Dracula

Though not exactly faithful to the original novel this is still one of the better Dracula movies of the last forty years. Despite the absence of modern digital effects they manage realistic and believable looking wolf and bat transformations. And there are twinges of sympathy to the otherwise vicious yet charismatic portrayal of Dracula by the highly under-rated Frank Langella. I strongly recommend this film to any fan of Dracula. It's a little jarring to a book fan to know the characters of Mina and Lucy had their names swapped and that Mina (portrayed more as the Lucy character of the novel) in this version of Professor Van Helsing's daughter. But Lucy (Mina of the novel) is a great character. This is probably the best developed version of the character I have seen, despite the name swap. She's independent, out spoken and a suffragette. She invites Dracula to dance with her right in front of her own fiance and you can tell that it's Dracula who is seduced by her boldness and unconventional way of thinking. She is no impassive Victorian. And you can honestly see why Dracula finds her attractive. There is actually chemistry between them. But don't let the love story turn you off. He's still a vicious predator who rips out throats, kills the crew of a ship, and makes veiled threats. He's still the bone chilling hunter, Dracula. I like the balance of charm and viciousness. It makes the darker moments all the more disturbing when you counter-balance it with charm. Modern vampire films have forgotten this. They either make the main vampire too sympathetic or a mindless fiend who just wants to kill. This is a healthy balance of seduction and sadism. Monster and man. This is the traditional vampire the world has missed in recent entertainment. By the end of the movie I was hoping Dracula would win and part of me is convinced that he actually survived and like in the Fred Saberhagen Dracula books will return for his beloved later when no one is expecting it. Some of the effects are spooky and disturbing and there are hints of humor with Renfield's incompetence and Dr. Seward's food and laudanum fixation. The one thing I dislike about this DVD is that when it first went to theatres in 1979 and went to VHS tape in the early eighties it had vibrant color. When it was time to release the film to disc the director felt it would look better in washed out, de-saturated nearly black and white coloring and had most of the film's color removed (except during an intimate scene between Dracula and Lucy). The washed out colors hurt the film. The images are now grainy and faded looking. It was never meant to be seen this way. It hurts the cinematography. I wish they would one day release a two disc version with one version of the movie with the original colors restored and another with the washed out nearly black and white version, that way both the fans and the director can be satisfied.

I have to say, although the original and Coppola's versions of this are compelling and the later a beautiful love story, this has to stand as the best version of the story. Why? Well, for one thing the cast. Langella is really very creepy and hideously handsome in the role, both seductive, secretive, and repulsive, all at the same time. You have Olivier brilliantly on hand as the good Doctor Van Helsing, and Donald Pleasance aptly playing the keeper of the Madhouse, and Lucy's Father. You also, alas, have the gorgeous young Kate Nelligan as Lucy, and in her prime, she could out act and exhibit sensuality like no one. In addition, you have gorgeous photography, great sets that seem shot on location, and you have a wonderfully horrifying yet beautiful musical score. Horrifying scenes, scary, as when Olivier meets the zombie vampire corpse of his daughter Mina in the cave under her grave: "Papa, kommen sie hier, Papa", blood drooling down her lips (sorry if I mispelled the German). I almost saw this with Langella in the lead at the Geary theater in San Francisco during the 70's. Unfortunately, Langella became ill, and was covered by his understudy, no less than the late great Jeremy Brett (of Sherlock Holmes fame). What a treat! I think the whole movie is a blast of that stage version!

First off, I just want to say, this is not a totally accurate adaptation of the novel "Dracula" by Bram Stoker, it's more of a stylistic, late 70s remake of the 1931 Bela Lugosi film that was based on the same novel. With that out of the way, let's move on. The movie opens with a sailing ship crashing ashore, with only a single living survivor, Count Dracula, who is found and rescued by Mina Harker. It turns out the Count was on his way to this town, anyway and decides to take up permanent residence at Cairfax Abbey, a castle not to far from the Harker residence. Soon after he moves in, strange things begin to happen, and I don't want to give away too much, but it is the usual Dracula fair, but with that 1970s style. That's all I'll give away, you have to see the rest for yourself. I want to say again that this isn't so much an adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel as much as it is an adaptation of the Bela Lugosi movie, if you're looking for a balls to the wall adaptation of the novel, check out Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula," which is about the most faithful adaptation you're going to get of the book. Also, side note, this movie was released the same year as Werner Herzog's remake of F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu," which was also based on Bram Stoker's book. I'm not quite sure, because I wouldn't be born for another seven years, but I think the two films competed against each other at the box office. On the one hand you had a remake of an unauthorized adaptation (Nosferatu), and on the other hand you had a remake of an authorized adaptation (Dracula). I'm not entirely sure, but I think they were released in the same year on purpose, as to drive up ticket sales so people might go see both of them. It's hard to tell, overall, neither of the two films (Frank Langella's Dracula or Klaus Kinski's Nosferatu) are faithful adaptations of the novel from which they are both based, but they're both darned fun movies that are good for Halloween, or just a rainy Saturday afternoon. All in all, I liked this version of Dracula, I'm sure if Bela Lugosi had been alive to see it, he would have been proud of Frank Langella's performance.

