyshchuk but she is drawn to him. In the book, she’s repulsed by him. And uses the connection he caused between them to spy on him, even, if I remember correctly, being the one to come up with the ide of doing so.

[@yaroslavonyshchuk]

@@lucideandre In the film, too, Mina initially pushed him away. But Dracula is a vampire who, with the help of mesmerism and hypnosis, can seduce and drive any person crazy. Even Van Helsing could not resist the spell of the three vampires and lost his mind for a while. In the film, too, Mina, when she came to her senses, began to help in the search for Dracula using a telepathic connection.

[@flightsare]

This is my #1 reason for disliking the movie. They've completely ruined Mina's storyline.

[@lucideandre]

@@flightsare right? And then, as much as they weren’t thinking about it this way, and this angle was definitely not part of Bram Stoker’s considerations, the story can essentially be interpreted as a metaphor of sexual abuse, where the movie takes it and says “ok, but what if the victim enjoyed and wanted it actually?” It’s an ahistorical interpretation (in the sense that it wasn’t an issue that was being thought of at the time), but it’s still a very viable one, and makes the change also a little bit disgusting.

[@vicenteortegarubilar9418]

Half Great adaptation, Half 90's music video. I really like this movie.

[@LibraGamesUnlimited]

I remember first reading the book around the time the movie came out (believe it or not, it wasn't planned I just happen to find a copy and read it) and thinking how close it was. To me the reason they added the gothic romance part, was because, in the book, a lot of stuff happens by chance (Dracula just happens to arrive at Whitby where Mina and Lucy are spending the summer, he just happens to start feeding on Lucy, etc...) so they felt they needed some way to make things seem less random and coincidental and also make it look like Dracula had more of a plan than just travel to England because he ran out of people to feed on. It also allowed them to open up the story a bit, make Dracula a bit less one dimensional and give Mina a bit more to do in the overall story. There is also the added bonus that the story they added is actually a tale connected to Vlad the Impaler thus strengthening the link between Dracula, the vampire and the actual historical Vlad. I do love the 90's music video part though. :)

[@Clay3613]

You are horribly uniformed, resorting to the same cliche MTV movie train of thought.

[@craigbreuwet2029]

I am sorry but this Francis Ford Coppola movie is not a close film adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula I have read Bram Stoker's novel many times and this 1992 movie is not even close to the novel

[@robbiewalker2831]

+Chris McWilliams You know, all of this stuff that you bring up, it reminds me of another depiction of Dracula, who has a link between the book, the fictional depictions of the vampire, and the historical Vlad, has the description from the book (mostly from the facial features, none of that hairly palms bullshit, we can't compete with that), and has an added bonus to a cetain netflix adaptation. I'm talking about Castlevania's Dracula!: miketendo64.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2018Aug_SSB_scrn162_LR.jpg

[@HeyMykee]

It's also half loving tribute to silent movie techniques, filmed as they actually were in the olden days, with effects being done in camera. It's also the most beautiful Winona Ryder has ever looked on film, as far as I'm concerned.

[@aishalee5924]

I used to love the movie-- until I read the book. Book Mina was a true badass and without her they wouldn't have been able to defeat Dracula. Movie Mina was tool

[@captainwolfstrik]

Oh good, someone else who shares my opinion.

[@ItsAndie]

I totally share your opinion. I used to love the movie, but I read the book then and now I find the film kind of...embarrassing

[@cruzcflores]

Yes! Exactly! I hate hate hate the “romance” in the movie and not one adaption has Mina as badass as she is in the book with the exception of ironically League of Extraordinary Gentleman.

[@vaalhalaa5154]

i read the book before i watched the movie and had no idea about the whole romance plot. i was soo pissed of that they ruined mina, shes one of my all time favourite literary character

[@reinaldoaristy]

Disappointing that people think romance is a direct synonym for "weakness", I actually quite disappointed there is no romance at all in the original story...

[@DarthArachnious]

You mentioned the harry palms but didn't mention Dracula's long horseshoe mustache.

[@rafaelalodio5116]

Yeah they didn't mentioned the mustache.

[@z-beeblebrox]

I wonder, has *ANY* adaptation ever acknowledged the mustache?? I'd love to see a take on Dracula rockin some 70s style

[@LibraGamesUnlimited]

I'm thinking there was a movie or TV show that had him with white hair and that mustache but I can't be sure and recall what it was. I might be making it up for all I know. :)

[@rafaelalodio5116]

z beeblebrox, the Dracula that shows up in one of the episodes of The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy have the mustache. Also I recently red The Hitch Hiker Guide to the Galaxies and your name made me laught.

[@JohnSmith-eo5sp]

I guess Dracula was three times masturbation champion to get those hairy palms

[@Gilmaris]

The book does tie Dracula with Vlad III, however briefly, in two major ways: 1. He is called Dracula, as indeed was Vlad III's moniker 2. Chapter 18, Mina Harker's journal of 30 Sept., van Helsing says: "He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land." Not at all the same fleshing out of the backstory as Coppola's version, but the backstory _is_ there.

[@Tiger74147]

Agreed, it's wrong of them to say there was no mention of this. I remembered quite clearly there being mention of his medieval conflict with the Turks and other references to a noble warrior bloodline and its fate.

[@z-beeblebrox]

0:47 "It's like the found footage of books" . THANK YOU! I've been telling people Dracula is effectively the first found footage horror for ages. I feel like if someone *really* wants to do justice to the original work, it should be in that format, and it's tragic that will all the garbage found footage horror out there, nobody's even *thought* of doing this

[@planetkori]

If you made a two-hour film of the principal characters simply writing letters and journal entries interspersed with newspaper articles and other dissertations of pertinence, you might have a faithful adaptation but you'd also have one boring-as-fuck of a movie....

[@z-beeblebrox]

@@planetkori No no no the filmic interpretation of Epistolaries already exists my man. It's called "Found Footage".

