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. (16/03/2005)

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. (01/08/2009)

The film is desperately over-stylized and the form overwhelmingly triumphs over content. But that wouldn't matter so much because I know two similar films, namely Sleepy Hollow and The Company of Wolves, where the studio style works for me equally and both films suit me just fine. However, Coppola does not tell the story with as much ironic detachment as Burton, and he lacks Jordan's poetics as well. In this film, there is much less life than in an average vampire movie. It resembles a wax museum and it is devoid of emotions. With the exception of Hopkins, who belongs more in Dracula: Dead and Loving It, and the overacting Gary Oldman, the male characters are completely forgettable, and unremarkable, including the star Keanu Reeves. Although Winona Ryder typologically corresponds to a fragile Victorian beauty, I appreciate this actress much more for roles that go against her acting type, such as the character of a tough taxi driver in Night on Earth. There are few subjects as exhausted as vampire stories, and perhaps no book has had as many film adaptations as Stoker's "Dracula," so I dare not say where to rank this work among Dracula films, but in terms of atmosphere and emotional impact, I preferred the version by Badham from 1979, which I only gave 3 stars, meaning that in this case I have to go even lower. However, in terms of the set design and visual execution, Coppola's version certainly has something to offer. Yet the romance it offers seems somehow annoying and saggy and as a horror, it doesn't work at all... Overall impression: 45%. (09/09/2012)

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. (01/11/2013)

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. (12/06/2002)