Excellent older movie for Dracula lovers. Authentic and original.

I saw this version of Dracula in its theatrical release when I was in college. I still remember how the audience broke into applause after one of Olivier's scenes. I also enjoyed the score by John Williams enough to go out and buy the record. However, over the years this movie was stuck in my mind as one of the less than great entries in the roster of Dracula films. Watching it again on this dvd, it's much better than I remembered and comes across as another take on the old story with its own adjustments and touches. It's certainly atmospheric, right from the opening credits (well supported by that John Williams score). I'm not bothered by the subdued palette of the video release compared to the original Technicolor (which ironically still gets mention in the closing credits). I understand that the director wanted to have it this way originally, but the producers wanted it in Technicolor. Any way, the color is intense enough when it needs to be, particularly red. Performances all around are fine, starting with the title role, Langella in the traditional cape but otherwise individual and not making me think of other famous portrayals of the count. Olivier, of course, is great even if this is not one of his most memorable screen roles. (He brings a couple of odd touches, and I thought he was hamming deliberately.) Donald Pleasance is another enjoyable performance and even provides some comic relief with his constant need to be eating something. (In commentary, director John Badham discusses Pleasance's deliberate scene-stealing.) I liked the way some of the asylum patients were performed, and the asylum was as scary as a vampire's castle.

I love this movie. That's really all that needs said on the topic but given our culture's obsession with explanations, I will proceed with further comments. Firstly it's a very romantic, soft approach to a story that has otherwise been brutalized in the cinema. Most Dracula films drench the audience in blood and give us gruesome depictions of leering fangs, while this one alludes to things but is never expressly gory or gruesome. It's a softer approach that appeals in particular to females. Of course, who could doubt that -- one glimpse of Frank Langella sweeping into Lucy's life and carelessly tossing his long, menacing black cloak to the nearest forgotten servant is enough to set any woman's head spinning. Forget the composure of most villains, Dracula has all the beguiling sexuality of a dozen infamous Don Juans that send the very Victorian women in his life to utter confusion. Frank Langella was ingenious for the part, reprising a role he'd already defined on Broadway. Everyone complains about the quality transfer and how this film has been forced into a nearly black and white canvas in order to create a gothic effect. Having not seen the original, I didn't find it disappointing, just a fabulous mood-setter. I know this will probably regulate my review to the bottom of the pile, but it's a matter of preference that lends a certain morbid flair to the piece. They had a marvelous palate to work with in the first place, from the Grecian architecture of the castle to the morose English countryside in midwinter, when death surrounds the morbid asylum and its pensive graveyard. The film manages to be very haunting and beautiful at the same time, indwelling romance while never allowing us to forget the sinister surroundings. For concerned parents and sensitive viewers, the R-rating seems heavy handed in comparison to most modern films. Gore is minimal, language is nonexistent, and sexual content consists more of underlining tension and passionate kissing than anything heavy-handed. The extras are also very nice, although in some respects the director's commentary rehashes much of what we've already heard on the featurette, which is by far the most marvelous addition. Interviews with some of the cast and crew, as well as reminiscences about filming, remind us that this wasn't just a movie, it was an adventure from beginning to end, from Laurence Olivier's increasingly bad health but persistent determination to do his best (and he turns in a fine performance) to Frank Langella's surprising thoughts on the film's love scene. It may not please anyone desiring leering fangs and blood spattered walls, but I certainly enjoyed it.

the desaturated print doesn't get much love, but i prefer it. john badham has justly released the original full color print onto bluray too, but this is it's own experience and deserves to exist.

My mom loved this gift!