[@robbiewalker2831]

@@z-beeblebrox Most adaptations of Bram Stoker’s Dracula never used the “Found Footage” route, and Coppola’s was the only adaptation, by far, to use this key narrative through out the majority of the story. The only reason that the “Vlad the Impaler” scene was used at the beginning of the movie, was because Bram Stoker himself based Dracula on Vlad, because of his nickname being “Dracula” (translated as “Son of the Dragon”, with “Dracul” alone translated as “Dragon”), even Vampire Dracula’s facial features was inspired by Vlad the Impaler, with his facial hair being the most notable of all; which is why I think Dracula from Symphony of the Night and Smash Ultimate is the best visual depiction of a “Modern” Dracula popularized by Bela Legosi, but with the hair features of Gary Oldman’s depiction (which includes the flowing hair and moustache). Speaking of Castlevania’s Dracula, his monster form, popularized by the original NES Game, the X68000 remake, Rondo of Blood, and Symphony of the Night, reminds me of Rothbart’s monster form (known as the “Great Animal”) from the Swan Princess. Great, first Bela Legosi’s adaptation uses Swan Lake music for the opening, now I can’t unsee Dracula’s monster form being lifted from “The Swan Princess” (an adaptation of Swan Lake).

[@flightsare]

Well, it's not technically a found footage because nobody has found it. The happy-end epilogue was written by one of the narrators, so we might assume the whole book was published by the Harkers. Also, it's not really a horror book, more like a gothic story.

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

LOL, what?! Bro, use your head, you can’t use the pound footage when it’s just tax of journals, diary entries a newspaper clippings that’s not possible for the sake of bake a film or TV meditation at all, yet to use visuals as much as you possibly can, and that doesn’t work in live action. It only works in books, found footage only works if the found footage is tapes and video recordings of a CAMERA that can easily work in a movie since both a cheap camera and a movie camera can easily translate to one another. NOT diary entries or journal entries of words and text that can ONLY work in the book, NOT in live action film, and I get what you’re trying to say but come on use your head here as what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense at all as that’s never going to be able to be work like that AT ALL as that’s not “reAllY dO juStIcE tO tHe bOoK” AT ALL, that’s just how movies work at all. Even in the context of the novel, they start off as entries of someone’s writing intill it goes into traditional narrative writing after a while, that should be obvious as the text is meant to tell a cohesive story within a book, not be a summary of events. You’re not thinking things straight and all the way through at all here when you say this, come on .

[@SkyCinema]

Of all the countless Dracula movies I watched growing up, Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one that made me read the book. It's now my favourite version! Followed by Dead And Loving It ;)

[@spaceace4387]

LOL Dead and Loving It spoofed the Coppola version a lot. I love how they made fun of how over the top bloody the Coppola version was such as the scene where they drive a stake through Lucy's heart. In the Coppola version she just spat blood all over Van Helsing's face.

[@hagerty1952]

@@spaceace4387 - But remember in DaLI, Van Helsing (Brooks) hides behind a pillar and lets Harker take the whole gusher in the face.

[@gabrielledebourg2487]

I love Coppola's Dracula, even with it's flaws. For me, it's the directorial equivalent of hammy acting: hammy directing. But in the good sense. This is a master just deciding to really do everything over the top and make a wonderful spectacle out of it. The music and visuals are nothing short of a masterpiece as well. The acting from most people (especially Oldman, Waits and Hopkins) is wonderfully crazy. I even love Keanu in it. Yes, his accent is terrible and I know he was a studio mandated choice. But I love him because that wooden acting and awful dialogue just goes great with the campy attitude of the film. He feels like a wooden actor in a Roger Corman film, pitted against horror icons he would often cast - and this is part a tribute from Coppola to his mentor Corman, so in a weird way it is fitting.

[@doublediamond9226]

Gabrielle de Bourg I’ve watched Dracula ‘92 many, many times and never looked at it that way. Which is odd, because I love those old Hammer and Corman/Poe films.

[@jessicajayes8326]

Wanna know the worst part? Keanu's mom was English, and he didn't even think to use it to his advantage.

[@tianapitesr8553]

English stiffness inherited.

[@Lupostehgreat]

It's also such a wonderful send-up to the classic Universal Monster Movies, especially the 1932 original with Bela Legosi. I love the pre-digital special effect usage in it, too. Coppola used so many of the same techniques as were used in the 30's, 40's, and 50's horror films that it almost brings a cinephile like myself to tears. Absolutely marvelous movie, for fans of old school monster movies and 90's vampire romanticism. Good to watch as a double feature with Interview With The Vampire.

[@Bahamaria]

I think Keanu Reeves was great as Harker. His complete lack of expression throughout the movie absolutely fits the character of a little uptight Victorian clerk. He's shown repeatedly through the book as someone who has no clue. Reeves is perfect!

[@Syberz]

Is nobody going to talk about Keanu's horrendous attempt at an English accent? I love the guy, but damn...

[@jamesmiller4184]

Keanu was put there as eye candy for some. They had his hair parted in the middle, and we all know what that means. . : .

[@aishalee5924]

Oh we know..poor thing tried tho lol

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

@@jamesmiller4184 To give him a cool look. Parted hair DOES look cool and is natural but Keanu shouldn't have been casted as Jonathan Harker in the film, it should have been Johnny Depp!

[@jamesmiller4184]

@@Gadget-Walkmen Well now THAT would have been something, huh? I guess the parted hair thing would have started in the 1890s running into the Twenties?

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

@@jamesmiller4184 The parted hair look is JUST that, a look. A way to be stylish! That’s it! It’s still going on to this day for lots of men and women!

[@MrHEC381991]

It still should've been called "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula".

[@Hunter-D.]

Exactly.

[@ScarilyOlivia]

This is the only reason why I hate this movie. I know it’s kinda petty, but it’s completely false to say this is at all Bram Stoker’s. :/

[@Clay3613]

It's almost exactly like the book aside from the romance plot...

[@craigbreuwet2029]

This movie is not exactly like the novel Dracula evidently you have not read the book if you think that this movie is a close film adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel

[@wren9713]

Clay3613 it’s not that close and besides, the romance is the central plot of the film

[@thatmechanicguy8773]

The closest film adaptation of Dracula to me has been Louis Jordan’s Count Dracula. I believe it was a BBC mini series from either the 70’s or 80’s. Hard to find a copy of it nowadays, but worth the effort if you’re a Dracula fan.

[@jorgizoran4340]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2SZh52Ontegors

[@dhakaboy1]

Totally agree ! I saw the original when I was back home in London,...scared the lights out of me !!!

[@rfar21]

With the upcoming Pet Sematary movie, please make one What's the difference, for the book and the old movie version!

[@gabrielledebourg2487]

Yes please!

