Dracula

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)

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. (08/02/2009)

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)

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. (11/02/2013)

I have to agree with those viewers who believe that form triumphs over content. Francis Ford Coppola has delivered an aesthetically perfect film; that’s undeniable. The composition, exteriors, and interesting camera work are all top-notch within the genre. But the story is where it falls short. At times, I got lost in the various subplots. The disjointedness of the main storyline really undermined the film for me. However, one aspect does save it: Gary Oldman. He completely immersed himself in his role! An excellent performance in every way (he often evoked genuine and unfeigned terror with his portrayal of the Wallachian prince). As for the rest of the cast? Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing was a highlight, and his charisma radiated in all directions. And Keanu Reeves? He slightly disappointed me; his performance seemed wooden at times. To sum up... It’s definitely not a disaster... but I wouldn’t elevate Dracula to the heavens. 6.5/10 (10/24/2023)