On ne peut comparer ce film de 1979 avec celui de Coppola sorti treize ans plus tard qui lui a bénéficié de nouvelles techniques (bien que les deux furent terminés avec des bouts de ficelle faute d'argent, ce qui oblige les réalisateurs à faire preuve de plus de créativité, d'où les ombres chinoises dans le film de Coppola). Coppola a obligatoirement dû s'inspirer de ce film. Oubliez le brushing à la Joe dassin de Dracula, le Jonathan coiffé à la Claude François mais notez qu'un Dracula sexy, ça c'était nouveau. Et puis.... il y a La musique de JOHN WILLIAMS : Star Wars, Jurrasic Park, La liste de Schindler, Les dents de la mer, Rencontre du troisième type, Un violon sur le toit, Harry Potter, Superman, E.T., Les sorcières d'Eastwick... 45 nominations aux Oscars, 5 Oscars ! Une qui a dû se retourner dans sa tombe à la sortie de ce film c'est Vivien Leigh, la petite Scarlett, compagne du grand Laurence Olivier qui la méprisait tant de faire du cinéma, un art qu'il considérait comme mineur par rapport au théatre. Même pour Autant en emporte le vent, film mythique si il en est, elle n'a pas obtenu un petit mot de félicitation. Elle qui n'a eu de cesse toute sa vie de tenter de se hisser à la hauteur de ce maître, jusqu'à en perdre le goût de vivre, est tout de même un peu vengée de le voir ici dans un second rôle et...au cinéma.

Great movie and actor

a well made version of the classic dracula story.

Un Dracula ben riuscito. Misterioso, lugubre e oscuro. Ambientazioni eccellenti. L interpretazione di Frank Langella si merita di diritto un posto tra i primi 5 film di Dracula & co. Molto raro da trovare, speriamo in futuro una bella versione blu ray . Se lo trovate, compratelo. Ne vale la pena.

I was around 9 or ten when I first encountered this version of Dracula. We had recorded it on the video. And, after my first watch, the video tape itself acquired an aura of pure, unadulterated, unspeakable evil! I can safely say that it has been one of the most influential movies of my life and, together with the first three Omen films and, even earlier, the astonishingly scary Into the Labyrinth children's TV programme, Bill Bixby's Incredible Hulk TV series and Space 1999, it engendered a knee-trembling fascination with horror in me. Until I accidentally rewatched Dracula the other day on DVD after nearly three decades (I had no idea this was the version I was about to watch), my memories of it were generally vague, but a few, key aspects had been deeply imprinted on me. The dramatic, ship-in-a-storm arrival of the Count into Whitby in the opening scenes, the horrifying madness of the insect-and-arachnid-eating Renfield and, most terrifying of all, the transformation of the fragile Mina into a grotesque abomination of womanhood! Once I realized that the film I was watching was the one that had so deeply affected me all those years ago, I steeled myself for the inevitable disappointment that watching it with adult eyes would bring. I was resigned to the fact that the effects would be laughable, that the acting would be hammy, that the pace and atmosphere would be lumbering and tedious... and, worst of all, that it would no longer scare the pants off a flea! But I was amazed to discover that, not only did it stand up to adult scrutiny, it is actually an incredible work, many of whose subtleties and qualities I had overlooked as a child. Up until the other day, I have felt short-changed by almost all of the Dracula films I have seen. Christopher Lee, while being imperious and believable in the Hammer films, is far better than the material he had to work with. Gary Oldman's performance, while a lot of fun, was overwhelmed by the baroque tricksiness and technicolour cartoonishness of Coppola's version which had a unique charm of its own, but didn't actually scare me at all. But practically every single element in John Badham's Dracula coheres into a wonderful, unified whole that captures the eerie menace and dark romance of the peerless source novel while taking great liberties with it. (There are no scenes in Transylvania, the characters of Lucy and Mina are switched etc...) The costume design, the cinematography, the gothic sets, the understated-but-highly-effective special effects, the score which, in its way, is as important to the film as the music in The Exorcist or Omen films, the intelligent and believable dialogue, the dark eroticism... there is so much to relish in this Dracula that sets it apart from all the others. And I haven't even mentioned any of the actors yet! Frank Langella is a brooding, cultured, seductive and truly formidable Dracula. Tony Haygarth is a wonderful treat as the wretched Renfield. Donald Pleasance as Dr Seward, Laurence Olivier (no less!) armed with a dodgy Dutch accent as Abraham Van Helsing, a youthful Trevor Eve as Jonathan Harker... this is top-notch acting talent and it shows in the utterly committed and effortless performances. But the absolute revelation for me is the Canadian actress Kate Nelligan as Lucy. Beautiful, for sure, but so much more than just that. She absolutely commands every single scene that she is in. Her screen presence is, in turns, hugely endearing, hypnotic, swooningly romantic, spine-tingling and just, so, damn watchable! And I love her distinctly feminist interpretation of the character too! And her voice is like the finest Manuka Honey! I really can't think of an actress with better - and more bewitching - diction! I know most viewers are unlikely to be drawn to a Dracula film because of the character of Lucy. But, in this case, Lucy is the beating heart of the film and Kate Nelligan is the star attraction in a film bursting at the seams with great performances. (Oh, and the scene in the mine with Mina trying, unsubtly, to 'convert' her father (Van Helsing) to her vampiric point of view, is as gut-wrenchingly frightening as I remembered it from childhood!)