User reviews

This film is by Dan Curtis--the man most famous for bringing the world the TV show "Dark Shadows". However, following this show, Curtis made several excellent monster films--such as this Dracula as well as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

I admire this film for trying to be different. Jack Palance as Dracula?! Well, it does work provided you are willing to accept a Dracula that looks and acts NOTHING like the one from Dracula (1931) or Nosferatu (1922). Instead of the monstrous Dracula or the weird Dracula, this Dracula is a combination of the vampire and the real-life Vlad the Impaler (who was named "Dracula"--literally, "son of the dragon"--a 15th century maniac who fought against the Muslim invasions of Europe). And, because it is so different, it does work. While not "earth shaking", it is very satisfying and fun to watch. After giving this a shot, also try to find a copy of Palance's earlier DR. JECKYL AND MR. HYDE. They're both pretty good.

By the way, look as Van Helsing is sinking a stake into the vampiress' heart late in the film. When she screams, you can clearly see several very modern fillings in her teeth.

Jonathan Harker (Murray Brown) arrives at Castle Dracula in the Carpathian mountains to assist Count Dracula (Jack Palance) to look for a place in Whitby in Yorkshire. Dracula's motivations are not honest, the real motivation being that Harker's fiancee (Fiona Lewis) is the reincarnation of his long lost dead lover.

A fairly faithful TV movie adaptation with a twist makes for an interesting version of Bram Stoker's classic creation with its interesting added plot device of Lucy being a reincarnation of the Count's lover from the past. On the surface Palance is an interesting choice as the title character, but the plot device of lost love and obsession give Palance's Count an added dimension.

Fairly enjoyable but workmanlike version of the classic tale. Davenport is fine as Van Helsing but it's Palance everyone wants to see. He does ooze evil and in the final scenes carries a gravitas of an ancient warrior that few have brought to the screen - usually just sultry, sexy and dark. Unfortunately the role calls for most of his time to be spent staring / snarling or marching purposefully with cape a flapping, which is a shame.

Jack Palance is not the sexiest nor the spookiest Dracula, but he's a marvelous choice for many reasons--and he definitely stands out from the other (often memorable) performances. Only a couple of years before doing this movie, Palance starred in the film THE HORSEMAN, playing a legendary bukashi rider; it was only one of several such horseman-warrior roles Palance specialized in (including the part of Revak in an Italian film titled THE BARBARIANS). In fact, Palance is an actor who can claim to have played both Dracula AND Attila the Hun.

Some might wonder what that has do with the bloodsucking count, but at one point in the Stoker novel, Dracula says, "the blood of Attila flows through these veins." Though they didn't retain that particular line, the film-makers emphasize from beginning to end this particular Dracula is an ex-warrior--and Palance suggests a former, Magyar beserker brilliantly.

This is also the first version of the novel to have the motivation of Dracula travelling to England for the purpose of reclaiming his lost love--an idea that adds a touch of pathos. Perhaps Dan Curtis did simply re-use it from his DARK SHADOWS series, but I can't help but wonder, however, if the idea might also have sprung from this movie's adapter, Richard Matheson. A talented novelist in his own right, Matheson wrote the book (and the screenplay) of SOMEWHERE IN TIME, which also has a central character searching for his true love across the ages. In any case, it's an approach that adds a layer to Dracula's character and would be used again in the Coppola version. I think it will be used in future adaptations as well. In any case, for the record, this was the version that did it first.

All in all, this version isn't as stylish or as atmospheric as some others, but it's well worthwhile and is a must in any Dracula fan's library.

Bistritz, Hungary, May 1897: Natives in Transylvania seem afraid when they learn solicitor Jonathan Harker (Murray Brown) is going to Castle Dracula.

Who thought that Jack Palance would make a good Dracula? Clearly director Dan Curtis, who had previously worked with Palance on "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", saw the potential. He has a very distinctive look, different from what might be called a traditional vampire look. And yet, Palance is amazing.

The rumor is that Palance turned down offers to play Dracula again. True or not, it would be no surprise if he received such offers -- his performance is incredible, and he really threw himself into the role. (He reportedly said he felt that he was "becoming" Dracula more than he wanted.)

The director? Dan Curtis. Already famous for "Dark Shadows", he would go on to become legendary. This film played no small role in that. Curtis is a horror legend that we were unfortunate to lose. Along with Bob Clark, these two directors came from a generation we cannot replicate.

