Dracula

Langella made a huge impact with this film and it is the movie that made him a star. While Lugosi was brilliant, his performance was representative of the overacting that was the norm at the time. The Christopher Lee / Hammer version was scary but old school almost to the point of campy - cheap formula films. With the 1979 version we had something completely different - a young(ish) romantic vampire. The passion depicted had never been seen before and it broke barriers in bringing women into the theaters for horror films. By today's standards it is clearly dated and it seems to a degree to be like a series of vignettes, but they were breaking new ground. One can forgive some contrivances, such as an abbey (which represented the absolute best Carfax set in any movie before or since) with the incongruity of a giant stone bat and snarling face door in the interior masonry. These truly were the best Dracula sets ever. The climactic ending also displayed more imagination than any other Dracula film. Overall, this was a great movie for its day. If one were a fan of horror films, this is definitely one that should be in their collection.

I had never seen this version of Dracula, but I had heard things about it. Apparently, I still haven't seen the version most people remember as it was filmed in more vibrant colors than what I had gotten with my DVD that I happened to stumble upon and decided to buy. This version of Dracula I rather enjoyed, more so, than the 1992 version (I liked that one too). This one was said to be the more romanticized Dracula, but I think the 92 version was the one that was a bit too romantic. Here people's throats get ripped out right from the get go and there are cool scenes of undead creatures residing under the cemetery. Sure, Frank Langella's Dracula is a bit of a smooth talker, but at his core is a darkness and arrogance that feels that the men have no power to stop him as he takes the women from their lives and threatens to end their pitiful existence. There are things that are changed from the novel, but I do not find a problem with that, in fact, it made for a surprise as I thought Mina was going to be the object of Dracula's desire. This one did Van Helsing a bit differently too as the cast of this one did a great job for the most part.

The story has a ship trying to get rid of one of its boxes of cargo. Surprise, it gets stuck and one of the crew's throat is ripped out. The residents of a mental asylum are restless and Mina goes out and finds a man who has seemingly survived a terrible boat crash. Seems his name is Count Dracula and he is soon invited to dine at the doctor in charge of the mental asylum, Seward. He arrives and seems very polite and charming and he is not there five minutes before putting the moves on both ladies present. There is something dark about him, and why try to hide it, he is going to try to have some blood.

The cast sets this Dracula apart as Frank Langella does a great job as the count, though Christopher Lee is my favorite all time Dracula. He was a monster, plain and simple, while in this one he is a charmer with a darkness about him. I read where Langella's eyes have a hard time focusing and in scenes I saw them moving, but I did not know of this condition so I just assumed he was doing it purposely as it actually made his stare more unsettling. Laurence Olivier plays Van Helsing and he is rather good, like Cushing best, but I like how he was presented here. He was a father who had lost his daughter and he wanted his revenge. They did a much better job making he and Dracula enemies than they did in the 92 version. However, I thought Donald Pleasence as Doctor Jack Seward was a more interesting character than Van Helsing. a bit of an odd man who was very helpful as he saved Van Helsing and Johnathon Harker! I read where he turned down the role of Van Helsing because he felt it was too close to Dr. Loomis, but the character he did choose, ran the mental institution. Johnathon Harker was okay, they usually miscast the character and here is no exception. I did not think he did as bad as others do, but he was a bit weak. The two girls were okay too, neither really exploding on screen though.

So, all in all, a rather good retelling of the Dracula story. Granted, it does deviate from the book and while I wish they had just gone all out and made Dracula the monster he is, I still found this portrayal interesting. The movie ends on an ambiguous note that could have lead to a sequel which never occurred, which is probably for the best as it is not too long after this film that Langella kind of aged quickly. Who knows? Perhaps he was Dracula and the sun he was exposed to at the end aged him quickly or something. Seriously, I had never seen Langella look this young on screen and I had seen him in movies from the 80's! All in all a rather good Dracula film that you can really sink your teeth into...and yes, I went there!

Director John Badam's 1979 reboot of Dracula is a very well crafted and interesting film. While Frank Langella's performance may have been a bit too romantic, or the film may not be bloody enough for some horror purists, Dracula 1979 is a long ways away from something like Twilight and has a lot for horror fans to appreciate and enjoy here. This is a serious minded, big budgeted and intelligent take on the Dracula story. It is a very well shot, great looking film with very good f/x, direction and a haunting score by John Williams of Star Wars fame. Dracula is portrayed here as a seductive, romantic and tragic figure. While some may have felt Dracula was a bit too much of a ladies man, Frank Langella made it work with his exceptional performance and is a very talented actor. Also immensely talented actors Lawrence Oliver and Donald Pleasance shine here as well as Van Helsing and Dr. Jack Seward. The rest of the cast was also very good and as a whole, I enjoy this picture and is a very well done and classy Gothic horror film.

