Dracula

This seldom-seen, seldom-discussed Dracula film is all in all pretty entertaining. It is a fairly faithful adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel, although it integrates the Vlad Tepes myth into the storyline as well. One definitely can see this film being an inspiration for Francis Ford Coppola's trashy film of the 90's. Jack Palance may not have been the best choice for the role of the toothsome lead. He does overact with his somewhat ludicrous sneers and temper tantrums, but that not withstanding the rest of the cast is quite good(all of them British coincidentally) with Nigel Davenport standing out in a Van Helsing role which I wish had been bigger and Fiona Lewis just being scrumptuous! Dan Curtis does a very competent job directing and the sets, costumes, props, etc... are lavish and beautiful. This is certainly an interesting film to see in the long line of Dracula films made.

First saw this movie the night it debuted on February 8, 1974 when I was 5 years old. At the time, I was reading The Tomb of Dracula (a Marvel comic book) and the movie brought it to life for me.

The director Dan Curtis said it best, "Jack Palance was the best Dracula there ever was." According to author Richard Matheson, the original version was 3 hours long but edited down to 1.5 hours. I wonder if the original footage is still available to re-create the original 3 hour version as Matheson and Curtis intended? Until that happens, fans will have to read the original Richard Matheson script available in his book, "Bloodlines" available from Amazon.com.

MORD39 RATING: *** out of ****

At first glance, Jack Palance would seem to be the wrong type for the lead in this television version of DRACULA; but once the movie is well under way, he is purely magnificent in the role. He admittedly truly got "into" the character, so much so that he sometimes feared he might never be able to get out again!

In the disastrous 1990's we were fed Coppola's BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, which was a huge disappointment. It stole elements from this 1973 version, most notably the idea of Dracula as a more sympathetic character searching for the reincarnation of his old lover (here she's played by the stunning Fiona Lewis). But the 1992 version failed miserably because we grew to really like Dracula, and that should NEVER happen. But with this Dan Curtis production, we can feel sad for the Count's dilemma, yet still fear and despise him as the villain despite his tragedy. Palance's vampire comes off as a monster, but with just a hint of his past life of humanity which even he seems to miss.

The direction is sound, and the scenery is simple but atmospheric.

To this date, not one version of Stoker's novel has been adapted exactly as he intended it, including this one. There are liberties taken here, but it still remains a better choice than the Coppola film. This is a relatively unseen item that should be re-discovered.

Jonathan Harker (Murray Brown) arrives at Castle Dracula in the Carpathian mountains to assist Count Dracula (Jack Palance) to look for a place in Whitby in Yorkshire. Dracula's motivations are not honest, the real motivation being that Harker's fiancee (Fiona Lewis) is the reincarnation of his long lost dead lover.

A fairly faithful TV movie adaptation with a twist makes for an interesting version of Bram Stoker's classic creation with its interesting added plot device of Lucy being a reincarnation of the Count's lover from the past. On the surface Palance is an interesting choice as the title character, but the plot device of lost love and obsession give Palance's Count an added dimension.

Leave it to a film class student to come up with a ridiculous, negative review (see below)! The Dan Curtis _Dracula_ was the first version to add the variation of the long-lost love angle to the traditional vampire story. Curtis's variation seems to have worked; it's showed up in several other later versions. What's more, the adaptation of Stoker's novel "feels" right and is very faithful to the original. Jack Palance, far from looking constipated (see review below), brings an eerie ambiguity to the film with his odd expressions--is he in pain? Is he sad about what he does? We don't know, and that makes the film worth seeing again and again. As in Curtis's well-known series _Dark Shadows_, the suspenseful music (by the marvelous Robert Cobert) is made to tell a great deal of the story. And as always, the music fits the images like a glove. The supporting actors are _all_ fabulous--I'm a big fan of Nigel Davenport. And now that the film is available on DVD, one has a greater sense for Curtis's grand visual style. In short, this _Dracula_'s a keeper, one of the really great versions of Bram Stoker's wonderful novel.