Highly Overrated But Still Good

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

A lot of folks I imagine will kind of giggle at the mere notion of Jack Palance in the role of Count Dracula, but I persist that he's one of the most fierce and menacing I've seen to date. Even as die hard a Palance fan as I am, he even surprised me because his Dracula is absolutely intense and quite passionate. One superb sequence has Dracula throwing men around like rag dolls while moving through a hotel looking for Mina, it completely works because Palance simply towers over his opposition. The final confrontation, as Van Helsing and Arthur intrude upon his castle("You're now in my domain, gentlemen. And, you shall not leave"), Dracula lifts Van Helsing in the air, hurling him into a suit of armor! While director Dan Curtis' version of Dracula, based on a screenplay written by the great Richard Matheson, doesn't relish in bloody heart stakings, it does feature Dracula casting those that stand in his away to the side, clutching their throats with benevolent intent, moving them out his way. What I liked about this Dracula was his determination to achieve his aspirations in regards to finding and recovering Lucy(Fiona Lewis), who resembled identically a former love from his days as a mighty Hungarian warrior fighting armies..many attribute this romantic sub-plot(..nowhere even near as overbearing as it was in Coppola's film)to Curtis' own Dark Shadows, which he even admitted in an interview regarding the similarities of a vampire desiring to attain his true love through any means necessary.There's a magnificent scene where Dracula calls for Lucy to come, not knowing that she had been put to rest by Van Helsing who relieved her vampire curse by ramming a stake into her heart, the result showing the Count going berserk, destroying objects in the mausoleum, including turning over her casket! Matheson's screenplay avoids major emphasis on Jonathan Harker's(Murray Brown)time with Dracula, opting instead to move from Transylvania to England where the Count eyes Lucy, Arthur(Simon Ward), her fiancé, calling on Van Helsing(..an impressive Nigel Davenport, who remains restrained and contained, not going over-the-top or creating a too eccentric scientist, firmly grounding his character into a dedicated pragmatist)to assist in determining what exactly is contributing to her anemia and sudden sickly nature. Penelope Horner's Mina isn't as richly presented, more of a supporting character whose endangered life(..Dracula, as revenge against Van Helsing and Arthur for the loss of Lucy, has Mina drink from his blood so he can control her)will need rescuing. What I truly love about this production(..and the BBC version, featuring Louis Jordan as a more sophisticated, aristocratic Count)is the location shooting, evoking a totally different period by shooting in England, particularly the Castle Dracula, where Van Helsing and Arthur discover a pit and Iron Maiden, not to mention the coven of vampire brides in their coffins. Great jump scare where we find out about Harker's fate after being left behind by Dracula to become fodder for his brides. Unlike the Hammer Dracula films, this version shows that sunlight only paralyzes the Count, not burning his flesh. Another element not seen in other Dracula films is how the Count uses a mad dog to attack those he doesn't wish to bother with, and I was amused by how irritated he would get with those who would start up a row when he'd appear on the scene, trespassing, a contempt for mortals who thought they could harm him with pistols or fisticuffs.

I watched this made for TV movie when it came out when I was 26 years old, and I really liked it at the time. I was and am, a Jack Palance fan, and really liked the way he did Dracula in 1973. Studying it today in more depth, I felt Jack Palance added a new dimension to the Count, that of a man capable of deep feelings, lasting love, sexuality and pain. Palance still managed to portray the dark and powerful sides of Dracula, but he also captured things like sensuality in an exquisite fashion. The set design was excellent, although Carfax didn't look at all dilapidated as Jonathon Harker had described it. It, like every other interior scene in this beautifully filmed movie, was magnificent. The clothing was very Victorian, and everyone wore lovely, richly designed outfits. Every set had its own unique beauty. The camera work was good too. I found some of the acting quite wooden though, especially the acting of Pamela Brown (Mrs. Westenra) and Simon Ward (Arthur Holmwood). Stiff and formal comes to mind. Without any kind of strong character portrayal. This movie didn't stay true to the novel though. Dracula is in love with Lucy, she was his love of old in this vision. And only two men pursue him in an effort to kill him. Jonathon Harker becomes a vampire, to be killed in the end. In Jonathon's scene with the vampire women, the women themselves come across as a bit scary, but also hokey.But, as a Dracula fan, I recommend seeing it. Never enough Drac!!

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.

This version was my first Dracula movie. I was a sheltered, impressionable young girl at the time I watched it on TV. I didn't know about Dracula or Jack Palance--or horror. I stayed awake that entire night expecting Dracula to appear in the bedroom doorway. This movie should have scared me then; I was 10. After I saw this movie, I felt different about things. I know that in the oncoming decades other versions were made; I've seen some of them. I had the opportunity to see this Dracula for the second time in my life a few months back; it scared me as it scared me decades ago. There's something about the way this movie 'tastes' that enables the horror within it to remain pure and palpable. The cast and crew captured the pure essence of Dracula's horror on film for future generations to experience. From the music to the surroundings to Jack Palance, everything about this movie lends itself to the viewer's experience of a true horror classic. Jack Palance's portrayal of The Count is sheer perfection. From the top of his black patent leather hair to the bottom of his black patent leather boots, he's diabolic horror personified. So, I invite you to get your hands on a copy of this version; sit down and let this movie wash over you. Just make sure it's in the middle of the day and all the lights are on in your 'pad'. Oh, this version isn't perfect, but--the--horror--within--it--is. Bela, watch out!