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... (2004-01-28)

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. (2009-08-01)

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. (2002-06-12)

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%. (2012-09-09)

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. (2011-09-10)