Bram Stoker's legendary novella is one of the most adapted stories in history, and one could wonder if it's absolute necessary to watch all the different "Dracula" film versions that exist. The short answer is: yes, definitely in case you're a horror fanatic; or at least as many as possible because each version features a couple of unique and innovative aspects. In 1979, two noteworthy versions were released. There was a classy "Nosferatu" remake directed by Werner Herzog and starring Klaus Kinski, and this dreamy Gothic version directed by John Badham and starring Frank Langella. Although based on the same source novel, there's a world of difference in how these two films portray the titular monster. In "Nosferatu", the Transylvanian count is a traditionally hideous and menacing creep, whereas here we are introduced to the hunkiest and most charismatic bloodsucker in the history of cinema. I kid you not: I'm a 100% heterosexual male, but I think Frank Langella is damn sexy and I believe him when he states in interviews that watching him as Count Dracula sparks the libido of female viewers! Apart from the handsome lead vampire, this version is also beautiful and romantic thanks to the giant budgets spent on enchanting locations, marvelous set pieces and poetic cinematography. The scenario implements a few bizarre changes, like the reversal of Mina and Lucy as the count's principal love-interests, but otherwise the story is treated with respect and – moreover - the essence of Stoker's novel is perhaps even captured better here than in most other "Dracula" films. Yes, whether we horror freaks like to admit it or not, "Dracula" fundamentally remains a love story and its protagonist is merely a sad figure eternally mourning over his lost lover and trying to replace her. The fact that Count Dracula is depicted as a handsome and sophisticated aristocrat generates one major disadvantage, though, namely that he isn't the least bit terrifying. Metaphorically speaking, his charming appearance actually sucks the suspense out of the plot rather than the blood out of its victims. The old Van Helsing (Sir Laurence Olivier) even comes across as more menacing than the Count, especially when he attempts to speak Dutch! I'm a native Dutch speaker, but the short scenes with dialogues in Dutch were the only incomprehensible ones. The "horror" of this version primarily comes from the Gothic recreation of England in 1913, with spooky old abbey dungeons filled with cobwebs, ominous stranded ships and eerie cemeteries enshrouded in fog. The special effects are very admirable too, as the film features several cool sequences where Dracula transforms into a bat or a wolf, or when he crawls down walls.
Add a Review
-
Coventry7 November 2017
-
dr_foreman6 March 2007For 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. -
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.
-
trey-yancy-572-76354719 December 2017Langella 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.
-
Libretio16 February 2005"Dracula"
Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 (Panavision)
Sound format: Dolby Stereo
The vampire Count Dracula (Frank Langella) arrives in England from Transylvania and targets a wealthy middle-class family, including the daughter of arch-enemy Abraham Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier)...
John Badham's underrated adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel takes most of its cues from the stage play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston (which had launched Bela Lugosi to stardom in 1927), and while it may not be entirely faithful to the book - events are compressed for reasons of timing - it adheres faithfully to the spirit of the thing. It's also an immensely CINEMATIC work which uses the wide Panavision frame in painterly fashion, creating a landscape of Gothic architecture and Victorian excess (note the breathtaking shot looking down from the ceiling inside Dracula's castle, where an ornate spider's web fills the entire screen). Badham and screenwriter W.D. Richter emphasize the film's Romantic elements - helped immeasurably by Langella's complex performance - though the corruption underlying Dracula's handsome exterior is often betrayed by certain details (the Count clawing at a windowpane, seeking entrance to his latest victim; the ghoulish vampiress who continues to rot even as she pursues her lust for human blood, etc.).
