Dracula

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)

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)

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)

I have to agree with those viewers who believe that form triumphs over content. Francis Ford Coppola has delivered an aesthetically perfect film; that’s undeniable. The composition, exteriors, and interesting camera work are all top-notch within the genre. But the story is where it falls short. At times, I got lost in the various subplots. The disjointedness of the main storyline really undermined the film for me. However, one aspect does save it: Gary Oldman. He completely immersed himself in his role! An excellent performance in every way (he often evoked genuine and unfeigned terror with his portrayal of the Wallachian prince). As for the rest of the cast? Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing was a highlight, and his charisma radiated in all directions. And Keanu Reeves? He slightly disappointed me; his performance seemed wooden at times. To sum up... It’s definitely not a disaster... but I wouldn’t elevate Dracula to the heavens. 6.5/10 (23/10/2023)