Dracula

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.

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!

MORD39 RATING: *** out of ****

At first glance, Jack Palance would seem to be the wrong type for the lead in this television version of DRACULA; but once the movie is well under way, he is purely magnificent in the role. He admittedly truly got "into" the character, so much so that he sometimes feared he might never be able to get out again!

In the disastrous 1990's we were fed Coppola's BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, which was a huge disappointment. It stole elements from this 1973 version, most notably the idea of Dracula as a more sympathetic character searching for the reincarnation of his old lover (here she's played by the stunning Fiona Lewis). But the 1992 version failed miserably because we grew to really like Dracula, and that should NEVER happen. But with this Dan Curtis production, we can feel sad for the Count's dilemma, yet still fear and despise him as the villain despite his tragedy. Palance's vampire comes off as a monster, but with just a hint of his past life of humanity which even he seems to miss.

The direction is sound, and the scenery is simple but atmospheric.

To this date, not one version of Stoker's novel has been adapted exactly as he intended it, including this one. There are liberties taken here, but it still remains a better choice than the Coppola film. This is a relatively unseen item that should be re-discovered.

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.

Leave it to a film class student to come up with a ridiculous, negative review (see below)! The Dan Curtis _Dracula_ was the first version to add the variation of the long-lost love angle to the traditional vampire story. Curtis's variation seems to have worked; it's showed up in several other later versions. What's more, the adaptation of Stoker's novel "feels" right and is very faithful to the original. Jack Palance, far from looking constipated (see review below), brings an eerie ambiguity to the film with his odd expressions--is he in pain? Is he sad about what he does? We don't know, and that makes the film worth seeing again and again. As in Curtis's well-known series _Dark Shadows_, the suspenseful music (by the marvelous Robert Cobert) is made to tell a great deal of the story. And as always, the music fits the images like a glove. The supporting actors are _all_ fabulous--I'm a big fan of Nigel Davenport. And now that the film is available on DVD, one has a greater sense for Curtis's grand visual style. In short, this _Dracula_'s a keeper, one of the really great versions of Bram Stoker's wonderful novel.