Olivier has been criticized in some quarters for his 'silly' European accent, and it's true that his performance lacks some of the dynamism Peter Cushing once brought to the role of Van Helsing, but Olivier comes into his own when confronting Dracula with evidence of his vampirism, and in the deeply moving moment when he drives a stake through his daughter's heart and cradles her corpse in his arms whilst sobbing uncontrollably. The fine supporting cast includes Trevor Eve, Donald Pleasence and a wealth of familiar British character actors (Tony Haygarth, Teddy Turner, Sylvester McCoy, etc.), alongside Canadian actress Kate Nelligan, giving a finely-tuned performance as a potential bride of Dracula. A beautiful film - romantic, tragic, Gothic and sinister, it satisfies in almost every respect, and is ripe for rediscovery. John Williams' glorious music score is the icing on the cake. -
claudio_carvalho1 February 2015In Whitby, England, the sick Mina Van Helsing (Jan Francis) is spending some days with her friend Lucy Seward (Kate Nelligan) and her father Dr. Jack Seward (Donald Pleasence) in their house that is also an asylum at the seaside. When a ship wrecks on the coast, all the crew is dead and Mina helps the only survivor Count Dracula (Frank Langella), who has just bought the Fairfax Abbey through Lucy's fiancé Jonathan Harker (Trevor Eve). Soon Dracula drinks Mina's blood killing her. Dr. Seward summons Mina's father Prof. Abraham Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier) for the funeral but he arrives late. On the next night, the son of the patient Annie (Janine Duvitski) is attacked by Mina. Prof. Van Helsing discovers that his daughter is undead and the Count Dracula is a vampire. Now Van Helsing, Dr. Seward and Jonathan have to protect Lucy from the powerful vampire.
"Dracula" (1979) is an adaptation of Bram Stocker's novel with beautiful cinematography, haunting music score and a wonderful cast. However this is not my favorite adaptation of the novel. I prefer Werner Herzog "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht" of the same year and Francis Ford Coppola's version that was made thirteen years later (1992). My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): Not Available on DVD or Blu-Ray -
Hey_Sweden28 October 2015This interesting if not all that successful version of the familiar Bram Stoker tale is largely a vehicle for Frank Langella. He plays a soulful, romanticized Count Dracula, whose ship crashes on an island shore. As he makes himself at home in Carfax Abbey, he becomes acquainted with the likes of Dr. Seward (Donald Pleasence), Jonathan Harker (Trevor Eve), and Dr. Sewards' daughter Lucy (the lovely Canadian actress Kate Nelligan). He becomes determined to make Lucy his bride, while the intrepid Professor Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier) catches on to what he is doing.
"Dracula" '79 isn't without its pleasures. However, purists may take exception to a script by W. D. Richter that makes a number of unfortunate changes from the original material. (Mina is VAN HELSINGS' daughter?) Director John Badham, who became an action genre specialist in the 80s, does a decent enough job with this horror film. It's quite visually striking at times (with matte shots by the legendary Albert Whitlock), although some viewers may not care for the way that Badham has desaturated the colour; this plays almost like a black & white production, albeit shot in widescreen by Gilbert Taylor. One highlight is a memorable lovemaking sequence.
Langella does a fine job as our smouldering, blood sucking antihero, especially when he's seducing Mina and Lucy or facing off against Professor Van Helsing. And Olivier is fun as the vampire hunter / expert. Pleasence is amusing as Seward, as is Tony Haygarth as the loony, bug munching Renfield (who's more sympathetic here than in other adaptations of the story). Nelligan does alright as Lucy, but Eve is a fairly bland Harker. Sylvester McCoy has a small role as an asylum attendant.
This is noteworthy for its atmosphere, its production design (by Peter Murton), and rousing score by John Williams. It's suitably creepy at times (dig those "crawling the walls" shots) and appropriately erotic.
Six out of 10. -
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! -
skyharbor31 October 2002It's Halloween as I write, and all the little ghouls are making their annual rounds. What better time to re-view and review my collection of vampire flicks? This version is one of the best so far in my opinion. You don't need to be Freud to understand the attraction of the vampire, and in particular Dracula. The powerful combination of sex and death (or un-death if you will) is irresistable to the human psyche. And let's admit it, who wouldn't like to live forever?
Frank Langella's take on the Count is expertly performed. His tall, dark, good looks are ideal here. Langella's astigmatism, which causes his eyes to quiver when staring, provide an eerie effect which the special effects of 1979 couldn't have achieved. As another reviewer noted, Mr. Langella had performed this role on stage before making this film, so his Dracula is smooth and well polished. His subtle spider-like hand movements are perfect here.
The beauteous Kate Nelligan provides an able foil as the strong and intelligent Lucy and Dracula's love/death interest. Note that the Lucy and Mina roles are reversed in this version, but no apparent harm is done to the story.
Olivier and Pleasence are solid but not exceptional in their roles as Drs. Van Helsing and Seward. The sets are very good, and some are wonderful (the graveyard scene with the white horse and the Count's dining room stand out).