[@brittanyyates6527]

Yes love the 80's version

[@vampirascoffin870]

book has no ramones , movie has ramones! Gabba Gabba Hey!

[@evilsWa]

brandon coffin book has a shit ton of ramones actually...

[@mogensschmidt990]

What but The original pet cementary movie was perfeckt why remade it

[@CybershamanX]

I highly recommend reading the book. It struck me as a sort of early proto-techno-thriller. Many new technologies and sciences are depicted throughout the book, like the blood transfusions, hypnotism, using wax phonograph cylinders to record a log, and just generally trying to use scientific means to figure out what is going on. So much so that it could be considered a work of science fact fiction. I think I'm going to have to read it again now! :)

[@sumowrestler2687]

I started reading Dracula this month, and I love it! Even though I know what happens, it is still suspenseful and masterfully crafted. I have to say, though, that falling for Dracula in the movie is really not in line with Mina`s book counterpart. Such a massive departure from the source material is a little... jarring, to say the least. I think Dracula could work better as a miniseries with a similar tone to Stranger Things. Most adaptations of Dracula miss the slow burn, painful uncertainty, and excellent foreshadowing, but I think a miniseries would lend itself well to those qualities.

[@cruzcflores]

Sumo Wrestler #26 I would love a Dracula miniseries that adhered to the book with the exception of making Mina slightly more active in hunting Dracula. She already is pretty active but having her say kill one of the Brides with her new vampire powers would be badass.

[@meredithwilliams4671]

I've mentioned this in other comments, but I don't think the book translates well to modern times. It was written in the Victorian age, with massive amounts of sexual repression and restrictive social mores. People back then were, unsurprisingly, both repulsed and fascinated by sex in ways we can't really imagine. Bram Stoker took all this sex obsession, mixed in a bit of Vlad Tepes, and wrote Dracula. All of the Victorians' paranoia regarding sex is in that book. Blood, insatiable desire, infection, obsession, violence. It's a book that makes more sense in historical context.

[@AmmarProductions]

Watch the anime shiki

[@snowyfootofwindclan8691]

@@meredithwilliams4671 Well, as much as it's worth, I feel like seeing a series that actually follows the story line with out the bizarre Dracula and Mina romance going on. That would honestly be enough.

[@mesozoicera87]

Sadly a miniseries came out recently and they shit on it in the third episode.

[@HeathenMetalhead221]

The scariest part of this movie is Keanu Reeves accent

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

I love Keanu Reeves but but Keanu shouldn't have been casted as Jonathan Harker in the film, it should have been Johnny Depp!

[@penguinpie5056]

I say, whoa.

[@kirkhensley8598]

In the book, Mina wasn't an obsession. She was a last resort to get a leg up on Van Helsing and the boys. They had him cornered in Carfax Abbey, he broke out of the window and the heroes got a chance to taint Drac's source of rest and regeneration. Later they discovered the Demon Drac forcing Mina to drink from a wound in his chest in Dr. Seward's Sanitarium. After that, our bad guy gets his psychic connection only for the purposes of staying one step ahead of the guys trying to kill him. James V. Hart, thanks for the bullshit.

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

LMAO piss off with that nonsense, it was NOT "bullshit" at all, Mina being dracula's obsession was a great added touch which humanized the character and instead of just being pure evil since the fear factor of drac drops quickly after the first act of the story. What james v, hart added in between dracula and mina was great and I'm glad it was there.

[@anarchomando7707]

@@Gadget-WalkmenIt just tore apart the love and devotion of the harkers. They genuinely loved and cared for each other

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

@@anarchomando7707 LOL Hardly, we hardly get to see how much Jonathan and mina cares for each other than being side by side when they were near each other in scenes or when they mentioned how they were to be married and an occasion "my beloved mina" and that's it. It didn't "toRe aPaRt" ANYTHING about as the "love and devotaion" between mina and jonathan is pretty understated nor anything of that much significance in the book. They get married and have a child together down the line, yeah but it's never emphasized on how much they care for each other.

[@benzelwasington4059]

The movie literaly romancitizid harasment And rap

[@margiebarrajacco460]

When Dracula is dressed in black, he looks like Ozzy Osborne lol

[@cultclassicdeadinside9862]

Thanks to this movie a lot of people assume Dracula originally was a romance and is now a key element in other adaptations

[@sallycarter8739]

No, not thanks to it. There were already several Dracula movies with romance in them long before Coppola's movie: 1973 Dracula movie, 1979 Dracula movie, 1979 Love At First Bite movie.

[@cultclassicdeadinside9862]

Sally Carter may not have been the first but it made it popular and more well known

[@AspieMediaBobby]

@@sallycarter8739 Even the 1931 Film made Dracula and Mina`s relationship far more romantic than in the book. What was added was the "love across time" element which was also present in Dracula 2000 and its sequels,Kouta Hirano`s "Hellsing" manga and its anime and OVA adaptations and the "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" film.

[@quidproquo82]

It's not the first to add the romantic element.

[@poontang3zizo]

@@cultclassicdeadinside9862 No. The 1931 movie made it really popular

[@nyancat2221]

In the book she’s being forced to, literally being pressed to his chest weeping and unable to escape his strength. Why did you skim over that?

[@dribblesg2]

Oldmans delivery of the 'We Dracul's have a right to be proud. What devil or witch was ever so great as Attila, whose blood flows in these veins?' is my favorite line delivery out of any movie. Worth watching for that scene alone.

[@morgumal]

This is the only time where I've actually seen the movie and read the book.

[@VasiaTsamantani]

Me too! Just a couple of months ago I read it, but it has been years since I've watched the film.

[@ArtofLunatik]

This and Fightclub is like that for me

[@grubbygrubb7059]

Same here. It's also a rare case where, I think, the movie was better than the book. Maybe it's just Coppola, cause The Godfather movies are better than the books also.

[@James11111]

This is the only time I've read the book and not seen the movie.

[@andyappleton3353]

Which did you like better?

[@GraupeLie]

Without a doubt my favourite version of the story - and yes, admittedly, I really liked the addition of the broken heart and the love story bits...

[@mukulsharma5636]

I loved the way the book was written . Much more absorbing.

[@brycevo]

Dracula What's the Difference?! Yes Please!!!

