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)

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. (11/02/2013)

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)

Coppola's Dracula only came out 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 a problem to feel like 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 Hopkins and the magnificent Dracula played by 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. Coppola didn't quite handle one more problem, 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 disruptive. Dracula, as a result, is not a bad movie, but despite its perfect atmosphere, it has too many accompanying negatives. (03/10/2007)

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)