"I Am Legend" novelist Richard Matheson co-wrote the script with Curtis. Matheson may be the greatest horror screenwriter ever, having done a fine job adapting Poe stories for Roger Corman, among others. While many adaptations of Dracula have been written and filmed, Curtis and Matheson still found a way to make the story fresh and new, focusing on a love interest that is not present in the source material.

All in all, this may be the best adaptation up to that point, most likely. A bold claim given the dozens of versions from Bela Lugosi to Christopher Lee and beyond, but Palance delivers and the costumes and scenery really set the tone. Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992) is now the benchmark and overall superior, but even that does not match this film's tone.

MPI released the film on DVD in 2002 and again on Blu-Ray in 2014. The difference is unclear. If the picture and sound have been improved, the package makes no mention of that. The running time is decreased from 100 minutes to 98, which is probably a print clarification rather than an actual cut. The Blu-Ray adds outtakes and TV cuts, as well as a French audio track. Apparently, however, the French subtitles have been removed (or they still exist but are not worth mentioning). Both feature vintage interviews with Jack Palance and Dan Curtis.

Generally speaking, Blu-Ray releases are superior to older DVD versions. And if you own neither, the Blu-Ray is the only choice. That being said, if someone already has the DVD, an upgrade may not be in order... this is not a "special edition" and fans will gain little by buying the film again.

In 1897, creepy Count Dracula in Transylvania (Jack Palance) acquires London property from Jonathan Harker (Murray Brown) whereupon he moves and falls for a woman who looks like his wife from 400 years earlier (Fiona Lewis), facing the opposition of Van Helsing & his sidekick (Nigel Davenport and Simon Ward). Penelope Horner is on hand as Mina.

"Dracula" (1974) was directed by Dan Curtis and written by Richard Matheson based on Bram Stoker's novel of Victorian horror. The undead Count is more sympathetic here in comparison to Christopher Lee's take in the Hammer series, but he's still very formidable, which is particularly shown in the second half.

While a TV production in America, it was released theatrically overseas and at least had the budget of "Horror of Dracula" (1958). There's some nice mood from the get-go with shots of canines (wannabe wolves) at a castle in Croatia. I love the Gothic/Victorian décor throughout and Palance makes for a convincing Prince of Darkness. While it doesn't beat the 1979 version with Frank Langella or Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 version, it's still a worthy interpretation of the oft-done tale.

The movie runs 1 hour, 37 minutes, and was shot at Trakoscan Castle, Croatia, and the Greater London area, England, including Oakley Court, Windsor (Carfax Abbey).

GRADE: B.

The best I can do is a 3. I watched it on streaming and it got a 5 out of 5 rating there... on a 5-scale, I might be generous and give a 2, or I might have to be more realistic and go down to a 1.

Palance isn't particularly effective in the part, and the TV-movie quality doesn't help matters any. For me, it started off badly when the sound of wolves howling cut to scenes of innumerable German Shepherds running down a deserted forest road at top speed. So... were the dogs howling earlier and that was what we heard, or were the dogs running away from wolves in the forest who were howling? Also, the interior of the castle is brightly-lit even during nighttime hours, almost like an operating theater, and to me that's a lost opportunity to lay in some "mood".

Dan Curtis is what he is.. either you like his work or you don't. I always got the feeling he saw something in his own head when he was directing that never made it onto the screen so the rest of us could see it.

I respect the opinions of those who say this is one of the scariest and best Dracula interpretations they've ever seen; I just don't understand them. My vote would go to F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" which has more atmosphere than any version I've ever seen, even Lugosi's (although he's a close second). However, that's just my opinion... I have no qualifications as movie critic and I just know what I like. This, I didn't like.

Few people remember that Jack Palance--better known as a rough Western character and elderly machismo cologne huckster--played Dracula. For any 10-11-year-olds in 1973, who saw this TV movie, however, his performance will never be forgotten!

I got a chance to see this version of the classic tale as adult a few years ago and found that it is still a fine film. Palance brings something unique to the vampire role. Somewhere between Max Schreck's hideous rat-like Count Orlok and the debonair Lugosi/Lee/Langela Dracula, Palance may well exude some sort of animal magnetism to women, but is still a hideous fanged beast on the prowl. The scene of him trying to get into the locked hotel room of the two women still gives me shivers. Few Draculas ever barred their fangs and hissed as Palance did--although this has seemed to be a popular move for female vampires.

