Critics reviews

The movie takes its cues from silent film, using double-exposures, forced perspectives, and mirrors to create its oneiric, flagrantly artificial Victorian world; Coppola insisted that all of the effects be accomplished either on-set or in-camera. (He also brought out a real hand-cranked Pathé for the scene where Dracula goes on his first walk through London.) This makes Bram Stoker's Dracula one of the strangest-looking Hollywood films of its time, both opulent and handmade

[It's] a film that has dated better than any other effects-driven entertainment of 1992. It's a genuinely unsettling movie out of time, tactile and purposefully distorted. There's a choppiness to the film's many wondrous images that registers to the eye beautifully, eliding completely the strange haziness and unconvincing fluidity of CGI effects, especially those of the period.

I could be wrong, but I'll bet academic critics will have a field day with Coppola's swarming, overpacked horror extravaganza once they have a chance to digest it... For one thing, it's a movie that would benefit from excerpting and repeated viewings, two classroom standbys. For another, it seizes on all sorts of ideas that were kicking around certain film departments 10 or 15 years ago, such as the notion that movies and psychoanalysis got started around the same time...