Dracula

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.

Jack Palance is not the sexiest nor the spookiest Dracula, but he's a marvelous choice for many reasons--and he definitely stands out from the other (often memorable) performances. Only a couple of years before doing this movie, Palance starred in the film THE HORSEMAN, playing a legendary bukashi rider; it was only one of several such horseman-warrior roles Palance specialized in (including the part of Revak in an Italian film titled THE BARBARIANS). In fact, Palance is an actor who can claim to have played both Dracula AND Attila the Hun.

Some might wonder what that has do with the bloodsucking count, but at one point in the Stoker novel, Dracula says, "the blood of Attila flows through these veins." Though they didn't retain that particular line, the film-makers emphasize from beginning to end this particular Dracula is an ex-warrior--and Palance suggests a former, Magyar beserker brilliantly.

This is also the first version of the novel to have the motivation of Dracula travelling to England for the purpose of reclaiming his lost love--an idea that adds a touch of pathos. Perhaps Dan Curtis did simply re-use it from his DARK SHADOWS series, but I can't help but wonder, however, if the idea might also have sprung from this movie's adapter, Richard Matheson. A talented novelist in his own right, Matheson wrote the book (and the screenplay) of SOMEWHERE IN TIME, which also has a central character searching for his true love across the ages. In any case, it's an approach that adds a layer to Dracula's character and would be used again in the Coppola version. I think it will be used in future adaptations as well. In any case, for the record, this was the version that did it first.

All in all, this version isn't as stylish or as atmospheric as some others, but it's well worthwhile and is a must in any Dracula fan's library.

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.

Bistritz, Hungary, May 1897: Natives in Transylvania seem afraid when they learn solicitor Jonathan Harker (Murray Brown) is going to Castle Dracula.

Who thought that Jack Palance would make a good Dracula? Clearly director Dan Curtis, who had previously worked with Palance on "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", saw the potential. He has a very distinctive look, different from what might be called a traditional vampire look. And yet, Palance is amazing.

The rumor is that Palance turned down offers to play Dracula again. True or not, it would be no surprise if he received such offers -- his performance is incredible, and he really threw himself into the role. (He reportedly said he felt that he was "becoming" Dracula more than he wanted.)

The director? Dan Curtis. Already famous for "Dark Shadows", he would go on to become legendary. This film played no small role in that. Curtis is a horror legend that we were unfortunate to lose. Along with Bob Clark, these two directors came from a generation we cannot replicate.

"I Am Legend" novelist Richard Matheson co-wrote the script with Curtis. Matheson may be the greatest horror screenwriter ever, having done a fine job adapting Poe stories for Roger Corman, among others. While many adaptations of Dracula have been written and filmed, Curtis and Matheson still found a way to make the story fresh and new, focusing on a love interest that is not present in the source material.

All in all, this may be the best adaptation up to that point, most likely. A bold claim given the dozens of versions from Bela Lugosi to Christopher Lee and beyond, but Palance delivers and the costumes and scenery really set the tone. Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992) is now the benchmark and overall superior, but even that does not match this film's tone.

MPI released the film on DVD in 2002 and again on Blu-Ray in 2014. The difference is unclear. If the picture and sound have been improved, the package makes no mention of that. The running time is decreased from 100 minutes to 98, which is probably a print clarification rather than an actual cut. The Blu-Ray adds outtakes and TV cuts, as well as a French audio track. Apparently, however, the French subtitles have been removed (or they still exist but are not worth mentioning). Both feature vintage interviews with Jack Palance and Dan Curtis.

Generally speaking, Blu-Ray releases are superior to older DVD versions. And if you own neither, the Blu-Ray is the only choice. That being said, if someone already has the DVD, an upgrade may not be in order... this is not a "special edition" and fans will gain little by buying the film again.

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.