Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

hung_fao_tweeze The problem with Dracula or vampire movies these days is that there are so many of them and each clings to its various qualities (or lack of) so that watching a TV movie from 1974 and expecting it to register positively against this intimidating backdrop is probably too much to burden any single feature with. However, 'Kolchak: The Night Stalker', also a TV movie from 1974, exceeds expectations and still plays well with audiences today. So, when I mentioned to a fellow movie-buff that I had watched this Jack Palance vehicle, he had never heard of it but felt that it must somehow be awesome simply because of Jack's presence. Unfortunately, this does not hold true here and I had to tell him. Written by Richard Matheson, I was expecting something with a bit of a twist. He wrote 'Twilight Zone' episodes, after all! Perhaps my anticipation was not called for here. This is pretty much a straight-up retelling or alternate realization of the basic Bram Stoker character and tale. There are really no surprises unless one would want to call Dracula seeing a photo of a girl who resembles a woman he loved centuries ago and that becomes his raison d'etre for the rest of the film a surprise twist. Actually, that was a fairly common theme in the old TV show 'Dark Shadows'. Well, what a surprise. Old Dan Curtis is at the directorial helm here and is essentially rekindling ideas he has used previously. So, maybe the failure of this movie lies with the director? That is not to say that this movie is terrible. It is not. But as noted, the sheer prevalence of so many really good vampire movies shoves this one into obscurity as demonstrated by my movie-buff friend's complete ignorance of this film's existence. The bright spot in this limp production is Palance's performance. He is really great here. Without him there isn't much point in viewing this, quite frankly. Alas, gone is the vampire that changes into a bat, a wolf (dark German Shepherds, actually), or a cloud of fog. He still sleeps in a coffin by day, though. He can still be deterred by a crucifix and garlic. Thus, some of the reliable Hollywood vampire nuances are still present. Even the sunlight can be hazardous although he doesn't flake away like Christopher Lee. OK. We can deal with that. Yet, the one that is missing that seemed the most annoying is his ability to enter a household or residence without first getting permission to do so. (Handled superbly in 'Let The Right One In') Lugosi's Dracula, at least, schmoozed his way in and socialized providing dreadful anticipation of what is to become. Palance is much more direct and just crashes in. However, Jack does the absolute best with the material and occasionally transforms a couple of instances into very successful terror. Unfortunately, absolutely everyone else in this presentation is nearly instantly forgettable. In addition, one very annoying feature is the lack of detail to the general surroundings. I realize this was a TV movie and a very limited budget. Still, Dracula's 15th century castle's architecture was occasionally too modern and, in fact, sported catacomb arches built from a very modern brick and mortar painted over with lumpy white paint. It looked very much like any number of more recent basement crawlspaces. The outer facade was unconvincing as well looking frequently like some kind of smoothed stucco. The ambiance of the countryside tries to be mysterious but every now and then I halfway expected someone on a little motorbike to come putting through. Also noted previously are the stock German Shepherds substituting for wolves. Yet, should this film be faulted for resorting to this when so many other movies manage to do so and still chill? That is the problem, isn't it. This movie just didn't chill the way it could have. I am giving it a 6 mostly for Palance's performance. Watch for the way he tries to get around the crucifix held in his direction. He paced nervous and restless like a caged lion. Also, see the screaming rages he flies into. Some of those are surprisingly frightening. It is a shame the rest of the film couldn't keep up with Jack's performance.

TheLittleSongbird For me the definitive version is the Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing one(adaptation-wise and own terms wise) with the Bela Lugosi film close behind, but almost all the adaptations of Dracula are worth watching and this one from 1974 acquits itself more than adequately. There are goofy-looking day-and-night shots, a few moments of erratic pacing and Jonathan Harker is so underwritten that it's almost like he was written as an afterthought, his story resolved rather off-handedly. However Dracula(1974) is stylishly made stuff with moody photography, effectively creepy lighting, very evocative and colourful Victorian period detail and some great locations, especially the one for Dracula's castle which is like a character of its own that matches Dracula in being imposing.Dracula(1974) also benefits from having one of the spookiest and suspense-inducing music scores I've heard in a long time and intelligently done writing and direction that respects the source material while having an imaginative touch as well. Likewise with the story, which has plenty of horror and suspense as well as a melancholic air, it certainly feels like Dracula, apart from missing the erotic quality of the book and the Coppola and Lee adaptations, and stays relatively faithful spirit and story structure-wise. Though with some additions and omissions, most notably the inclusion of the love story and having Lucy looking like Dracula's lost love(also done in the Coppola film, except to me it's handled better here) which added a lot to Dracula's character(it gives him a tortured quality while not forgetting that he's evil) and made why he went to England believable, and the omission of Renfield, a shame as he is one of the book's most interesting characters.There are some great scenes here, especially the spine-chilling opening sequence which is accentuated by the sound effects and the score, Dracula moving through the castle throwing around anyone and anything in his way, when Dracula goes berserk and when Dracula unleashes a wolf from the zoo. The pursuit of Dracula's also quite exciting. The ending may seem silly to some and some may feel like Dracula is defeated too easily and that his character is weakened too much(the latter was definitely deliberate though and makes sense). To me it was a very powerful ending that was also lively and intense and if anything it did improve on the ending of the book somewhat(the too-silly and Dracula-defeated-too-easily-and-weakening-his-character criticisms can be true of the book too, just my opinion of course). The performances are good on the whole, though those of Jonathan and Mrs. Westernra are a touch stiff but that's not entirely their fault as the way their characters are written doesn't help them, and Dracula is the only really colourful character. Simon Ward is very likable and solidly forthright and I personally appreciated the subtlety that Nigel Davenport brought to Van Helsing(but if people find him too low-key that's understandable, as Van Helsing is not the most subtle of characters.Jack Palance's superb Dracula is the performance that dominates as he should, not definitive but extremely worthy. He is often very scary in an animalistic way- see how he bares his fangs, hear how he hisses and look at how imposing he looks with his rugged features and tall height- but he also brings a melancholy, nobleman-quality and ambiguity if not as sensual as others in the role. You are genuinely terrified of Dracula but empathise a little with him too but the film doesn't make the mistake of rooting for him too much. Palance's best moments are when he tries to get into the locked hotel room door with the two women in the room- people here have said that this scene was chilling back then and that it came across to this viewer as chilling to this day is testament to how effective it is-, when he's moving through the hotel and how his facial expression of pain and horror has a glint of relief too as he's dying, it is a subtle touch that can easily be missed but it is brilliantly done. Overall, a very solid and atmospheric adaptation of a classic with a superb titular character performance. 7/10 Bethany Cox