Jack Palance will never be the first or second (or third) name associated with film vampires. For those who saw him in the role, though, it is hard to ever forget his Dracula. Watch it if you get the chance!

Jack Palance makes a good Count, and there's some talent in the supporting cast (Simon Ward, Nigel Davenport, Fiona Lewis), but the film itself is pretty lacklustre. I don't know whether the money ran out, but the final third suddenly feels rushed, with all suspense going out the window. And the last 20 mins just feels like an exercise in box-ticking. I expected better from Dan Curtis. 5.5/10.

This is a review in retrospect, since it's been about 20+ years or so since I saw it on TV. However, despite the time passed might seem great, the overall impressions is still there, and for a reason. This is just simply one of the best visualizations of a Vampire Lord filmed.

Jack Palance moves through the story with absolute power and confidence - as it becomes him - being an Immortal creature. I remember being truly pleased by this one thing; at last, a movie that showed how this powerful creature a Vampire really is, also allowed it to behave like an Immortal being.

Palance is not the kind that lurks in the shadows waiting to stab it's unsuspecting prey in the back, he steps out and confronts his hunters in the open and laugh mercilessly at their despair. Of course these puny humans chasing him is nothing more than an itch to be scratched. Annoying, but nothing more...

This film makes a very believable depiction of what it would be like to have an undead Immortal Lord (or Count) crashing through your neighborhood...

Before Francis Ford Coppola brought us the lush colors and atmospheric music of his film, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Dark Shadows' creator, Dan Curtis, treated us to his own film of the same title.

Based moderately close to the novel from which its based, Bram Stoker's Dracula stars the late Jack Palance as the vampire count. Having a very Slavic-looking physique and powerful presence, Palance fits the role of a Romanian aristocrat perfectly. His mixture of emotions are acted appropriately, without much overacting (though he cringes a little too much).

The acting in general, however, is only standard fare; nothing phenomenal. Nigel Davenport's performance as Van Helsing is nowhere near as distinct as the acting of Peter Cushing, Anthony Hopkins, or Edward Van Sloan.

The production values reflect the quality of the film a great deal, and I'm happy to say that this film has quality. The sets look appropriate, rivaling that of Hammer Studios'. Robert Cobert's score effectively highlights the anguish of Dracula as well as showing the horror of vampirism and its effect on other characters.

There is little more I can say about this film other than it should be viewed for Jack Palance's excellent performance as Count Dracula and the haunting environment that the character inhabits.

Offering the novelty of Jack Palance as a highly saturnine Count Dracula and visibly the recipient of much more money and ambition than have been expended on it than Dan Curtis's earlier tv horror shows that began with 'Dark Shadows'. Here he splashed out on distinguished collaborators like veterans Ozzie Morris and Richard Matheson and on foreign locations. Both the costumes and various scenes show at least a passing acquaintance with venerable antecedents like 'Nosferatu' and Tod Browning's 'Dracula' although the use of zooms and slow motion rather date it and the amount of talk betrays it's TV origins.

This seldom-seen, seldom-discussed Dracula film is all in all pretty entertaining. It is a fairly faithful adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel, although it integrates the Vlad Tepes myth into the storyline as well. One definitely can see this film being an inspiration for Francis Ford Coppola's trashy film of the 90's. Jack Palance may not have been the best choice for the role of the toothsome lead. He does overact with his somewhat ludicrous sneers and temper tantrums, but that not withstanding the rest of the cast is quite good(all of them British coincidentally) with Nigel Davenport standing out in a Van Helsing role which I wish had been bigger and Fiona Lewis just being scrumptuous! Dan Curtis does a very competent job directing and the sets, costumes, props, etc... are lavish and beautiful. This is certainly an interesting film to see in the long line of Dracula films made.

This was actually the first Dracula movie I ever remember seeing, so Jack Palance was always identified with the role for me. I recently picked up the video, and while the movie is not the greatest, it does have its points.

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first. Van Helsing is lamely acted, and Jonathan Harker is a character that is just too English to really care about. The divergences in the story with Harker annoy me, but considering everything, it doesn't foul the adaptation much.

