Customer Reviews

Dan Curtis' Dracula

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Jack Palance's portrayal of the eternally eerie Count makes the depiction of Dracula as a tragic figure incredibly believable. His combination of horror and pathos is brilliant in its execution - and the highly sexual attributes of the vampire legend are clear without being overdone or offensive.

The excellence of this production is in its combination of intensity and restraint. Sets, for example, are not exagerrated in order to be macabre - Castle Dracula could pass for a stately home were it not for the odd inhabitants. The "completely human" characters are intelligent, refined, and normal in their actions and words - the horror of being the victims of vampires providing sufficient Gothic elements. Interestingly, this version has the rare quality of referring, however obliquely, to the real Prince Vlad, and manages to give credibility to Dracula's plight (without exploring how his vampirism came to be.)

With apologies to fans of Bela Lugosi, et al, I believe Jack Palance captured the Count most perfectly.

This version of "Dracula" was shown on American television in 1973, but had a theatrical release in Europe. It was adapted and directed by Dan Curtis, who changed what he felt was weak reasoning to explain why Count Dracula wants to move to England in Bram Stoker' s novel. Instead of vague ambitions of conquest in England, Curtis made Count Dracula the un-dead incarnation of the real 15th century Wallachian Prince, Vlad Tepes, who travels to England in order to be reunited with the reincarnation of his long lost love. This love storyline was inspired by the vampire television series "Dark Shadows", for which Dan Curtis was executive producer. It was borrowed by Francis Coppola and writer James Hart in Coppola's lavish 1992 film "Bram Stoker's Dracula".

The story is set in the year that Bram Stoker's gothic horror novel "Dracula" was published. In 1897, an English real estate agent named Jonathan Harker (Murray Brown) arrives in the town of Bistritz, in what was then Hungary, to offer a selection of properties to a nobleman by the name of Count Dracula (Jack Palance), who plans to relocate to England. Harker finds the Count a demanding host, and Dracula proceeds to England leaving Jonathan imprisoned in his castle, terrorized by his blood-thirsty wives. Several weeks later, in the seaside town of Whitby, where Dracula's sailing ship has beached, Jonathan's fiancée, Mina (Penelope Horner) arrives to visit an ailing friend. Mina's dear friend Lucy (Fiona Lewis) has taken ill. Lucy's fiancé Arthur (Simon Ward) has called a specialist named Dr. Van Helsing (Nigel Davenport) to diagnose her. Van Helsing believes that Lucy is the victim of a vampire, an un-dead creature that sucks the blood of the living to survive, but he and Arthur are unable to protect her, and she is transformed into the living dead herself. When Dracula discovers that his new vampire bride has been destroyed, he is enraged and plans to take his revenge on Mina.

This version doesn't have the emotional depth of some of the better theatrical adaptations of "Dracula". But it is not a low-rent production. We get to see the interiors of many lovely mansions. This Count Dracula is supposed to be a sympathetic monster, who wishes only to be reunited with his lady love. But he is ungracious and blunt. And Palance's expressions seem campy -nothing new in Dracula films. In contrast to the novel and most adaptations, Jonathan is absent from the major action of the film, Van Helsing is level-headed, and the vampire and his hunters confront each other directly on several occasions. Their battle isn't covert. Everyone is well aware who his enemies are. This is a solid adaptation, but not a great one. It's most notable for being the originator of the lovelorn Dracula storyline -or the romantic hero persona. 3 1/2 stars.

Jack Palance gives us his rendition of the famous count and it is an excellent meoldrama. Along with Mr. Palance,s terrific acting skills he seems to move well with the cape and with no ridiculous special effects.

This is more of a sympathetic Dracula , seemingly, through little fault of his own is doomed for eternity. Splendid sets and terrific editing make this film a standout. The only other abstract "Dracula" that one might find is the PBS version with Louis Jordan as the count.

Atmospheric/

This 1974 version of Dracula, starring good old Jack Palance, is a nice solid production. Palance gives a somber, but at the same time also a ferocious portrayal of the legendary count and warrior prince.
This movie has a nice gothic feel to it, and most of the actors are decent. That said, I don't think that younger people will enjoy this film, since it doesn't contain a lot of action and special effects. Remember that it was made in the 70's. But if you are looking for a vampire movie with some nice atmosphere and one of the best Dracula interpretations ever, then this is for you.

Although this is neither the best, nor the most faithful film verison of Bram Stoker's novel (that honor goes to "Count Dracula" with Louis Jordan), it scores well on several levels.

Jack Palance is perfectly cast as Dracula, truly frightening at times, yet also a somewhat sympathetic and tragic figure. The film makes passing reference to his (very) long career as warrior and leader and the crushing loss of his wife, which has clearly haunted him through the centuries. These references effectively echo actual events in the life of 15th Century Wallachian prince Vlad Tepes ("Vlad the Impaler"), Stoker's inspiration for the fictional vampire Count, which few Dracula films do. Palance also adds a degree of sexuality to the role that few actors have achieved, particularly in his "love" scenes with Fiona Lewis.

