Drakula

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. (27.05.2002)

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. (13.06.2002)

I don’t care how admired F.F. Coppola is, he doesn’t understand the horror genre. His Dracula feels like a prude fantasy and a parade of characters (or caricatures) where the only thing I liked was the look of Dracula’s castle. And that’s very little. (01.05.2009)

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)

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... (28.01.2004)

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. (10.03.2007)

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)

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)

A clear five star affair in its personality and style. Supported by an excellent soundtrack. (17.06.2005)

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)