It sucks, but it is definitely not blood!

Rating: Null/10 (2 September 2000)

Coppola may have established himself as one of the greatest directors, but his version of Dracula is way beyond bad. Okay, I have to admit that as a typical Hollywood production it is even more than acceptable. Bram StokerÂ´s Dracula however must not be treated as such! It deserves some dignity; unfortunately Coppola was probably more interested in making big money instead. Portraying Dracula as softcore porn in the U.S.A had to be a box office hit without any doubt. The cast he worked with looked promising, but even the talents of Hopkins are invincible and Reeves makes a clown of himself as he tries to speak the Queens English. Gary Oldman is obviously working hard, but he cannot convince as Dracula for one single moment. Oldman simply does not look aristocratic and there is a total lack of horror in his presence. A production like this proves that the best vampire- & Dracula flicks are history. If you want to see a real gothic vampire movie you better look for the old Hammer series. Coppola, Oldman and Hopkins should have studied their colleagues Terence Fisher, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee from the Hammer studio before making this bloodless film!