All in all, a great way to spend a couple of hours in the presence of a sensuous and strangely attractive evil. 7/10 stars. -
bkoganbing11 December 2016Frank Langella brought his acclaimed role of Count Dracula from Broadway for a film version. The ultimate Dracula Bela Lugosi also did Dracula on Broadway before going to Universal to play his career role.
For the screen version a couple of veteran names got into supporting roles. Donald Pleasance plays Dr. Seward and the great vampire nemesis Dr. Van Helsing is none other than Laurence Olivier.
For those familiar with the Bela Lugosi Dracula it follows the story line fairly closely with a couple of major exceptions both involving Van Helsing. For one thing the young girl who dies played by Jan Francis is Van Helsing's daughter. The confrontation between the undead Francis and Olivier when Olivier and Pleasance are vampire hunting is a frightening one. The other thing I will not reveal lest it spoil the ending. I will say the added dimension of fatherhood for Van Helsing's character is something new and special.
Langella himself is pretty frightening as is Kate Nelligan as Lucy Seward whom Dracula selects for a new bride. At least until Trevor Eve as Jonathan Harker and Olivier affect a rescue as in the original story. The rescue itself is far from the one in the Lugosi Dracula. Still most effective.
Fright fans get ready for a big fright. -
barnabyrudge22 February 2005Fresh from directing Saturday Night Fever, John Badham here tries to give the Dracula story a stylish makeover. However, in taking this fantastic tale of terror and smearing it with romance, elegance and charm, Badham has stripped the concept of its horror and its spooky atmosphere. Of all the Dracula films ever made, this one might well have the best photography but it also has probably the worst chill factor. I've seen "U" rated movies scarier than this. That probably explains why the film divides critics so much - there are those who rate it highly because of its sumptuous style, while others come away bitterly disappointed as a result of its total disregard for the "horror" side of the story. I must admit I'm not a great fan of this version - I'm a content-over-style man, and this one just doesn't deliver for me.
There's little point going into detail about the plot. Bram Stoker's story has been read and dramatised so many times that everyone knows how it goes. However, this version makes some changes to the source novel (it is based, actually, on a stage play by Balderston and Deane). For instance, Van Helsing is not merely a vampire expert, he is also the father of one of Dracula's earliest victims. Dracula himself is a sexy, charming society-gentleman as opposed to a reclusive, mysterious and creepy figure. These little changes freshen up the plot a little but are not in any other way beneficial to the film.
Performance-wise, the film is variable. Frank Langella plays Dracula quite well (he'd had plenty of practise after performing the role for months on Broadway); Donald Pleasance is great as Dr. Seward; Trevor Eve seems stiff and unconvincing as Jonathan Harker; and Laurence Olivier overacts hideously as Van Helsing. At this point of his career, Olivier was going through a phase of uncontrolled, hammy displays (see The Betsy, Inchon, The Jazz Singer and Clash of the Titans to see what I mean). One has to wonder if someone a little more restrained - say, John Mills or James Mason - might have made a better Van Helsing in 1979. There's great cinematography by Gilbert Taylor, making this a film most assuredly intended for the wide screen, and John Williams adds another memorable score to his list of impeccable film music from the '70s.
Dracula is an OK film, loved by some, detested by others, but it really needed more attention to the frightening aspects. After all, a great-looking horror film is rather a pointless thing if it lacks the ability to spook your mind or jolt you out of your seat. -
ThomasHayden14 September 2005It 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. -
AlsExGal5 November 2017This 1979 version of the Bram Stoker tale takes it's cue from the then-recent hit Broadway revival of the old Hamilton Deane & John Balderston play than from the original source.
The familiar tale has been reconfigured, with some characters changing drastically while others are dropped all together. Lucy is now the central female role, played ably by a fetching Kate Nelligan. Instead of being one of her suitors, Dr. Seward (Donald Pleasence) is now her father. The Mina character takes the secondary role held by Lucy in the book, and in this version, she's the daughter of Dr. Van Helsing. That iconic role is played by Laurence Olivier, looking very old and frail. Jonathan Harker, fiancée of Lucy and real estate agent to Dracula, is a bland Trevor Eve. The crazed Renfield acts as little more than an inept butler to Dracula, and is played by Tony Haygarth, who the previous year had played an especially detestable Nazi in the TV miniseries "Holocaust".
