Dracula (1974)

I had heard of Dracula, read vampire stories, etc. But never in my young life of 10 years had I _seen_ evil incarnate. And I fell in love. Now don't misunderstand. At 10 I needed Dracula as a guise--I needed vampires and the lord of them all. It was protection. But, through the years, have I been able to shake those strange, volatile, sexually charged images? They now inform my fight for righteousness, yet, on this side of the veil, what better way to run into the battle against evil than to 'know thine enemy'? Jack Palance was a consummate actor, and I do admire him for refusing all subsequent offers to play more vampires on screen. Yet, of all vampire films produced, including the Coppola version of the 90s, this one remains the truest and best, though it does not follow the original book by Bram Stoker. I say as much in the opening to my novel The Vampires of Dreach Fola, available from James Ward Kirk Publishing sometimes in late 2016.

The Only Other Version That Is Just As Good Is Murnau's Nosferatu, The Remake (Nosferatu) Is Almost As Good As This.Almost Anybody Would Know The Story Of Dracula Yet This Is One Of The "Forgotten Gems", I Don't Think Even Francis Ford Copolla's Version Matches This, Not Even Lugossi(Both Versions Were Good Though).The Role Of Dracula Is All About Atmosphere, If A Director Gets That Wrong Your Dracula Film Is A Failure So Who Better To Play Dracula Than Oscar Winner Jack Palance, He Was By Far The Spotlight Actor. It Was No Surprise To Me That He Admitted To Being Glad Once The Film Was Completed. A Method Actor, He Felt That He Was "Becoming" Dracula More Than He Wanted. Even The Teeth Of Dracula Look Realistic, For A TV Film This Is Just Way Too Good(Better Than Hollywood Blockbusters).The Other Standout Is Nigel Davenport, His Van Helsing Is Not The Best But It Is Still A Very Good Performance.My Simple Summary Is That This Film Takes Out Some Of The Dracula Novel And Puts Something New Into It As Well To Keep A Sort Of Balance.Overall I Suggest A Viewing To Anyone WhoA) Can Find A CopyB) Is A Fan Of Vampire FilmsP.S. There Is A 3D Version Of Dracula Coming Out Soon But As Usual I Don't Have High Hopes.

No point in going over the story, of course, since it's been filmed and staged for theater so many times. This production sticks close to the Bram Stoker novel, but adds an extra element of romance with a love story that in turn adds depth and texture to the character of Dracula.Dan Curtis of "Dark Shadows" fame does a fine job of directing this -- as he did earlier with an outstanding version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (also with Jack Palance playing masterfully in the title role). And the script by the famed supernatural and fantasy writer Richard Matheson ("I Am Legend", etc.) is excellent. The sets and art direction -- right down to the bright red location captions -- are reminiscent of the Hammer Films' Dracula movies with Christopher Lee (which is not a bad thing), however, the soundtrack could have been better-composed in my opinion. However, the most distinguishing aspect of this production of the Dracula story is Jack Palance. I have to believe that Jack Palance could have seemed ominous when buying a loaf of bread at the supermarket or putting a quarter in a parking meter, such is the man's presence. In contrast to the contemporaneous (and excellent, tho' different) Frank Langella version, Jack Palance makes the viewer believe instantly that the character of Dracula really was an ancient Warlord of Wallachia who commanded armies with his sheer presence and force of character -- something that would be a stretch for, say, Bela Lugosi to pull off. Palance gives the viewer a constant and riveting portrait of restless energy, enormous physical strength, singled-minded will and relentless focus.

I watched this made for TV movie when it came out when I was 26 years old, and I really liked it at the time. I was and am, a Jack Palance fan, and really liked the way he did Dracula in 1973. Studying it today in more depth, I felt Jack Palance added a new dimension to the Count, that of a man capable of deep feelings, lasting love, sexuality and pain. Palance still managed to portray the dark and powerful sides of Dracula, but he also captured things like sensuality in an exquisite fashion. The set design was excellent, although Carfax didn't look at all dilapidated as Jonathon Harker had described it. It, like every other interior scene in this beautifully filmed movie, was magnificent. The clothing was very Victorian, and everyone wore lovely, richly designed outfits. Every set had its own unique beauty. The camera work was good too. I found some of the acting quite wooden though, especially the acting of Pamela Brown (Mrs. Westenra) and Simon Ward (Arthur Holmwood). Stiff and formal comes to mind. Without any kind of strong character portrayal. This movie didn't stay true to the novel though. Dracula is in love with Lucy, she was his love of old in this vision. And only two men pursue him in an effort to kill him. Jonathon Harker becomes a vampire, to be killed in the end. In Jonathon's scene with the vampire women, the women themselves come across as a bit scary, but also hokey.But, as a Dracula fan, I recommend seeing it. Never enough Drac!!