Drácula de Bram Stoker

Una demostración de referencia del triunfo de la forma sobre el contenido. Francis Ford Coppola parece haber intentado traducir las fantasías de Stoker en evocadoras imágenes cinematográficas con la mayor fidelidad y eficacia posibles, pero se olvidó de los personajes y de la historia misma. Visual y musicalmente, la película es impresionante. El diseño de producción, el vestuario, el juego del camarógrafo con las sombras, las escenas surrealistas individuales, todo está en perfecta armonía con la música única de Wojciech Kilar. ¡Y el reparto! Keanu Reeves como el elegante Jonathan, Winona Ryder como la frágil Mina, Anthony Hopkins como el demoníaco Van Helsing, Tom Waits como el «insectófilo» Renfield, y sobre todo Gary Oldman como el repulsivo pero hipnótico Conde Drácula, todos parecen haber nacido para estos papeles. Pero por muy cautivador que parezca y suene todo, a la historia le falta el corazón de la historia, el alma que, a pesar del conocimiento del tema, podría atraerme a la acción durante dos horas y no dejarme respirar. Drácula de Bram Stoker es una película de terror gótica basada en una obra clásica durante la cual podría estar comiendo palomitas. Lo que, por ejemplo, en el caso de Nosferatu, vampiro de la noche de Herzog, estaría fuera de discusión. (27.05.2002)

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)

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. (13.06.2002)

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)