Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

scathbeorh 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.

TheLittleSongbird For me the definitive version is the Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing one(adaptation-wise and own terms wise) with the Bela Lugosi film close behind, but almost all the adaptations of Dracula are worth watching and this one from 1974 acquits itself more than adequately. There are goofy-looking day-and-night shots, a few moments of erratic pacing and Jonathan Harker is so underwritten that it's almost like he was written as an afterthought, his story resolved rather off-handedly. However Dracula(1974) is stylishly made stuff with moody photography, effectively creepy lighting, very evocative and colourful Victorian period detail and some great locations, especially the one for Dracula's castle which is like a character of its own that matches Dracula in being imposing.Dracula(1974) also benefits from having one of the spookiest and suspense-inducing music scores I've heard in a long time and intelligently done writing and direction that respects the source material while having an imaginative touch as well. Likewise with the story, which has plenty of horror and suspense as well as a melancholic air, it certainly feels like Dracula, apart from missing the erotic quality of the book and the Coppola and Lee adaptations, and stays relatively faithful spirit and story structure-wise. Though with some additions and omissions, most notably the inclusion of the love story and having Lucy looking like Dracula's lost love(also done in the Coppola film, except to me it's handled better here) which added a lot to Dracula's character(it gives him a tortured quality while not forgetting that he's evil) and made why he went to England believable, and the omission of Renfield, a shame as he is one of the book's most interesting characters.There are some great scenes here, especially the spine-chilling opening sequence which is accentuated by the sound effects and the score, Dracula moving through the castle throwing around anyone and anything in his way, when Dracula goes berserk and when Dracula unleashes a wolf from the zoo. The pursuit of Dracula's also quite exciting. The ending may seem silly to some and some may feel like Dracula is defeated too easily and that his character is weakened too much(the latter was definitely deliberate though and makes sense). To me it was a very powerful ending that was also lively and intense and if anything it did improve on the ending of the book somewhat(the too-silly and Dracula-defeated-too-easily-and-weakening-his-character criticisms can be true of the book too, just my opinion of course). The performances are good on the whole, though those of Jonathan and Mrs. Westernra are a touch stiff but that's not entirely their fault as the way their characters are written doesn't help them, and Dracula is the only really colourful character. Simon Ward is very likable and solidly forthright and I personally appreciated the subtlety that Nigel Davenport brought to Van Helsing(but if people find him too low-key that's understandable, as Van Helsing is not the most subtle of characters.Jack Palance's superb Dracula is the performance that dominates as he should, not definitive but extremely worthy. He is often very scary in an animalistic way- see how he bares his fangs, hear how he hisses and look at how imposing he looks with his rugged features and tall height- but he also brings a melancholy, nobleman-quality and ambiguity if not as sensual as others in the role. You are genuinely terrified of Dracula but empathise a little with him too but the film doesn't make the mistake of rooting for him too much. Palance's best moments are when he tries to get into the locked hotel room door with the two women in the room- people here have said that this scene was chilling back then and that it came across to this viewer as chilling to this day is testament to how effective it is-, when he's moving through the hotel and how his facial expression of pain and horror has a glint of relief too as he's dying, it is a subtle touch that can easily be missed but it is brilliantly done. Overall, a very solid and atmospheric adaptation of a classic with a superb titular character performance. 7/10 Bethany Cox

bayardhiler When most people think of all the great actors who've played Dracula over the years, names like Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, John Carradine, Gary Oldman, and maybe Frank Langella will come to mind. However, very people are likely to think of Jack Palance as a suitable Dracula since most people think of his roles in "Shane and "City Slickers". But there was a lot more to Jack than just playing cowboys and he proves it here in 1974's "Bram Stoker's Dracula". This little seen TV version, produced by Dan Curtis ("Dark Shadows") and written by the legendary Richard Matheson, portrays Dracula as centuries old warrior Vlad Tepes who journeys to London after he comes to believe that the fiancé of Arthur Holmwood ,Lucy, is the reincarnation of his lost love. If it sounds like you've heard this version before, you probably have since Francis Ford Coppola pretty much used the same storyline for his 1992 version. While I like the '92 version, I find this movie to be more straightforward and less bogged down by the romantic aspect that the Coppola version had, instead choosing to focus more on the horror aspect. Jack Palance makes an excellent Dracula by being able to use his tough guy persona to project the lord of the vampires as a figure of great strength and power, especially physically, while at the same time giving just a little hint of sympathy. Another bonus is the creepy atmosphere that is created in the movie by the filming locations in England and Yugoslavia. Rounding out the cast is Simon Ward as Arthur Holmwood and Nigel Davenport as Prof. Van Helsing, both of whom are excellent in their roles. As proof for the power of this movie, I remember seeing it when I was very young in the 90s on some cable channel and while I couldn't remember the faces very well (memory is a funny thing) I never forgot this movie, particularly the the final scene where Dracula meets his end, which I won't spoil. This is a real gem of a movie that if you ever get the chance, I highly recommend it, either on you tube (which is how I found it) or I believe you can get it on DVD. 9 out of 10

scott-scocar First saw this movie the night it debuted on February 8, 1974 when I was 5 years old. At the time, I was reading The Tomb of Dracula (a Marvel comic book) and the movie brought it to life for me.The director Dan Curtis said it best, "Jack Palance was the best Dracula there ever was." According to author Richard Matheson, the original version was 3 hours long but edited down to 1.5 hours. I wonder if the original footage is still available to re-create the original 3 hour version as Matheson and Curtis intended? Until that happens, fans will have to read the original Richard Matheson script available in his book, "Bloodlines" available from Amazon.com.