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)

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 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)

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)