[@kriitikko]

There's a lot to enjoy in the 1992 version: the music, the visuals, Gary Oldman, Loony Van Helsing, Lucy Red Riding Hood, the bizarre casting of Tom Waits as Renfield and a vampire Monica Bellucci. Unfortunately the biggest let down for me, even more than the miscasting of Keanu Reeves, is the love story between Dracula and Mina. I'm just not buying it and it annoys me that it has been worked in nearly every Dracula story since 1992. The manga/anime "Hellsing" gave Dracula a much better Vlad Tepes origin story imo.

[@CorbCorbin]

kriitikko Before that. The 70s Frank Langella one does it, just more like the book, even though the ending is very different. Do you remember a Dracula movie where Lucy is the one Dracula is in love with, not Mena? I remember one, but can't put a name to it. Maybe I'm Mandela'd or something.

[@kriitikko]

@@CorbCorbin yes I know the Dracula love story had been done before but it was the success of the 1992 version that made everyone do it afterwards. The only film that actually had an enjoyable reincarnated love story was "Love At First Bite" and that was a comedy. I think the one you're talking about is the 1973 Dan Curtis film, starring Jack Palance, in which it was Lucy who resembled Dracula's dead wife.

[@HarryBuddhaPalm]

I think you're right because I think I saw a movie were Dracula was in love with Lucy but I also can't remember the name of it.

[@CorbCorbin]

kriitikko Aha! Thank you! Knew I wasn't misremembering. First Bite, George Hamilton Drac., very fun movie from my childhood. I enjoy the 92' movie as Coppola's Dracula, but it did spawn a certain plot style. I like the Herzog Nosferatu, and the Shadow of the Vampire, although not Bram Stoker's Dracula, it's the non romantic version, I like better. I'd honestly, rather see the Anne Rice lore, done correctly, than another Dracula movie.

[@MaxCovington543]

CorbCorbin I like Herzog's Nosferatu as well (the opening credits is very chilling). I'm still waiting for Robert Eggers to do a remake of Nosferatu. Would really like to see his vision of it after watching "The Witch".

[@terryr.1243]

Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula is "THE (!!!)" best movie version of Dracula BECAUSE it is the first movie that employs literally 90+% of the actual novel; it even included the character Quincey that many previous movies about Dracula NEVER mentioned. Many previous versions are nothing more than a rehashing of the Bela Lugosi 1930s Dracula. Coppola's movie is EXTREMELY faithful to the WRITTEN novel, ..EXCEPT the beginning and the ending. There was NO romance between Dracula and Mina: THAT (!!!) part is where the movie ruins it for me, ...BUT (!!!) it's still the best "EVER" movie version of Dracula made. ALSO, the sexiness of the Coppola movie was deliberate because the actual novel was an social ALLEGORY of the stuck-up sexual mores of that time. AND Coppola's Frankenstein TOO is based PRIMARILY on Mary Shelley's WRITTEN novel (subtitled 'The Modern Prometheus ') and NOT a constant rehashing of the Boris Karloff movie versions. NOTE that the name is from the Doctor and that the monster has NO name, ...just like in the novel. BOTH Coppola's movies is/ARE like (just-as-good) as reading the actual novels, ...NOT the traditional '30s movies we all know.

[@filipematias5127]

Agreed 💯 % with you my friend!

[@MJEvermore853]

I totally agree as well

[@ikmnification5737]

What about Insane Asylum Guy?

[@captainwolfstrik]

Everyone always forgets about Reinfield.

[@juanpablovallejos8762]

@@captainwolfstrik Renfield*, and it is played by the great Tom Waits

[@johntabler349]

In the book Renfield is key to unraveling the mystery of Dracula

[@filipematias5127]

Mr. Renfield!

[@TheBlackSpiral]

Master! Master..! You promised me eternal life!

[@ketchupkatsup9805]

ngl it's one gorgeous looking movie; the sets, look, cinematography, costumes, effects (no CGI) and music are phenomenal

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

CGI wasn't much of a thing or very good at the time so they couldn't really rely on that.

[@this_Joe_Smith]

Thank you guys -- you get to the point, you don't waste time, your jokes are quick and your visuals are on point. Thanks!

[@dainiuspetraitis9201]

Okay. You did Dracula, now do Frankenstein. And the exorcist. And the invizible man. And the war of the worlds. And game of thrones. And the metro series (books vs games, I think that would be something new). And everything Stephen King that you haven't done yet.

[@matepavic6929]

Game of thrones would recquier a whole new channel doing just that.

[@cha5]

Jungi Ito's Frankenstein Manga adaptation of the Mary Shelly story is mind blowing, Well worth seeking out if you have a strong stomach.

[@NoOne-py5or]

One difference horrid accent....

[@beneastwood8440]

No One blue inferno!

[@mikesrphn69]

Please do what the difference of Interview with a Vampire book and movie

[@bigstunna2049]

Yeeeessss

[@danielavelasco2788]

OMG PLEASE

[@enigma7784]

That would be brilliant

[@smithwesson1896]

9:06 In some versions of the novel, after Morris stabs Dracula in the heart with his Bowie knife, Harker either simply slashes his throat or flat out chops his freaking head off with a kukri knife

[@seanrush3723]

Fucking THANK YOU. I've been scrolling through comments for too long to find this. Papa bless.

[@smithwesson1896]

@@seanrush3723 I don't know where they kept getting the idea of Van Helsing staking him through the heart or burning him with sunlight

[@smithwesson1896]

@@seanrush3723 I've seen my share of Dracula

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

That's the version that I KNOW of it and the one that's seen everywhere, I have no idea where they got the part that Dracula just turns to dust immediately after Quincy stabs him.

[@smithwesson1896]

@@Gadget-Walkmen That's too tame.

[@bolinvolovan3060]

What's the difference: Last of the Mohicans, Michael Mann's adaptation, please. This one was funny, the video, not the movie, Bram Stoker's Dracula would have benefited more with a post John Wick Keanu Reeves than with a post Bill and Ted Excellent Adventure Keanu Reeves. The Dracula book is excellent except for the Victorian gender roles and contemporary frame of mind but that's something to keep in mind while reading it, since it was the way society was at the period, movies can be revisionist to please audiences though. The one thing really missing in the book would be the music, Wojciech Kilar's score is really otherworldly.

