Dracula

Francis Ford Coppola only pulled off Dracula halfway, which in his case means a clear defeat. He was able to create a fascinating atmosphere wherever the camera turned, and for the viewer, it is not hard to feel like you're in a chilling forest in Transylvania after five minutes. However, his attempt at an animalistic interpretation of the story undermines him, where there is excessive sighing in emotional scenes, thus transitioning into incomprehensible perversion. The captivating story of tragic love then gains alarming cracks due to the fact that it is quite difficult for emotions to be expressed by the actors. Surprisingly, this applies mainly to Keanu Reeves, whose Jonathan is, despite his troubled fate, just an empty, sorrowful figure. Alongside the solid cynic Anthony Hopkins and the magnificent Dracula played by Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder is the queen of the evening. In her portrayal, Mina is a perfectly adorable creature torn between pure love for Jonathan and an insane craving for the lord of darkness. There was one other problem Coppola didn't quite solve, and that's the special effects. Since he vigorously tried to avoid CGI, he should have paid a bit more attention to all the miniatures and shots. As it is, some shots are downright distracting. Dracula, as a result, is not a bad movie, but despite its perfect atmosphere, it has too many accompanying negatives. (03/10/2007)

A formally balanced mix of modern filmmaking and old stage-hand style. It’s a little weaker in terms of content, but as a fan of Vampire films, I acknowledge Coppola's inclination toward Count Dracula and the emphasis on the romantic line of the whole story. Rather than a monster, Dracula is a cursed rebel, fighting god's power and guided by the voice of love more than the voice of blood. For some, it may be heretical, but I like this romantic view of Stoker's story. Moreover, I really like Gary Oldman, both as an age-abounding old man and as a bewitching gentleman. Rather than horror, it's a gothic romance, rather than a portrait of a terrifying monster, it's the humanization of the Earl of Transylvania... (01/28/2004)

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. (06/13/2002)

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. (09/11/2011)

The visuals are captivating, Coppola plays with shadows, sets, camera, lighting, sometimes cutting quickly, sometimes putting emphasis on a slow capture of details. All of this creates a positive impression, the director firmly holds this film in his hands and his strongly inventive style and strong visual stylization are the main assets. However, that doesn't change the fact that, as is often the case with Coppola's films, I was bored. (03/17/2005)