It is surprising to me that, given the popular and critical praise so many mediocre vampire movies have received( this includes the badly dated Hammer flicks), this movie is often dismissed as minor and forgettable. While it is true that the definitive version is still Coppola's 1992 film, this overlooked gem deserves much more attention and praise than it currently gets.

It was possibly the first vampire movie to play up the romantic and sexual implications of the vampire legend, while at the same time remaining faithful to the underlying idea of Stoker's novel( that is, a fight between good and evil). It is worth pointing out that the film depicts count Dracula as a good looking, seductive and charming aristocrat, rather than an impulsive blood-thirsty creature. He is a broody, lonely character, seeking for a female partner with whom share his everlasting loneliness, something he seems to find in the form of Lucy Seward, an independent and strong-willed Victorian lady.

But the fact that this Dracula has a romantic strain to him does not conceal his ultimately evil nature. He consciously seduces and attacks ill, defenseless Mina just for the excitement of it. When Dr Van Helsing meets her at the graveyard galleries, she is no longer that frail but charming girl, but a deathly-pale,putrid, disgusting figure. That is what Dracula's hobby implies.

Badham does an excellent job. He effectively uses Gothic imagery and low key lightning to create an eerie and slightly surreal atmosphere.But what really stands out in this version is the cast. Everyone fits their role perfectly.Langella plays a seductive count. Olivier,inspired by Cushing's performance in 1958 Dracula, puts in a riveting performance as a frail, tortured Van Helsing, with an emotional stake in the story (pun intended). Kate Nelligan( a fine Canadian supporting actress,also starring in Eye of the Needle) delivers a fresh performance. Even Harker's character , which is usually the main casting weakness when it comes to Dracula movies, is quite well handled here, played by an actor with the right appearance.

There are minor flaws, the most important of them being a lack of screen time devoted to the romance and a muddled color scheme, but this film is nevertheless worth a look, an engaging retelling of the classic horror tale with a poetic, broody edge to it.

For years, I've listened to horror fans talk trash about the 1979 "Dracula." It's not faithful to the book, they'd complain, it's not scary, it's only made for the sake of middle-aged ladies who fancy Frank Langella, etc. etc.

Well, I'm happy to report that the horror fans are way off base this time. This "Dracula" is a classy, creepy, and sometimes downright exciting production. Sure, the script doesn't follow the events of the book exactly - the whole thing takes place in England! - but it makes the most of its limitations, so to speak.

Langella makes a very classy Dracula. He apparently refused to wear fangs or demon eyes for the role, focusing instead on making the count more "human" - not to mention arrogant, intelligent, and, I suppose, sexy (for me and other guy viewers, though, the eye candy in this movie is Kate Nelligan). Perhaps Langella is a little too "normal," and his big hair is slightly amusing, but on the whole I think he plays the role with dignity, inhabiting Dracula in a far more convincing way than the likes of Gary Oldman.

The rest of the cast is pretty good, too. Nelligan makes a lovely, capable heroine, and Trevor Eve is an OK (if underused) Jonathan Harker. Laurence Olivier's Van Helsing is a lot better than most people say he is - he comes across as smart, brave and an overall worthy opponent for Dracula. Reviewers tend to mock his Dutch accent, but I don't get too wrapped up in stuff like that; it sounds fine to me. I certainly think the cast here is much better than the parade of wooden actors and crazy hams in the Coppola version.

I like the production values of this film, too. The special effects are mostly photographic tricks but they look cool, and they aren't overbearing like modern CGI effects. The sets and locations are attractive, though the designers went a bit overboard with the Gothic ruin of Carfax Abbey (probably because they wanted to make it a substitute for the absent Castle Dracula). And, of course, the eerie John Williams score is a treat, and rightly praised by most critics.

Another plus is that the movie features a number of very powerful scenes - I love Dracula's confrontation with Van Helsing in the study, and the terrifying moment when Van Helsing encounters his vampire daughter in the mine shaft. Creepy stuff; no wonder this movie freaked me out when I was a kid!

On the downside, I found Dr. Seward, as played by Donald Pleasence, slightly too grotesque and lame to be believed. And, as usual for these Dracula adaptations, Renfield seemed borderline extraneous. The plotting flakes apart a bit at the end, too, with the car chase scene coming across as silly - and what, exactly, does the final image in the film mean? It's slightly too enigmatic for my tastes. I am supposed to be rooting for Dracula to survive or something?

Still, this is one of the better Draculas. The 1977 BBC version is more faithful and probably better. But this is arguably the best adaptation of the story to come out of Hollywood.