kriitikko This 1973 version of Bram Stoker's novel is produced and directed by Dan Curtis, an American television producer most famous from his Gothic TV-series "Dark Shadows" (1966-1971). During the late 1960's and the early 1970's Curtis produced many famous horror stories to American television, but directed only few of them. "Dracula" is one his directions and a very good one also. Although the TV-budget obviously isn't that great and the film is lacking many special effects, it has a great atmosphere over it, and should also be mentioned of few other things.Richard Matheson's screenplay would not appear as anything but another simplified version of Stoker's book unless Curtis would have added his own touch to it. This is the first version where Dracula travels from Transylvania to England to find a reincarnation of his lost love (Coppola used the same idea more popularly in 1992). In this version the lost love is Lucy (Fiona Lewis) whom Dracula immediately seduce. When Lucy is later destroyed by her own fiancé Arthur (Simon Ward) and Dr. Van Helsing (Nigel Davenport) Dracula's fury knows no boundaries and he takes his revenge through Lucy's best friend Mina (Penelope Horner).This is also the first version to make a clear connection between fictional vampire Count Dracula and the historical Vlad Tépés Dracula, who was the king of Walachia in the 15'Th century. Stoker hinted the connection in his book, as did Jess Franco's movie "El Conde Dracula" and later in 2002 a two-part long TV film. Mostly though, the connection is forgotten from the film adaptations. This version is the only one (with Coppola's film) to make the connection very clear by showing a portrait of Dracula and saying it is Vlad Tépés.The true heart and soul of this film is Jack Palance. Palance, who had worked with Curtis in 1968 in "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", is probably the most faithful Dracula to Stoker's book. Palance plays Dracula as an ancient warlord whose will was so strong it survived death and who doesn't allow anything or anyone to stand in his way. His Dracula is furious demon who is having a hard time of trying to play human. Just like in Stoker's book, Count Dracula in this film only appears at ease with humans when he retells his ancient battles against the Turks. Otherwise he appears to be not comfortable when playing a nice guy and breaks out into terrible fits of anger when something goes against his wishes. Palance's performance is the most faithful one to Stoker and it completely overshadows other performances in this film (even Davenport can't make his Van Helsing interesting when facing this Dracula). And also, he looks incredible with the black cape.This film should enjoy a wider attention for it is definitely one of the better Dracula films, with a professional direction, great story telling and Jack Palance's wonderful performance. Dracula fans, do not miss this one, totally worth seeing!

HHoffman-2 Before Francis Ford Coppola brought us the lush colors and atmospheric music of his film, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Dark Shadows' creator, Dan Curtis, treated us to his own film of the same title.Based moderately close to the novel from which its based, Bram Stoker's Dracula stars the late Jack Palance as the vampire count. Having a very Slavic-looking physique and powerful presence, Palance fits the role of a Romanian aristocrat perfectly. His mixture of emotions are acted appropriately, without much overacting (though he cringes a little too much).The acting in general, however, is only standard fare; nothing phenomenal. Nigel Davenport's performance as Van Helsing is nowhere near as distinct as the acting of Peter Cushing, Anthony Hopkins, or Edward Van Sloan.The production values reflect the quality of the film a great deal, and I'm happy to say that this film has quality. The sets look appropriate, rivaling that of Hammer Studios'. Robert Cobert's score effectively highlights the anguish of Dracula as well as showing the horror of vampirism and its effect on other characters.There is little more I can say about this film other than it should be viewed for Jack Palance's excellent performance as Count Dracula and the haunting environment that the character inhabits.