Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

sorendanni This movie remains greatly in the shadows of both previous (Lee and Lugosi) and the later 1991 (Oldman) movie interprztations of the Bram Stoker novel. I have watched it and I can only say the movie does actually do almost everything good, it is actually scary at a few times, but Frank Langella may be very talented, but you never can imagine him as Count Dracula. There are many reasons, not in the least that he does not have anything in common with the figure Stoker, that means he is not scary. And that is no plaussible to be member of an ancient Transylvanian (Romanian) family. instead we see an American prince charming doing his utterly best to sound so English, it was like he was doing audition for a James bond movie. I just keep wondering why they did not cast him as Jonathan Harker. My bet is that of this cast Laurence Olivier (professor Van Helsing) had the most potential to make a plaussible Dracula.Still, the rest of the movie is a surprise, in a good way. Yes, you can nag that this movie is a very loose interpretation of the novel, but that is the case with kind of allmost every Dracula movie (the 1991 movie being a lonely exception). Wath matters for me, is that the storyline works! It keeps you watching the movie! It was was well scripted, with well chosen locations and, the best thing, It had the atmosphere the better of the Hammer movies also had! Last but not least: Donald Pleasence was again at his best in this movie, he makes it worth watching the movie, no doubt about it!

calvinnme This 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.

Aaron1375 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!

gavin6942 Romanticized 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.