Dracula

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. (05/28/2002)

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)

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)

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)

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)