Dracula

Dracula, an infinitely cruel and ruthless ruler, but at the same time an immensely loving man, struggles through the centuries to find the love of his life again. This (literally immortal) story comes to life in Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation, with Gary Oldman giving an absolutely brilliant performance as the infamous Transylvanian Count. This Dracula is different from its predecessors, more romantic and laced with an erotic touch. Alongside Oldman, I must single out the equally convincing performances of Winona Ryder and Anthony Hopkins. As far as the technical workmanship is concerned, it is really very good for its time. Last but not least, I must not forget to mention the wonderfully frightening make-up effects and lavish costumes. (09/10/2011)

The excessively stylized sets have panache and give the film an impressive atmosphere. Gary Oldman can't disappoint, his ambivalent Dracula inspires both horror and pity, and he can lick knives in a sexy way. I think the film benefited from taking the legend in a different direction, i.e. making Dracula a creature who is both bloodthirsty and lovelorn. Unfortunately, Coppola’s adaptation has little in common with the book. (06/12/2002)

Francis Ford Coppola shows with his authentic and in every way perfect handling that Count Dracula was actually an unhappy man beyond the reach of love. Compared to the really boring Interview with the Vampire, Coppola's Dracula is a brilliantly directed (it was indeed the directing I found lacking in Interview with the Vampire) and well cast adaptation of Stoker's book. The setting, the art direction, the costumes, the wonderfully evoked atmosphere and above all Coppola's imaginative and breathing direction are the main pluses of Dracula. (08/01/2009)

In the early 1990s, Francis Ford Coppola had a very interesting take on Dracula with American and British actors in the lead. I must say that the movie managed to attract me quite quickly. The werewolf rape might have been ballsy, but overall, this movie contains absolutely all the movie elements that someone else might call trashy. Intentionally, of course. It’s all the more interesting, but at the same time, I’m all the more sorry that the movie isn’t pure fantasy, but rather just a parody of fantasy. It’s all too absurd. Actually, it’s not a movie that can be watched easily. At times, I even wondered if it was a movie that can be watched at all. (11/01/2013)

Dracula is an exemplary case of the victory of form over substance. It’s as if Francis Ford Coppola tried to translate Stoker’s fantasy into evocative cinematic images in the most credible and effective way, but he forgot about the characters and the story itself. In terms of its visual and musical aspects, the film is captivating. The production design, costumes, the cinematographer’s work with shadows and the individual surrealistic scenes are all in perfect harmony with Wojciech Kilar’s unique music. And that cast! Keanu Reeves as the elegant Jonathan, Winona Ryder as the fragile Mina, Anthony Hopkins as the demonic Van Helsing, Tom Waits as the “insectophile” Renfield, and mainly Gary Oldman as the repulsive but mesmerizing Count Dracula…it’s as if all of them were born for their respective roles. But regardless of how captivating it all looks and sounds, the plot lacks the heart of the story, the spirit that, despite my knowledge of the material, could draw me into the action for two hours and take my breath away. Dracula is a gothic horror movie based on a classic story during which I wouldn’t be disturbed by the munching of popcorn. That would not be the case at all with, for example, Herzog’s Nosferatu. (05/27/2002)