Dracula

It 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.

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.

Langella 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.

It'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.

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!