In actuality, I consider this to be one of the truest adaptations of Bram Stoker's story. You can see a lot of the imagery in this film revamped and reworked in Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula", which is probably the best adaptation to date (even considering the many changes and additions that were made to the story and the characters). Watch this Dracula, and then "Count Dracula" with Klaus Kinski and Christopher Lee to get a real feel for what the novel is...then watch the Coppola blockbuster and decide for yourself.

Perhaps the first Dracula adaptation to go into his backstory, including that of rage over lost love. Francis Ford Coppola did something identical many years later in his garish, completely unsubtle version. Like other Curtis productions this one is fairly low budget, but it really doesn't show, except in the subpar day for night shooting. The cast is strong and Palance is a Dracula like no other.

Story-wise, the script takes many liberties with the novel, which is fine, as these distinguishing commonalities and differences are part of what makes it fun to watch different versions. The script is strongest during the first half, and has a few issues in the second half. Nonetheless, Dracula movies are a sub-genre in themselves, and this is one that every fan should see.

Jonathan Harker is invited by Dracula (Jack Palance) to his castle. He's looking to buy a property in England. He spots Lucy Westenra in one of Harker's picture. Lucy happens to look like his late beloved wife. Harker is taken prisoner. Back in England, Dracula had moved into the Carfax estate near Lucy. Dr. Van Helsing is brought in to examine a strange wound on her neck. Her fiancée Arthur is concerned.

Jack Palance is playing Dracula. That's all one needs to know. That's the alpha and the omega. He's the star but he's only in sections of this movie. It's not enough to make this excel. Nobody is holding the screen as good as Palance. This TV version has its good sides.

I listened to only words of praise for Curtis's adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula", and now that I finally saw it I'm totally confused. This film is bad in almost every aspect. The fact that it is one of the versions most faithful to the original material is not by itself sufficient. Moreover, for someone who has watched every version of Dracula that he encountered, this is a big disadvantage, because when you watch the same story for countless times, it becomes painfully boring. This film is a classic version of Dracula that does not bring even a bit of originality, so in the sense of the story itself, it can be interesting only to those who encounter Dracula for the first time. But a movie is not just a story, and there are countless ways it can capture the viewer. This one didn't use any of them. Apart from Jack Palance, who brings us a different, unusual but very striking version of the Count, the performances of other actors are mediocre and uninteresting. Visually, the movie has no major flaws, but there's nothing to praise either. I did not like the directing, the pace is too slow, and the general atmosphere is plain boring. It is not scary, nor tense, nor dramatic, and there are not even traces of humor to be found. The only thing that broke the boredom are incredibly stupid mistakes in the film, which are so obvious that the only reasonable explanation for their presence is that the makers simply didn't care at all to put some effort in it. The film places the Bulgarian city of Varna and Romanian Transylvania in Hungary, and when, at the beginning of the film, Jonathan arrives at the Dracula's castle in Transylvania, Hungary, Hungarians speak Russian. There are more stupid mistakes that you can easily notice, if you decide to waste your time on this movie, but there's no need to list them, because this alone is enough to shut down the movie. Although it has no influence on the story itself, it represents amateurism, lack of education and laziness of the creators, on the basis of which I assumed that other aspects of the film will be at a low level too. And I was right.

4/10

I am a great fan of vampire movies, and was really surprised how good this classic version of Bram Stocker's novel is. I am not fan of Jack Palance, but he is amazing in the role of Dracula, maybe better than Christopher Lee or Bela Lugosi. He looks like a kind of "human animal", while Christopher Lee is a sort of gentleman vampire. Good direction, great performances of the cast, excellent locations and very few special effects make this film a worthwhile vampire movie. I noted a great flaw in the shooting, almost in the end of the story, when Jonathan Harker is thrown in a hole in the count's property in Transilvania: Arthur and Dr. Van Helsing are alone in the place and when they approach to see Jonathan's body, a third person can be seen in the back of Van Helsing. However, this mistake is irrelevant and does not decrease my rating of this movie. In the DVD released in Brazil, there are some problems with the colors along the first third of the film, with the black turning into green. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Drácula – O Demônio das Trevas" ("Dracula – The Demon of the Shadows")

This might be the worst Dracula movie I've seen. Jack Palance constantly looks like he's disgusted by something, pulling a mouth like "eurgh". There's no atmosphere, nothing dark, scary or creepy, because all the sets are over-lit. The direction is clunky and highly problematic, which makes the actors look like they're not sure where to stand or what they're supposed to be doing.