The center of the film is Frank Langella as the title count. His performance made him a true superstar of the stage, and it translates fairly well to the big screen. His full lips, big dark eyes and thick head of blown dry hair make him the most overtly sexual of all the screen Draculas.
The production is nice to look at for the most part, but some scenes are a little too under lit. The sweeping John Williams score is suitably evocative. One romantic sequence using backprojected laserlight has the unfortunate effect of casting a disco vibe about the whole thing, suitable since directing duties went to Saturday Night Fever's John Badham. Olivier's performance is all over the place, at turns leaden, then scenery-chewing, with a wandering accent to boot. His health was a serious issue at this time, so some understanding is in order. One shouldn't expect much in the way of scares or gore, with a few minor exceptions. The novel's unsavory subtexts regarding fear of immigrants and female sexuality are thankfully absent. All in all, suitable viewing on lonely nights for those with a darker taste in romance. -
Kirpianuscus18 November 2016first, for the cast. to meet, together, Laurence Olivier, Donald Pleasence and Frank Langella is a real delight. then - for the nuances who reminds, after so many experiments, the original novel. and not the last, the fascinating Dracula by Frank Langella who is more a seducer than the monster. the atmosphere reminds old fashion Gothic literature. the acting preserves the delicacy of tension and gives force and beautiful sparkles to a story who seems be well - known. maybe it is not exactly the best adaptation. but it remains a must see. maybe for the emotions and for the special feeling to discover hide zones of a novel who remains great source of inspiration for the horrors. and this is the great good point of this film - it is the perfect mixture between thriller, mystery and crime, ignoring the rules of horror for a beautiful story who use in wise manner great cinematography.
-
rj6510 July 2005I rate this movie a 7 out of 10. I believe that the movie is good for its time. Although it doesn't follow the book 100%(What movie ever does?) it is entertaining. The acting by Langella is as good as you can get and the others did a good job as well. Sir Laurence Olivier is considered the greatest actor to ever live and did a great job as Van Helsing. Donald Pleasance does a good job also but I would rather have seen another actor in this role but maybe its because I still think of his character in The Great Escape. The actor who plays Jonathan Harker is a bit flat. The scenes, screenplay, cinematography and the special effects are all very good for 1979. I also really like the ending of this movie. The music is outstanding but what would you expect from John Williams?
-
Lavishly produced Dracula adaptation is a mixed bag, but there are enough positives to outweigh the weaker elements. On the plus side, Frank Langell is wonderfully suave and also quietly menacing as The Count. The production design is terrifically atmospheric, aided by moody photography by Gilbert Taylor (the same guy who shot "Dr. Strangelove," "The Omen," "Flash Gordon," and the original "Star Wars"). There's also a strong supporting cast that includes Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing, Kate Nelligan, Donald Pleasence, and the seventh Doctor, Sylvester McCoy. Top that off with a John Williams score and a smart script by W.D. Richter (the guy who directed cult classic "Buckaroo Banzai") and it's hard to imagine this film going far wrong. On the downside, the film is not particularly scary and instead is more of a bland Gothic romance where the characters all seem rather cold, which weakens the the romantic elements and results in the audience never fully engage the romantic drama. Still, it's a gorgeous production that is a must see for fans of the oft filmed Bram Stoker tale.
-
aklcraigc9 September 2013This movie contains a weird mix of elements that somehow never quite come together. On the good side, it's a visually attractive film, the Gothic/Victorian settings are very well done, though, the inside of Dracula's castle is way over the top for no apparent reason. The John Williams soundtrack adds nicely to the generally gloomy feel. As mentioned by other reviewers, Frank Langella's Dracula is generally well done.
On the not so good side, as the movie progresses, it's pretty clear that the director isn't sure what type of movie he's making, this culminates in a rather silly chase scene near the end of the movie which verges on comic. The director will often begin a nice atmospheric sequence, only to ruin the effect with shrieking mice/bats/horses/minor characters. The characters sans Dracula don't really do much, the relationship between Harker and Mina goes nowhere, Olivier distractedly chews the scenery, as a consequence, the Van Helsing character is never really developed.
