Sadly Over-hyped

Brilliant and touching

Boring

Absolutely the worst movie.

If dime romance novels are your thing and not gothic horror, then this is the "Dracula" for you. The moment Frank Langella's suave vamp, with the top few buttons of his shirt detached, picks up Lucy before tossing her on the bed seems to be ripped right from the covers of such bathtub-companion paperbacks. Otherwise, this 1979 "Dracula" is at best instructive in how not to adapt Bram Stoker's novel.From the beginning, it excludes one of the best parts of the story: Jonathan Harker's visit to Transylvania. Instead, it begins with a chaotic and distracting crisscross between scenes of seamen being killed by Dracula in the form of a wolf and of the inmates running amok in Dr. Seward's madhouse. There's 16-plus minutes of overly-dramatic buildup to the reveal of Langella's boyishly-handsome and sociable Count. There's an overblown score. The hairstyles, perms and shags included, are exported from 1979 to the film's setting that is presumably in the 1910s or 1920s judging by artifacts such as the early automobile, phonograph and primitive blood transfusions, etc. The bat attacks are unintentionally funny. And there's a love triangle and a love scene, for crying out loud!The same original play that almost ruined the 1931 "Dracula" films (English and Spanish-language versions) by bogging them down in staginess is reused here instead of the contemporary theatrical revival also starring Langella. Allegedly, the revival was played for camp; the filmed version would've been wise to do likewise if they were going to adapt trash, as they did, but, unfortunately, little to no camp. Among other inexplicable changes, the Mina and Lucy characters switch names, and they're made the offspring of Van Helsing and Seward, respectively. Both ladies are reduced to damsels-in-distress, and Lucy is even seduced into being a traitor and spy for Dracula. Apparently, the filmmakers believe turning the novel's strongest and female hero into a weak, sexual plaything is supposed to be good romance.Things pick up a bit when the strong father figure arrives in the form of Van Helsing--a day after his daughter's funeral... apparently, they couldn't wait. In some far-too-Freudian scenes, he begins by inserting his wood stake into his own daughter, only to later be penetrated himself. There's also a scene of the confrontation of wills between Dracula and Van Helsing that was in the 1931 versions. See, according to these films, the man has a strong will, which the fairer sex lack. Nothing this egregiously sexist was in Stoker's book.This adaptation is horribly inconsistent, too. Van Helsing meets Dracula during the day when the sky is overcast, but he's later surprised to see the Count awake in his Carfax Abbey estate during the day. Mina casts a reflection in a puddle, but not in a mirror. As a vampire, she looks more like a zombie, while Drac is a stud. The filmmakers seem to have adopted vampire lore from various sources and not just Stoker. The death by sunlight may've originated from the 1922 film "Nosferatu," for instance. In any case, it's not from Stoker. I also don't know why Van Helsing goes back the day after driving a stake in his daughter's heart to, then, remove her heart entirely. Dr. Seward is a buffoon who performs blood transfusions and misruns an asylum, and Renfield is an utterly useless character this outing. On the plus side, Harker sports a bite mark from Dracula's bat on his face. And the love scene includes Dracula feeding his breast blood to Lucy, which I guess was sexy enough to adapt here from the novel. Otherwise, this is the kind of Dracula film, as was the 1979 "Nosferatu," for that matter, that's ripe for parody, which, as luck and "Love at First Bite" would have it, was also made in 1979.(Mirror Note: In addition to the aforementioned inconsistencies with Mina's reflections, there's the discovery by Van Helsing that Dracula doesn't cast a reflection in a mirror--a scene similar to the 1931 films, but staged a bit different. There's also a mirror shot where Lucy brushes her hair and removes her crucifix necklace, which allows for her love scene with Drac.)

Dracula (1979)** (out of 4)This big-budget adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel has Frank Langella playing the role of Dracula who sets his eyes (and teeth) on Lucy (Kate Nelligan) while it's up to her father (Donald Pleasence) and Prof. Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier) to stop him.With a capable director like John Badham, a ton of money and a great cast, this 1979 version of the classic story should have been so much better than it actually is. With that said, even though it's easy to call the film a disappointment there's still no question that it does feature some good things but in all honesty that just pours salt into your wounds and is an easy reminder that with a few changes this here could have been one of the best adaptations.I will start off with the good stuff. There's no question that Badham has created a wonderful looking picture. The film contains some wonderful cinematography and the set design is among the greatest that you'll ever see. I especially loved the look of Dracula's castle and the cemetery also. John Williams' music score is another major plus. One of the highlights is an extremely effective moment where Van Helsing is in a mine when he sees a reflection of his daughter. I'd also argue that the performances are a plus with Langella doing a nice job in the lead role, although he's more sex than scary but more on that in a bit. Pleasence is also fun to watch and I think Olivier is good in the role of Van Helsing but it's far from the type of "great" performance you'd expect from one of the screen's greatest actors.Now for the bad and there is plenty. The first fifty minutes of the movie are quite bland and boring because there really aren't any horror elements and instead the film goes for romance. That would have been okay had the film actually been romantic but these scenes fail terribly and the sexy side of Dracula just never comes across. That's especially true since the sexuality has been drained from the picture and you realize that Hammer had more sex in their pictures from twenty years earlier! I'd also argue that the film has a bit of a pacing issue and that it just can't recover from the opening.Still, Dracula is a failure but at the same time there are enough interesting moments to make it worth sitting through.

Romanticized adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 classic. Set in 1913 England, the bloodsucking, but handsome, charming and seductive, Count Dracula seeks an immortal bride.This film is somewhat notorious because the color is "drained" or faded. Apparently the theatrical version is vibrant and later releases (DVD, Laserdisc, etc) have the color almost completely removed. Indeed, the Universal / Image DVD is very pale. Some say it almost looks black and white. Stylistically, it is not a great choice.That being said, the story is interesting. Frank Langella plays an interesting Dracula, much more charming than the most notable earlier versions (Bela Lugosi or Max Schreck). A wise decision, and one that really speaks to the romantic undertones many read in the novel.

Of the 90 or so horror films that I have watched this year, this is one of my absolute favourites after "Witchfinder General" and the very best of the Hammer films (including their 1958 version of "Dracula"). Frank Langella is excellent as Dracula. A sorely underrated actor, he brings a great sense of sophistication, class and danger to the title character, in part due to his terrific voice. It also has a very strong supporting cast: Donald Pleasence, Laurence Olivier, Kate Nelligan (who, crucially, has great chemistry with Langella) and Trevor Eve. However, Sylvester McCoy's part is disappointingly brief.The film is very well written and John Badham's direction is superb. While I thought that the horror elements were extremely strong, I adored the dark romance elements, something which sets it apart from many other adaptations of the novel. For my money, the most successful of these scenes are Dracula and Lucy's conversation at the dinner table, which is covered by lit candles (which I took as being representative of the fires of Hell) and the very sexy and surreal sex scene.The main characters are all well characterised and I liked the fact that Jonathan Harker was far more sceptical and dismissive of the idea of the supernatural than many characters in similar films. It takes several attempts for Van Helsing (who is Mina's father in this version) to convince him that not only vampires exist but that Count Dracula is one. As it takes place in the Edwardian era, it is set later than many other adaptations and consequently it features cars and gramophone records, which I think was done deliberately to give the film a more modern feel while still retaining a period setting.