[@pedrocarvalho5775]

Dracula (1992) is basically Victorian Twilight,

[@123haninhk]

Whoever edited and added the animation for this video, thank youuu 🦇

[@thomasgrindol9124]

Please do a what’s the difference for Pet Semetary.

[@jjenk911]

The 1989 movie is pretty faithful to the book.

[@Mos_eisley_photography]

Yes, please!

[@alexsilva28]

YES

[@rafaelalodio5116]

That would be interesting.

[@Starlightean]

I own the movie and the book and I just love the gothic romantic atmosphere and characters. The story is dark yet sweet in both cases and vampires depicted are seriously scary. The well depicted mood overcomes all the flaws in the movie (aka. the english accents). Also, the soundtrack and costume design. Orgasmic.

[@HarbingerOfBattle]

The book is much better. Dracula is what he is supposed to be: a monster. Not a broken hearted noble, or a lonely immortal, or a sexy gentleman. A monster is all he ever has to be.

[@Clay3613]

Nah, the movie is great.

[@TheMrSwampert]

I agree, the movie is awesome

[@cha5]

I disagree, the movie tries to humanize Dracula too much and turn him into some damn moping Ann Rice vampire. Dracula in the novel is an animalistic predator who is about as sentimental towards his prey as a cat is in playing with a mouse in it's claws before it kills it.

[@robbiewalker2831]

I suppose the Castlevania Dracula is enough; he's a mix between human and monster. Because he was once a human being, and is now taking the path of a monster. Suppose that Castlevania was taking notes of Bram Stoker's Dracula, and how he's depicted as a host, a schemer, and an oldschool vampire.

[@HarbingerOfBattle]

Allow me to clarify, Yes I liked the book better, but I enjoyed the movie a lot too. It's an excellent adaption. The most faithful one to the book. In fact had it not been for the humanizing of Dracula and Keanu Reeves as Harker, it would be my favorite Dracula movie. Those were the only 2 things holding it back. It's just a shame that these two things held it back by so much.

[@ceruleanwalker1069]

When I was a kid I loved this movie, as an adult I can't enjoy it. Mostly because Mina and Jonathans love is what pulls you through the book. Especially the part where they both make plans to end their lives if she becomes a vampire. By trying to make Dracula sexy and have Mina be into it (even though he murdered her best friend.) I feel that they ruined my favourite aspect. Dracula doesn't need a tragic back story or a lost reincarnated love. Dracula is a guy out for a good time, eating drinking and taking beautiful women because he can. Mel Brooks put it best, he is dead and loving it.

[@filipematias5127]

This movie is one of the BEST adaptations of Bram Stoker's Dracula novel wether you like it or not: the acting, the soundtrack, the photography, the wardrobe, the sets, the props, the locations and the camera tricks are amazing works of art that depict the dark Gothic Victorian atmosphere of the original story!

[@xtmt1234]

@Filipe Matias Bela Lugosi's Dracula was better. This is just a melodramatic hammy adaptation of the novel. It's fine if you're into that but it's no way one of the "BEST" adaptation of the novel lmao.

[@filipematias5127]

@@xtmt1234 : The BEST actor playing "Dracula" is Max Schrek in "Nosferatu"! Bela Lugosi is one of the best along with Christopher Lee... but Coppola's movie is definitely very good (better than the crappy Twilight saga or the Vampire Diaries TV series not to mention Underworld, True Blood and Blade which are SHIT)!

[@lennydale92]

Agreed, the books story was better at conveying a love story. The film really dilutes the relationship between mina and Jonathan to the point where I find it hard to believe that she would ever happily remain married to him.

[@renatenha]

Filipe Matias Exactly. Coppolla attention to details is great, as such every time Dracula talks in the castle there's screen and weird sounds. That's is awesome

[@akia]

say what you will but this movie had some of the best costume design and scoring

[@josiane9193]

The real dracula (Vlad III) was a sadistic psychopath who killed even beggars, he did not love a woman, he had several lovers, the film is just a naive idelization of a screenwriter. Genghis khan was looking for a way to be immortal, Dracula if he pursued this path would be for the same reasons that genghis khan, power and not for some idealization of hollywood.

[@politicsanddance5727]

Nobody: Keanu: I don't like blood. It's salty and wet and sticky and it gets everywhere

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

LMAO piss off with that nonsense. Keanu is a great actor but he was not fit at all for this role in this movie.

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

LOL Just stop, Keanu Reeves is a GREAT actor and has proven as such, he was just massively miscast for this movie due to his performance and accent.

[@martinhennigan1113]

In the Blu-Ray of Dracula there is a great bonus feature about the amazing costumes and Gary was shown in a still photo wearing the armadillo like armor Eiko Ishioka designed for the driver.

[@BENKYism]

I never knew that Gary Oldman was Serious Black, and I've seen every single Harry Potter movie. The man can play pretty much any role.

[@LittleB2007]

He hasn't been called the greatest chameleon in Hollywood for nothing. Even won an Oscar for the most mind-blowing chameleon job we've ever seen

[@filipematias5127]

Sirius!

[@MJEvermore853]

I recommend watching the movie, "Immortal Beloved", where he plays Ludwig Van Beethoven. It was an incredible performance.

[@TobiasTurkelton]

@@MJEvermore853 Yes! That movie *guts* me 😫 Amazing performance s all around.

[@ultravioletpisces3666]

He’s a shape shifter lol

[@quidproquo82]

One of my all time favorite movies.

[@chriswald7700]

When I was I child I was listening to an audio book version of Dracula. The scene that terrified me most was when a mother was begging for the life of her baby and is torn apart by Dracula's wolfs. This scene is omitted in almost every movie version - also in Coppola's (´though the baby appears). I love the Coppola Version ´though I don't find it far from being a faithful adaptation as Coppola claims it to be and the romance kinda waters the Gothic vibe. Anyway... the costumes are delicious, the score is among the best in movie history (don't get it why it wasn´t nominated for an Oscar) and a stellar cast.

[@Qaosbringer]

"barbarian horde"? Wait, what? so Ottoman Empire is just a "barbarian horde" to you? Are you real?

[@sonyabelmontfarenheght1189]

Yes,Otoman Empire were barbaric.read the history

[@carloszapata847]

They were from the steppe

[@scotcheggable]

To be fair it isn't an inaccurate description.