Watching the extras, it becomes apparent that the people involved in making the movie were not detail oriented, Count Dracula speaks Hungarian, though he's supposed to speaking Romanian, the writer doesn't seem to be sure if the movie is set in London or Yorkshire. Anyway, despite all this unevenness, the movie is still very much worth watching if you are a fan of the genre. -
When I first saw this in 1979, I was a 12 year old and, even though I didn't know it at the time, I began a love affair with Frank Langella.
His charisma is the saving grace of "Dracula." It doesn't stick to the book. Some elements are retained, but characters are cut out or switched around (Van Helsing is Mina's father, Lucy's father is Dr. Seward, Arthur and Quincey are gone, but Jonathan is as boring as ever.). You can see why women would damn their souls to be with Dracula (Jonathan is so stiff, that he could be part of a new stadium bench!), because Dracula is SOOOOOOO SEXY!
It's too bad that he doesn't have more scenes, because some of the film becomes a mess once Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier, who is so hammy, he could open a Deli!)comes into the picture. Some of the film falls flat and there's some errors (The reflection thing: Why is it that they can't be seen in a mirror, yet can be seen in a pool of water?)And what's with Dr. Seward? He pretty much spends the film eating!
Years later, the film still has me giggling like a schoolgirl whenever Frank Langella appears! -
budmassey3 December 2002After so many years, Lugosi's performance of Dracula wilts into camp, and the overblown Coppola version, while visually stimulating, comes across as so much hyperbole. Oldman was brilliant, but a few of his lines were poorly delivered, almost laughably so.
But Langella was the master of all vampires. His performance reels with sexual presence and a charm and sophistication that renders all other Dracula movies null and void. And why not? He had countless performances on Broadway to perfect his character, and perfect it he did. He insisted on touches, such as never wearing fangs, or never appearing with blood on his face, that added class to the vampire legend and places this version a cut above the rest.
Kate Nelligan (Prince of Tides) was so young and beautiful then and it was easy to believe that she could inspire a love that could transcend death and time. Olivier was already a ghost, and many of the scenes that involved activity no more strenuous than walking actually had to be shot with a stand in. It is rumored that Sir Larry's performance was so frail that impressionist Rich Little actually had to be called in to dub some of Olivier's lines, as he had done for David Niven in his final Pink Panther film, because the originals were virtually unintelligible given the poor health of the actors.
The brooding and regal score by John Williams drives the movie quite nicely. The film was edited by John Bloom, who a couple of years later would edit The French Lieutenant's Woman with a similar feel, and shot by Gil Taylor who shot, among other greats, the original Star Wars. Stoker would have been proud of the final result, particularly so with Langella's masterful and groundbreaking performance that launched a career. Dracula is a Gothic masterpiece that has never been given its due.
In 2004 director Badham decided to release a version in which the color had been drained from the movie, in much the same way as its central character drained color, blood and life from his victims, perhaps an intentional comparison. The "making of" featurette is delightful, and producer Mirisch's hilarious tongue in cheek observation of the "holy water" effect has already been misquoted by earnest IMDb reviewers. The remake is nice, but it was gilding the lily. And although the film was indeed improved by this modification, it had already surpassed any of its would be peers and remains the quintessential vampire movie. -
Anyone who thinks that this sort of Gothic horror can only be done best in B&W hasn't seen Dracula with Frank Langella in the title role and Sir Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing.
It starts with a well-staged storm at sea, accompanied by some of John Williams' most bombastic music, before settling down to become the familiar story we all know from Bram Stoker's classic tale.
FRANK LANGELLA repeats his successful stage role as Dracula, a more romantic and soulful version of the vampire than movie fans were accustomed to seeing. But this is a boldly erotic take on the story with nary a fang in sight--and yet, the horror is maintained through the uneasiness that stirs whenever that foreboding score tells us something evil is about to happen.
LAURENCE OLIVIER is less successful as Van Helsing, looking a bit frail and lacking the strength the character should show. Presumably, he was not in the best of health during filming, and it shows.
The film has been mounted with lavish care but the other performances are rather standard except for Langella, and the ending is an ambiguous one. We see Dracula's cape rising from the ruins, floating upward toward the sky and leaving the distinct impression that the studio was thinking of sequels for their legendary vampire.
