Dracula

Rating:
Summary: A Very Underappreciated Vampire
Review: The sreen is black. A wolf howls. The main credits start to appear with the images created by Maurice Binder (of James Bond fame). John Williams' majestic main theme sounds triumphantly. From that moment, I realized -and I still do -that I'm watching a movie version of "Dracula" that would be classically romantic and terrifying at the same time.
Frankly, I may never understand why people are so critical about this version. I mean, you have Frank Langella portraying a character that won him the Tony Award in Broadway, and he gives total charm to the bloodsucking count. There is Laurence Olivier, who plays a Van Helsing that appears to be giving poetic justice. I mean all the cast give a touch of class to this vision of Dracula. And then there is John Williams' majestic music score, giving a chilling romanticism that's very strange in horror films.
Many people may think John Badham's direction has been sloppy, and the dialogue from W.D. Richter may be weak, but I don't care: I simply love this movie version, one of my great guilty pleasures.

Rating:
Summary: the vampire legend as gothic romance
Review: From 1979, this is the sensual Dracula...Frank Langella, repeating his hit stage performance in this John Badham directed version, plays the Count as seductive and irresistible...with his smooth as honey voice and flowing costumes. The first thing you see of him is his hand, slowly emerging from a fur cloak...it's one of my very favorite moments on film.

Kate Nelligan is stunningly beautiful as Lucy. She plays her as strong and liberated and a willing participant in the Count's plans. Laurence Olivier is wonderful as always, in a performance that's about as "over the top" as he'd ever done. Also good are Donald Pleasence, marvelously insubtle as Dr. Seward, and Trevor Eve, as a more "macho" than usual Jonathan Harker.

John Williams' lush score adds a lot to this film, which though it departs radically from the original book, has a lot of atmosphere, exotic sets, and sumptuous (though darkly hued) cinematography.

I find the Dracula legend fascinating, and don't think I've missed a single filmed version...this is one of the two I have watched the most, the other being the Coppola one, and both films get better with repeated viewings...so if you're a Drac fan, don't miss this voluptuous twist on the old tale.

Rating:
Summary: Sensual, quintessential version of the lover Dracula
Review: Yes, the umpteenth Dracula remake/vampire film, and I stumbled upon it one morning on a movie channel, and was taken by the title character...Frank Langella's Dracula is sexy and charming and it's easy to see how the undead keeps winning so many wives.

Pre-computer special effects don't really bother me: the bats are stock. The fog creeping under the door of Mina's room looks like film rewound. I DO think the mirror uses were clever, in scenes without the vampire reflections. The scene where Mina becomes herself a vampire is an ounce campy with some seventies stock film. I'm not sure if it's a volcano erruption, a lava lamp, or what, but the scene feels like the credits of James Bond movies past...aside from this there are so many romantic moments. The lava-love sequence and the vampire's seventies hair date the film a little but so what...it's a pleasure to watch and get taken in.

This movie is amour fou, as Lucy and the people in her life become aware of the danger that is the Count. Lucy is captivated by the vampire until the end, where she grieves for her dying lover (or-does-he-die), and she moans for him like a substance abuse addict in withdrawl. As for her father, fiancee, and friends are wounded and dying to get rid of the vampire Lucy is aware but has already accepted a new life (new lifetime, i suppose, as an undead life) and she doesn't care anymore. Lucy greives as the sun shines down, but her rescuers do not notice what she does, the figure of Dracula as a speck flying off into the horizon. The credits end in the sunny sea air-a new beginning for Mina and Jonathan, although we imagine it woun't be long until the vampire comes back to retrieve his new bride.

I think Frank Langella made his the quintessential Dracula, tall dark handsome stranger. His character is never frail, but tender as the lover. He's handsome still as he sneers and spews bile at Van Helsing and his crucifix. It reminds me of Marlon Brando's Stanley Kowalski: who knows why you find him, a gorilla of a man, sexy? The scenes of an angry monster shine but the love scenes radiate.

This film was made about the time I was born; the films from my vampire phase featured Gary Oldman and Brad Pitt/Tom Cruise (no wonder I fell into a vampire phase) but this vampire has me. I stumbled onto it and too bad the films's not in print and too bad I wasn't around for the seventies stage version. Maybe Frank Langella would think about reprising the role of Dracula with another stage company...