[@jimmyhill5079]

Some have theorized that the movie stole the reincarnation of Mina from the DnD module Ravenloft which is basically a Dracula ripoff.

[@cedk144]

Actually, the theme of the undead monster seeking his lost love in a modern reincarnated woman originate in Karloff's The Mummy. The TV Dan Curtis production of Dracula starring Jack Palance also uses it but the lost love is Lucy. When she's staked, Dracula goes after Mina in revenge.

[@naglma]

I Strahd - good book, but I can't remember what happens in it. I was running a Ravenloft campaign at the time.

[@ichigokurosaki1081]

RIP Leslie Nielsen. Dracula dead and loving it was a classic

[@Rahab111222]

He's still alive. Well, undead. As a vampire.

[@Jabberwockybird]

Belotnik!

[@michaelforthriller]

the 1992 movie was ahead of its time. I Used to skip it or find it dull due to the fact that it was not the traditional looking count Dracula but after watching it again and again it has grown on me. Right now its one of the best vampire films in my book and i think gary oldman's performance as Dracula is the best right up there with Bela Lugosi. I'd strongly suggest to anyone that dismisses this film to give it another chance.

[@LibraGamesUnlimited]

I saw it in theaters right after reading the book and loved it. This and "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein" Use to watch them back to back on DVD all the time.

[@craigbreuwet2029]

Yeah well this movie is not a close film adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel as Francis For Coppola has suggested and I have read Bram Stoker's novel multiple times

[@LibraGamesUnlimited]

I don't know how anyone could say that. It is very much like the book and the book is a classic.

[@LibraGamesUnlimited]

It has been awhile since I've read it or seen the movie but my memory is all the movie really changed was adding the love story part (which I think was done to make things less random, in the book Dracula just happens to show up where Mina and Lucy are spending the summer, he just happens to attack Lucy at random, etc... and the romance subplot humanizes Dracula so he's not just a blood sucking monster). Other than that and maybe adding/omitting very minor details I seem to recall it being pretty accurate. Certainly, the most accurate version I can recall ever seeing.

[@JohnSmith-eo5sp]

Nosferatu the Vampyre, from 1979 is the best

[@TylerRakstis]

You forgot to mention the reason they started the film like that was because it was a way to add the real life inspiration to Dracula, Vlad the Impaler. His Romanian name, Draculea, means "son of the dragon."

[@Chameleon1616]

"Dracula singlehandedly taking down a barbarian horde" That would have been the Ottoman empire you turnip. They were kind of the light of civilisation at the time. If also pricks aswell.

[@ZanathKariashi]

The Fez, shish-kabob, and Mount & Blade/Warband. That's about it.

[@slifer875]

Some suggestion for future "What's the Difference?": Good fellas, The ring, Godzilla (eastern movies vs western movies), spider-man (comics, vs movies vs japanese spiderman), the Body/stand by me, the disney princess films vs the grimm tales. Since you also do manga: berserk (97 anime vs manga), ghost in the shell (live action movie vs manga vs the 1995 animated movie) and the ghibli films vs their respective books.

[@slashbash1347]

Eh, most anime are very close to the manga. Not too much difference to talk about, especially of the anime gets cut short.

[@slifer875]

The ones i mention have massive differences betwen their source material.

[@Ruukas9]

Hmm, I think you like anime.🤔

[@slifer875]

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!??, no way men.....

[@evilsWa]

Does the OP even understand the concept of What’s the Difference?

[@Turalcar]

1:00 Transylvania at the time was part of Austria-Hungary

[@PrivateAckbar]

The film DEFINITELY implies the carriage driver is Dracula.

[@ericspratling9252]

Considering that book-Dracula was a fairly obvious metaphor for rape, Coppola turning movie-Dracula into a "sympathetic" character is extra uncomfortable. And that's not even getting into how much the movie botches some of the most impressively cinematic and/or emotional beats of the book, like the group confronting Drac as he's attacking Lucy (Drac's epic speech is barely audible as the heroes run around ineffectually) or Lucy meeting with her three suitors early on (movie plays a very sweet & stirring scene for gormless comedy).

[@gackpoid6741]

When I first watched the movie i was like: Wait, Dracula looks like Sirius Black lol. *Sees the credits* OMG I WAS RIGHT

[@vladtepes97]

9:20 you're old enough now to understand the difference between a prologue and an epilogue. prologues come before the beginning of the story's action. epilogues come after the end.

[@SpecialAgentBillMaxwell]

In the book Dracula forces Mina to drink his blood (from his chest, like in the movie) while Harker (Keanu) is in the room in a trance sleep. So Dracula takes her while her husband is in the room. I always thought it was as a show of power.

[@BrontisShane]

Haha, this was a really great episo- OH!! Geez, she just stabbed him in the heart. But yeah, I really enjoyed thi- OH GOD! She took off his head!

[@PedroSilvahf]

I remember some years ago when someone said they would make a film about that bit on the ship

[@charliechaplinsghost]

The Last Voyage of Demeter

[@PedroSilvahf]

They MADE the film? Wtf

[@charliechaplinsghost]

Nah, I think it comes out in 2020. Vigo Mortensen is attached

[@cruzcflores]

That is my favorite part of the book. It’s basically a short slasher movie inside an epic Gothic action horror

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

Yeah it came out, and it was pretty good! Loved it alot!

[@Hunter-D.]

The book is sooo much better. Character are better developed, and there isn't this nonsense crappy love story that ruined dracula for the successives 20 years.

[@anastasiazhdanova1578]

lyvonnel the love story was already there in several Dracula 70s movies. It was not that movie that introduced it.

[@caligulalonghbottom2629]

the book is dreadfully boring. even as someone who enjoys reading, i loathed it. for some students, its required reading so...not the best lol. I enjoyed The Great Gatsby or Pere Goriot far more than Dracula.

[@DianaDxD]

Apparently there was one creepy fact they forgot to mention. When Lucy dies her corpse is described as beautiful and attractive. I know it's because she's a vampire by this point it's still kinda creepy and gross🤮

[@karenlogan6]

I love this movie. The visuals, the sets, the costumes, the music. It has such a great gothic atmosphere! Oldman made a great vampire - he was so beastly and malevolent in one instance, then had a touch of humanity in another instance, then went back to killing again.

