Dracula

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)

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)

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)

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 (10/23/2023)

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. (03/09/2007)