Like most film adaptations, this one is not entirely faithful to Stoker's novel. The character of Renfield is missing, for example, and Jonathan Harker is reduced to a hapless victim, who disappears for most of the film, reappearing near the end as yet another vampire, who is quickly dispatched. This is one of several similarities to the 1958 Hammer film "Horror of Dracula," which also includes a similar death scene for the Count. Palance's interpretation is also closer to that of Christopher Lee's in the Hammer film than any other film portrayal and it stands in sharp contrast to Bela Lugosi's seminal performance in Universal's 1931 "Dracula."

The film also drops many of the traditional movie Dracula set pieces. For example, the Count never turns into a bat, a misty cloud, or a wolf (although he does employ wolves as his familiars). The usually reliable cross and garlic aren't very effective as vampire deterrents.

All of that said, this is one of the better Dracula films. It is atmospheric, well written, paced and filmed, and captures the essence of the good Count - both the terror he spread and his own tragedy.

Dan Curtis's Dracula is about the best there is. It's faithful to the orignal story, and well done. The DVD version is a major improvement over the VHS version. It's not fancy/flashy, just a good story. It's a favorite every Halloween night.

This is one of the best portrayals of Dracula that is out there. If you enjoy this story, you will like this movie. I have always liked this version.

The Protestant Reformation was congruent with the Industrial Revolution and the developments in the Sciences; these forces created social and spiritual friction that led to the fiction of the Gothic Era. Classic gothics explore sociocultural anxieties related to these revolutionary forces. Social disruption of traditions, urban displacement, and the dissolution of faith are the subterranean subject matter of gothic masterpieces like Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Volodymyr Palahniuk, otherwise known as Jack Palance, was born to play Count Dracula. The man inhabited the part. What an actor. Right up there with Robert Mitchum and The Borgnine. He even ousts Klaus Kinski's later rendition in Nosferatu: The Vampyre/Phantom Der Nacht (2 Disc Set), though Kinski is superb. Unfortunately, the massive talent of Jack was frittered away by a poor script. Dan Curtis squandered a huge opportunity working with Palance by using a chopped up and masticated narrative. Palance would have reveled in more material to chew on. Producer/director Curtis underutilized the magnificent, vital talent of the perfect actor to play the Count. The interview with Palance is better than the movie, except for the few scenes featuring the fine actor himself.

The complexity of the original classic novel is dropped by scriptwiter Richard Matheson; Curtis would have been better off utilizing one of his "Dark Shadows" writers. The campy Curtis series Dark Shadows: The Beginning, Collection 1, to Dark Shadows DVD Collection 1 and beyond, is actually better than this movie, though Jonathan Frid as Barnabas Collins cannot compare to Jack Palance's menacing Dracula, of course. No one could. The film is worth viewing just to witness Palance's magnificent performance, working theatrical magic with the scraps of material he was provided with. Jack Palance's sheer physical presence and the emotive projection of his definitive Count Dracula remains amazing.

This movie is entirely human and believable. Jack Palance presents a tragic yet deeply disturbed dracula. This is the Dracula movie theme most copied today, the love story that draws Dracula from his Carpathian home to London and Carfax Abbey. Don't expect special effects, the acting is solid and the sets are fantastic. I am a long time movie buff and this Dracula remains one of my favorite.

I pulled this movie out of a hat because Jack Palance is one of my favorite actors, of stage and screen, Westerns, horror and science fiction. He worked with Dark Shadows creator Dan Curtis with script by Richard Matheson. Wow, can't go wrong with this crew!

I've read that Matheson's script was more faithful to Stoker's book than other Drac films in the past, complete with Van Helsing (Nigel Davenport) stakes & crosses, et al.! On air date was Feb 1974.

Much of the plot is the same as in the Universal pictures, at first. Harker goes to the castle, greeted by a horseman (followed by German Shepards, however) and Dracula decides on Carfax Abbey, when he discovers it's near where Lucy lives, his long lost love from across the centuries.

Harker takes a large chunk of the film. He attempts escape but is pinned down by three female vamps and they make a quick snack of him.

The finding and staking of Lucy was a bit quick and amateurish, some plot holes like, how did Van Helsing get there in the nick of time (while Lucy was munching on Arthur's neck) when he was out of town earlier.

Bonus material includes an interview by Jack Palance, (twenty years after production and he still has not watched it); Dan Curtis interview and European trailer.

The Jack Palance interview was quite enlightening and surprising. He said Dracula was the only character that "I ever played that frightened me." He said he was offered Dracula several times but that "once was enough!"

Dan Curtis created Dark Shadows and the sympathetic vampire Barnabas Collins of Collinwood in the late 1960s/early 1970s. He said he didn't like the reasoning for Stoker's Dracula character to go to England, and decided to inject a little bit of Dark Shadows into the mix: let's have the vampire discover that his lover of the 15th century is currently reincarnated and living in England.

Dan said he wanted to bring a sense of sympathy to the character. And in this he succeeds in spades (or in stakes).