[@ProfBowen]

The plot device of Mina being a reincarnation of Dracula’s lover was first presented in the Dan Curtis directed 1973 version scripted by Richard Matheson

[@user-hk8um3oe2q]

I love your show, but you forgot the bonus difference. A scene in the film features the man bat creature that is not in the book. The creature was created just for the film. And it was a last minute ideal. Not covered in the original budget.

[@freddybeer]

So true. Thank you, erm........MJ? Lol!

[@ichigokurosaki1081]

Yeah Gary Oldman wanted the manbat

[@freddybeer]

Not sure if it was Gary who requested anything like the bat suit. It may have been Francis who devised the solution. In the making of doc, James V Hart explains (I think I remember the exact quote! I've seen it so many times!) 'Gary needed to be in some form that was terrifying to these men who had crosses and knives and guns and yet have this rather eloquent exchange with Van Helsing........so Francis came up with the bat suit. Now the scene works like gangbusters. They're AFRAID of Gary!'

[@craigbreuwet2029]

There were a quite a few things in the movie that was not in Bram Stoker's novel Dracula not just the giant size man bat

[@davidgagnon3781]

Dracula bought ten properties around London. So why did he store all his native earth in Carfax Abbey? If he had distributed it around London, he would not have had to rush back to Transylvania.

[@willmfrank]

There is a passage in the novel which details our heroes tracking down all of Dracula's properties and destroying the earth-boxes in each of them.

[@seantds619]

When Dracula gets younger, I'm reminded of Johnny Depp. He just looks like that would be his name.

[@willmfrank]

"Gary Old Man."

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

Johnny Depp REALLY should have played the role of Johnathan Harker.

[@johnashforth6096]

The closest version to the book is Count Dracula the 1977 BBC version

[@michaeljosefjackson]

You guys are fuking amazing

[@CSC52698]

The book is a favourite of mine. I read it years after I watched the movie. I could see the similarities. One thing the movie did get right was the casting choices, except for Keenu Reeves. That accent was just dreadful, but in time I've managed to get through it. Decent movie. Amazing book.

[@yasao_art]

Thank you for creating such an excellent video on both, one of my favorite novels and my most favorite movie adaption of it. ♥

[@sananaryon4061]

There is some fridge brilliance in the book: When Van Helsing ends vampire Lucy, he cuts her head, fills her body with garlic, stakes her, and leaves behind several anti vampire stuff like holy bread. He doesn't do this later, as in the Lucy affair, he was testing out everything he knew to find out what would work.

[@quasarone3083]

One of the most underrated movies (in my opinion) ever. Sure Keanu Reevs isnt great in it, but the practical effects are still amazing, Gary Oldman gives one of his best performances (which is really saying something) and the score is among the best of all time

[@damianoakes2592]

This feels like a pedantic complaint, but I have to mention it: the prologue takes place in 1462, not 1452. The reason this matters is because it takes place after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, which happened in 1453, and during the spread of the Ottoman Empire into Eastern Europe.

[@MiharuNeko93]

Everyone can do a new version of a new story but this movie should't be called "Bram Stoker's Dracula" because it's not. I personally hate the love story between dracula and mina because I loved how strong she was to be in love with jonathan and use the connection to find dracula. I also think that the book is a little boring (apart from the part when jonathan tries to escape the castle). But.... that's my opinion.

[@HarryBuddhaPalm]

It's an opinion shared by a lot of other people, including me.

[@LaLloronaVT]

I got bored as shit reading the book too since I was expecting it to be a bit more violent or something

[@captain_hat6247]

You didn't feel anything for the love story b/w the bland girl and the unapologetic baby-eating monster?

[@tereziamarkova2822]

Well, yeah, at the time, writing was a bit more... Rambley than it is now. Most people back then never left their home town, so vivid description of things that don't seem that exciting to us were pretty enjoyable for them. Most of us also have different standards when it comes to horror genre and vampires; after all, before Dracula, they weren't a well-known creatures, at least not in the west, and the idea of blood-sucking monsters probably seemed pretty scary to them.

[@youfoolwarrenisdead6400]

Also, i guess the whole thing with making the story seem like it was compiled from actual diary entries, letters, etc. was more scary back then. Novels and short stories did that a lot. Now it's just boring because they futilely spend so much ink on making something, that won't ever seem realistic, feel realistic.

[@IAmWBeard]

The book is a good classic monster story but the movie is one of my fav movies of all time. Literally seen it dozens of times, no joke.

[@Denisov-in7ji]

Bram Stoker describes Lucy's wanderings elegantly and towards the end, when Mina worriedly goes in pursuit, she is seen fast asleep, a shadowy, red-eyed figure looming over her. Feedings are implied. Sex, not once. Mina was a faithful wife and in spite of willingly laying in the bed of Dracula's wives, before they attacked him, so was Jonathan Harker. In the movie, both are portrayed to be fair less loyal. Lucy is practically deemed a whore, while in the book, she only loosely mentions wishing to marry all three of her suitors. Because in an ideal world, it would spare everyone so much pain. Apart from this remark, Stoker describes her as innocent, with naivety only a woman of high standing can have. Out of everything, I took the most offense to how Van Helsing was depicted. Falling for Mina's advances, Lucy apparently holding desires for him. In the books, he is a pure and reliable man, who would never be led astray. Rather than a screaming lunatic, who is all too happy to kiss a married woman, until she intends to bite him. His affection for Lucy is fatherly, whereas he admires Mina for her wit, describing her as a woman with ‘the mind of a man’. Writer Bram Stoker drew on his marriage to Florence Balcombe to develop the relationship between Mina and Jonathan. Bram Stoker and his wife lived a long monogamous marriage. Not every relationship, not even in the 19th century, follows the stereotypes of frustration and betrayal as imagined by certain screenwriters and film directors. There is monogamous marriage. People may call the book conservative Victorian and the film showed a sexually free woman. But remember that the author himself had a long marriage that completely deviates from these stupid stereotypes in the film.

[@Denisov-in7ji]

Except for the supernatural, Stoker offers a more realistic glimpse of a 19th-century relationship than the pair of goofs who adapted the book.

