Bram Stoker's Dracula

Ein Referenzbeispiel für den Sieg der Form über dem Inhalt. Francis Ford Coppola hat versucht, möglichst glaubwürdig und effektiv Stokers Fantasien in suggestive Filmbilder zu übertragen. Dabei hat er aber die Figuren und die Geschichte vergessen. Die visuelle und die musikalische Seite des Films ist großartig. Die Ausstattung, die Kostüme, das Kameramann-Spiel mit den Schatten, die einzelnen surrealistischen Szenen, das alles ist in perfekter Harmonie mit der einzigartigen Musik von Wojciech Kilar. Und das Casting! Keanu Reeves als eleganter Jonathan, Winona Ryder als zarte Mina, Anthony Hopkins als dämonischer Van Helsing, Tom Waits als Insekten-Renfield und vor allem Gary Oldman als ekelhafter, aber hypnotischer Graf Dracula. Alle wurden für ihre Rollen in diesem Film geboren. Das alles hört sich überwältigend an. Der Handlung fehlt jedoch das Herz der Geschichte, der Geist, der in der Lage wäre, mich (obwohl ich den Stoff kenne) für zwei Stunden in die Handlung hineinzuziehen. Bram Stoker's Dracula ist ein gotischer Horror nach klassischer Vorlage, bei dem mich das Kauen von Popcorn nicht stören würde. Das käme z. B. bei Herzogs Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht nicht infrage. (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)

Formal ist es eine ausgewogene Mischung aus modernem Filmschaffen und altem Kulissenstil. Inhaltlich etwas schwächer, aber als Fan von Vampirfilmen schätze ich es, dass Coppola sich an Graf Dracula orientiert und die romantische Linie der Geschichte betont. Dracula ist also kein Monster, sondern ein verfluchter Rebell, der gegen die Macht Gottes kämpft und sich mehr von der Stimme der Liebe als von der Stimme des Blutes leiten lässt. Für manche mag das ketzerisch sein, aber mir gefällt diese romantische Sichtweise von Stokers Geschichte. Außerdem mag ich Gary Oldman sehr, sowohl als altersschwachen alten Mann als auch als charmanten Gentleman. Es ist eben kein Horrorfilm, sondern eine Art "gothic romance", kein Porträt eines schrecklichen Monsters, sondern eine Vermenschlichung des Grafen aus Siebenbürgen... (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)