Dracula

Few people remember that Jack Palance--better known as a rough Western character and elderly machismo cologne huckster--played Dracula. For any 10-11-year-olds in 1973, who saw this TV movie, however, his performance will never be forgotten!

I got a chance to see this version of the classic tale as adult a few years ago and found that it is still a fine film. Palance brings something unique to the vampire role. Somewhere between Max Schreck's hideous rat-like Count Orlok and the debonair Lugosi/Lee/Langela Dracula, Palance may well exude some sort of animal magnetism to women, but is still a hideous fanged beast on the prowl. The scene of him trying to get into the locked hotel room of the two women still gives me shivers. Few Draculas ever barred their fangs and hissed as Palance did--although this has seemed to be a popular move for female vampires.

Jack Palance will never be the first or second (or third) name associated with film vampires. For those who saw him in the role, though, it is hard to ever forget his Dracula. Watch it if you get the chance!

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.

This film is by Dan Curtis--the man most famous for bringing the world the TV show "Dark Shadows". However, following this show, Curtis made several excellent monster films--such as this Dracula as well as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

I admire this film for trying to be different. Jack Palance as Dracula?! Well, it does work provided you are willing to accept a Dracula that looks and acts NOTHING like the one from Dracula (1931) or Nosferatu (1922). Instead of the monstrous Dracula or the weird Dracula, this Dracula is a combination of the vampire and the real-life Vlad the Impaler (who was named "Dracula"--literally, "son of the dragon"--a 15th century maniac who fought against the Muslim invasions of Europe). And, because it is so different, it does work. While not "earth shaking", it is very satisfying and fun to watch. After giving this a shot, also try to find a copy of Palance's earlier DR. JECKYL AND MR. HYDE. They're both pretty good.

By the way, look as Van Helsing is sinking a stake into the vampiress' heart late in the film. When she screams, you can clearly see several very modern fillings in her teeth.

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.

Other fans of DARK SHADOWS will recognize the lost-love element as having come from Barnabas Collins' tragic situation in that series. It adds a magnificent new element to the Dracula story without diluting the original. Bob Cobert's music, also familiar to DARK SHADOWS fans, is the perfect accompaniment to the tale of the vampire count. I have watched this numerous times since it became available on tape.

The various film adaptations of DRACULA have covered probably most of the ways this can be interpreted, from implied sexual perversion (1931), raw sexuality (HORROR OF DRACULA), flagrant, swept-off-one's-feet romance (1979), to historical retrospective (1992), to modern revisionism (2000). This film takes elements of most of these in a neat TV package with an appropriately British supporting cast.

Watch every version anyway; Dracula is a unique addiction!