It's well-regarded, but I find it kind of dull. It's beautifully shot, crazy as a shithouse rat, and the chicks are hot, but that's about it. I'd say you're normal—with the exception of having a tall, narrow, skinless skull.

It's funny how it's called Bram Stoker's Dracula when it's really a combination of every Dracula movie: lines from Browning, lighting from Murnau, visuals from Herzog, science from early Hammer, tits from late Hammer... I'm not familiar with the Frank Langela one, but there's probably some of that in there too.

I think I remember Winona Ryder running in the rain making her top see-through......

Though, that was probably just in my dreams. I used to love Winona Ryder so much back in the day. Anyway, point is- I don't acually remember much in the film, apart from Keanu's bad accent. And Winona. Ah, Winona.....

This.

I watch that movie once in a while just to take in the visuals, but yeah, I can't honestly remember very much of it aside from some really impressive shots, like the train shot and all the various shadow stuff going on. I think the Lugosi version is the high bar for doing any Dracula film, and there's not a hell of a lot of versions that have even come close to that. The Hammer films did some neat stuff, but there are some weird 'rules' to vampires in that series that I never understood, and they seem to just make up new ones for every movie.

The in-camera effects in that flick really blow me away, tho.

And Cutthroat Island, let's not forget.

Of course he's done other movies since Dracula, but for whatever reason he didn't become a movie star like it seemed he was gonna.  Instead he became a That Guy.

What I really like in Bram's Dracula is something they drop after the first act.  The story is told through found materials.  Journals, diaries, etc.  That was a great framing device that was wasted, and I think one of the reasons the movie is so easily forgettable.  Because the film forgot how to tell itself.

And I should love Watchmen.  But I hate that movie.