Dracula 1992

Vincent Canby, New York Times: With Dracula it's apparent that Mr. Coppola's talent and exuberance survive. Read more

Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader: A somewhat dispersed and overcrowded story line that remains fascinating and often affecting thanks to all its visual and conceptual energy. Read more

Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: Oldman is so vivid and funny as the cackling, centuries-old Dracula that we look forward to seeing what he'll do in the London scenes. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: The movie is an exercise in feverish excess, and for that if for little else, I enjoyed it. Read more

Richard Corliss, TIME Magazine: This luscious film restores the creature's nobility and gives him peace. Read more

Time Out: This lack of a convincing central dynamic leads to the occasional sense that the film is little more than a spectacular edifice, but you'll be too spellbound to resist seduction. Read more

Todd McCarthy, Variety: Overall, this Dracula could have been less heavy and more deliciously evil than it is, but it does offer a sumptuous engorgement of the senses. Read more

Hal Hinson, Washington Post: It is Coppola's most lavish and, certainly, his most flamboyant film; never before has he allowed himself this kind of mad experimentation. Read more

Desson Thomson, Washington Post: In Bram Stoker's Dracula, director Francis Ford Coppola wins endless vam-Pyrrhic victories but loses the narrative war. Read more