Dracula

Exemple caractéristique de la victoire de la forme sur le contenu. Francis Ford Coppola semble avoir essayé de transmettre aussi fidèlement et efficacement que possible les fantasmes de Stoker à travers des images de films suggestives, mais il a oublié les personnages et l'histoire elle-même. Du point de vue visuel et musical, le film est captivant. Les décors, les costumes, le jeu du caméraman avec les ombres, les différentes scènes surréalistes, tout cela est en parfaite harmonie avec la musique unique de Wojciech Kilar. Et le casting ! Keanu Reeves en tant qu'élégant Jonathan, Winona Ryder en tant que fragile Mina, Anthony Hopkins en tant que démoniaque Van Helsing, Tom Waits en tant que "entomophile" Renfield et surtout Gary Oldman en tant que comte Dracula répugnant mais hypnotisant, tous semblent nés pour ces rôles. Cependant, aussi impressionnant que tout cela puisse paraître et sonner, l'histoire manque du cœur de l'histoire, de l'esprit qui, malgré ma connaissance de la matière, pourrait me captiver pendant deux heures et m'empêcher de respirer. Dracula est un film d'horreur gothique basé sur une histoire classique, où je ne serais pas dérangé par la mastication de popcorn par exemple. Ce qui ne serait pas envisageable, par exemple, dans le Nosferatu de Herzog. (27/05/2002)

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)

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)