Dracula vs. Bram Stoker's Dracula



I guess I like the new version more.

Aww, I love Bela, but Tod Browning just can't beat Copolla's Dracula. <3

Having read the book, I'm SHOCKED that people think that Coppola's version is unfaithful. It is the single most faithful adaptation made from Stoker's novel, and wonderful as the Tod Browning version is, it isn't even close. BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA is rightly titled, and the superior film, imo.

Bram Stoker's Dracula really shouldn't have that title considering how much it strays from the novel. I enjoy the film but not that much and that's mostly because of the pointless changes it made, the chief being trying to turn Dracula into some sort of sympathetic character who is capable of love. Lame.

I enjoy the more creepy and romantic Bella Version its still great with way better dialog even though i really like the 1992 one its very good i prefer the Original.

Both are good, but I liked Coppola's better.

Bela > Not Bela. 1992's version should've been called "Anne Rice's Dracula", because it did a lot of pointless changes really, trying to turn the count, a deadly creature, into a more human monster, as jetsilveravenger said; lame. And it brutally drags at the end. It's just toooooooo long and it got a lot of boring stuff I hardly cared for, and the acting's VERY poor. Some awesome imagery, though. One of its pros. Anyways, I'd take the way more enjoyable one. It was kinda dated and all, but it's not boring and painful to sit through as Coppola's version is.