Summing up: Worth a look if only to catch Langella's interpretation of the role and to hear John Williams' exceptional score. -
AaronCapenBanner1 October 2013John Badham directed this version of the famous Bram Stoker novel and later stage play that cast Frank Langella as a cultured, charming aristocrat who beguiles the women he encounters, especially Kate Nelligan as Lucy Seward, whose father(played by Donald Pleasance) runs the local sanitarium that Dracula makes use of to further his diabolical schemes. Sir Laurence Oliver plays professor Abraham Van Helsing, who comes to believe Dracula is a powerful vampire who must be stopped.
Though handsomely made, with a fine cast, especially Langella who is quite good in a different interpretation of the famous count, this film falls short because of too many needless(and unwise) changes to the story(like the opening and especially the ending, as well as inverting the Lucy and Mina roles) rendering the film unsatisfying and pretentious; some effective scenes, though women are undoubtedly the primary fans of this heavily romanticized version. -
integralesixteenvalve24 September 2007Now, I'm going to forward a controversial comment. This is the BEST adaptation of Dracula yet seen and miles better than Coppola's version.
I liked this adaptation because it was a subtle take on the old legend, needing neither the overblown pretension of Coppola's rather lurid and purple-prosy presentation, nor the schlocky elements of the Hammer versions (as good as they are).
Frank Langella really was the definitive Count. He carried the role off with charm and calculation, making him far more rounded a character than Oldman did (but maybe not with the poignancy). What makes the difference though, is that Langella gets first-class back-up while (with the exception of Anthony Hopkins) Oldman was left on his own by the woodenly gruesome performances of the supporting cast (Wynona Ryder and especially Keanu Reeves were the chief culprits here). Kate Nelligan, Sir Larry and Donald Pleasance were in fine form and Trevor Eve made more of the Jonathan Harker character than Reeves ever could. Jan Francis made a believably frail Mina.
What really makes this film so good though is the superbly Gothic atmosphere. The set for the Count's castle was suitably creepy and the cinematography added to the feel of the period. Technically, Badham's version shows how much has now been lost by the reliance on CGI and digital add-ons.
That this Dracula takes it's cue from the stage adaptation rather than Stoker's original book adds a welcome element of variety. So what if it's not faithful? Does it matter? Very few films these days have this level of class and genuine skill injected into them. John Badham's version has been criminally underrated for years and slagged off by far too many ill-informed pedants. Judge for yourself. Maybe you will disagree about which adaptation is best but , pound to a penny, you won't regret watching it. -
gavin694223 February 2015Romanticized adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 classic. Set in 1913 England, the bloodsucking, but handsome, charming and seductive, Count Dracula seeks an immortal bride.
This film is somewhat notorious because the color is "drained" or faded. Apparently the theatrical version is vibrant and later releases (DVD, Laserdisc, etc) have the color almost completely removed. Indeed, the Universal / Image DVD is very pale. Some say it almost looks black and white. Stylistically, it is not a great choice.
That being said, the story is interesting. Frank Langella plays an interesting Dracula, much more charming than the most notable earlier versions (Bela Lugosi or Max Schreck). A wise decision, and one that really speaks to the romantic undertones many read in the novel. -
The Frank Langella version of "Dracula" is dull and dreary. All the colour has been sucked out of it so that it looks like a black and white film. The original "Dracula", the one everyone knows even if they haven't seen, actually was in black and white, and yet it felt more colourful than this.
This Dracula, played by Langella, looks like an ageing member of a New Wave band. The subtitle of the movie is fitting: it is more of a love story than a horror flick, though there's a couple of violent scenes, and one genuinely scary apparition.
Remember how the Coppola version had Gary Oldman's Dracula fall in love with Winona Ryder's Mina Harker? There, you could actually understand the attraction. Here, not so much. The Dracula looks too old, and the Mina Harker is pretty forgettable.
The movie is apparently based on a play, which was based on the book. It's not a direct adaptation of the novel. There are some weird changes, like the whole episode of Jonathan Harker in Castle Dracula being left out, and the characters knowing Dracula personally, him apparently being a guest of theirs.
He seems less a figure of absolute evil than an annoying dinner guest. This version of the Dracula story is overlooked in favour of Bela Lugosi's, Christopher Lee's and Gary Oldman's. Now I know why.