[@robinhoodwasasocialist.1401]

The drivers extendo arm is in the book

[@LoneCloudHopper]

The biggest difference I noticed was that in the book everyone was so sweet and innocent, whereas the film really sexualized everyone (and everything) for the twentieth century. The characters all had more obvious human weaknesses now and weren't so squeaky clean. Meanwhile, Dracula was humanized as to be more likable, relate-able, and human. This makes him far less scary and intimidating however. Van Helsing is now an implied bisexual and pretty loose about his sexuality. Dracula doesn't just drain his victims' blood, he screws them too. The film reminds me a little of "A Rocky Horror Picture Show," if done more seriously lol

[@gawaineross4656]

Gary Oldman was absolutely outstanding in this version.

[@cripplehawk]

In the book Van Helsing knew it was a vampire doing it. But he did not know who was vampire was (Even after killing Lucy). After Mina returned with Harker Van Helsing visited her to apologize for a letter he has written (A blunt letter telling her Lucy and her mother are dead). Mina then tells him of Harker's trip and his encounters and illness. Van Helsing wanted to see Harker's diaries. She gave him Harker's diaries and begged him not to laugh at his notes. It was only then that when Van Helsing read Harker's diaries. He found the Vampire they were looking for.

[@lavenderlylin]

*coff coff* the book was better *coff*

[@homhable]

*coff coff* In the second half when Van Helsing appears the book becomes unbearably shallow *coff*

[@renatenha]

Rylan As always.

[@nosferatuoddz7974]

*coff* *coff* You're not original *coff*

[@ponchomkr]

I thought the movie was a good VAMPIRE movie. Like it reminds you that vampires are supposed to be supernatural creatures with powers and a sense of eeriness all thanks to the stunning visuals and special effects. Also, just Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins, and Winona Ryder.

[@CorpsmanUP87]

Ahem. The Turks weren't a barbarian horde. They were actually a technologically advanced civilization which was a huge factor on how they were able to swallow up country after country in southeast Europe. Doesn't mean they were bloodthirsty, though.

[@MJEvermore853]

👍👍👍👍👍

[@CorpsmanUP87]

Barbarian horde?!?! The Ottomans were way more technologically advanced than some backwater Romanian principality. Hell, they had steel weapons and gunpowder while Dracula's armies were still stuck in the dark ages.

[@MrRolandMichel]

Well, for one we can focus on the Horrific casting with Keanu and Winona, their flat and wooden "acting", not to mention their miserable attempts at "British" accents was laughable, at best. Now Mr. Gary Oldman, on the other hand, was spectacular, as usual. It's quite a shame actually, it could have been something really special with two other, better choices for the protagonist leads.

[@whodatgurl13]

👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾I 100% agree! I must say though, Winona was somewhat better than Keanu.

[@onewinter9411]

I love thjs movie so much. More than the book.

[@michaelkelligan7931]

Homer Simpson said it best when he leans over to his family and whispers......"his haircut is sooo queer!" Lolx2

[@WarhavenSC]

The one and only time "old person makeup" looked good. I don't know how they did it, but nobody ever gets it right... but for some reason, it looked really good in this.

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

LOL NOT even close, there's been PLENTY of times when "old person make up" looked good in MANY movies. There is no tHe oNe aNd onLY tImE" AT ALL as MANY people have gotten it right entirely so so don't ever get this nonsense that "nOBodY EveR geTs iR rIGHt" as that's 100% NOT true at all.

[@ShadowsHeat]

Best Dracula movie perhaps

[@catonkybord7950]

It is and will always be Bela for me.

[@HarryBuddhaPalm]

It's a hell of a lot better than the Coppola piece of shit.

[@catonkybord7950]

Playfulpanthress My tastes are pretty much fixed by now. How old do you think I am? 😂

[@princedizzy3506]

Kinski in Nosferatu the vampyr

[@residentgrigo4701]

The Hellsing OVAs are better that´s a mini-series and even less accurate to the Stoker lore.

[@athenassigil5820]

Loved both film and novel, but for different reasons. The film, though campy melodrama, had beautiful cinematography and used old cinematic tricks like in the silent era. The book is epistlery and has different takes to flesh out the central story. I just like Dracula in all his manifestations, I guess....oh, I really loved the Marvel comic run in the 70s and early 80s....

[@kennethmller6458]

You guys do the best voiceovers👌

[@emperorpalpatine1986]

Right now I wanna make a comedic version of the movie Dracula and the book can I use your line “hello it is me Dracula definitely not the driver”

[@jessyester]

I just finished the book over the weekend (which I absolutely loved) and then watched this movie (which I absolutely hated), and within the first few pages of the book I started picturing Bill Hader as Dracula. I honestly thought a lot of Jonathan's first entries were kind of hilarious.

[@craigbreuwet2029]

If only this 1992 film was a close adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel but it is not as Francis Ford Coppola has suggested if you read Bram Stoker's novel Dracula you would see that it is not even close. The closest one to date is the 1977 BBC movie Count Dracula with Louis Jourdan, even though Louis Jourdan just doesn't seem to quite pull off being Dracula this movie was still the closest film adaptation to Bram Stoker's novel

[@filipematias5127]

Louis Jourdan was one of the worst actors playing Dracula but that BBC adaptation and its production were in fact one of the BEST!

[@craigbreuwet2029]

@@filipematias5127 Yes I agree that Louis Jourdan was not the best actor to had played Dracula but the 1977 BBC movie Count Dracula was and still is the closest film adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula and the 1992 Dracula movie is not even a close film adaptation to the novel

[@pedrocarvalho5775]

Dracula (1992) is basically Victorian Twilight, Dracula (1977) is better.

[@StephenPike]

Even at 12 years old I knew that 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' was a complete "miss". The films biggest and most glaring flaw is, what I consider, some of the WORST casting ever in cinema history. Both Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder were utterly and laughably wrong for the parts of Jonathan and Mina. Their miscasting in the film ruined the entire piece. I think, had the roles been properly cast, it would've been the classic that it should have been. On paper it seems like a "Can't lose". Sadly, it lost. Everything else about it, for me, worked. But I can't look past those two and their terrible acting in their respective roles and it takes me right out of the movie. Too bad.

[@TheSaksutin]

Keanus performance is just so poor ;(

[@TheRealNormanBates]

2:38 WRONG sir! The blue "will'o the wisps" (in the book) are small blue flames Harker sees in the woods, like dancing lights. The will'o the wisps are supposed to be remnants of the souls of those buried in unmarked graves... thus indicating that Dracula and his wives have killed a LOT of people and have disposed of their bodies in the woods surrounding the castle.