Rating:
Summary: Blood + Seduction + Vampire + Langella= 1 hell of a cocktail
Review: Being 18, no one would hardly suspect that someone of this new generation would have a soft spot for this movie, despite it's age. I beg to differ. I don't find the need to talk you thorough the basic premise, for Dracula is a fairly well-known figure; however, one this is for sure is that John Badham's retelling of the classic horror story has thrown in a far more obvious sense of dependency, seduction and temptation. The sheer atmopshere of this movie is set from the very beginning upon the doomed schooner and is continued through the magnificent ruin of Carfax Abbey, Seward's home and the sanitarium. The set construction is a beautiful feature that truly stands out and creates a lasting impression, along with the wonderful landscape photography. The acting also lives up to the movie's visual beauty with an absolutely highly erotic performance by the great Frank Langella who exudes a sexuality that truly does overcome the grave. Commdendation also to the lovely Kate Nelligan who provides a solid 3D performance as Lucy, the woman who captures Dracula's heart and thirst. Laurence Olivier and Donald Plesence give their characters of Seward and the great vampire hunter Van Helsing with gusto and skill. A special mention that I must make would go to Janine Duvitski, the actress who played the eccentric Annie. If you really do want a different flavour to the tale of Dracula, that gives the word "temptation" a new name, please, give John Badham's version of "Dracula" a chance. Hey, if a 21st century young adult can enjoy this movie, you can too!

Rating:
Summary: A fresh interpretation of the classic story of the Nosferatu
Review: I have always believed that at least part of the reason this movie isn't better known is because it is confused just as much now as it was in 1979 with the comedy "Love at First Bite" featuring supertan George Hamilton as Dracula released at the same time. It is a dreadful misconception as "...First Bite" was a cross between horror spoof and Disco exploitation flick...which was and is absolute torture to watch.

This addition to the "Dracula" franchise is my personal favorite of all that have been attempted. I don't rate it as being the most faithful interpretation of Bram Stoker's classic novel (Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" holds that distinction, obviously enough...though Coppola also added more of the real history of "Vlad the Impaler" to his movie for additional background; nice touch), but for the sheer gothic style that the novel used to shock and horrify Victorian England upon its first publication, this movie comes as close to Stoker's original intent without necessarily following his novel on a word-for-word basis.

Frank Langella's performance onstage had to be one for the ages if it at all approached the level of his portrayal as the Count in this movie. Ultimately he has never delivered a performance quite like it...and of course with opposing roles filled by Sir Laurence Olivier and veteran character actor (and overperformer of Shatneresque proportions) Donald Pleasance were definitely sufficent to insure that Langella brought his "A" game to the set for every shoot. All performances are superb.

Additionally, the originality surrounding the climax of the movie alone makes it worth a viewing; the old Hammer films had interesting ways for the Count to meet his ultimate demise, and the manner in which this movie ends is very reminiscent of those latter day classics. You almost wish Christopher Lee could have had a guest appearance in this movie a la Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck in the 1991 remake of "Cape Fear".

Regarding the widescreen DVD's color transfer (or lack thereof), I do think that the washed out tones (which are nearly black and white, as noted in a previous review) actually adds to the movie's atmosphere. This is, basically, the second great gothic love story of all time (with E. Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" being the first); the blacks and the whites SHOULD be more pronounced, the funereal elements of Carfax Abbey should be brought out (the dinner scene with the Count and Mina is one of the most beautifully shot scenes from any movie...romance just isn't done that way anymore), and washing the colors from a movie as easily as blood from a vein leaves the correct pallor for both a vampire's victim and a terrific retelling of the "Dracula" story. You can hold out hope that a remastered DVD will be released (as this version seems to be out-of-print presently) that will feature a better color transfer, but as this movie approaches its 25th year, hope for any such treatment fades.

Rating:
Summary: The King of his kind
Review: Ok, this version doesn't go along with the book, but it is worth while.
First of all Langella, Langella, Langella. He is 6'4" and has a voice to match. He is the only man I have seen that can place his hands on his hips and still make it look sexy! Langella had to tone his version of Dracula down (i.e. the R rating)...I had a teacher tell me how powerfull, sexy, and forcefull he was during the stage version...all I have to say is...WOW!!!

Second, he took Dracula to a new level. Before Dracula was this crude creature, who was loveless, mean, and wanted some blood. When Langella hit the scene, it all changed. Notice how each Dracula or vampire film has a sexy male lead? He broke the mold (thank you Mr. Langella)

Third, Langella didn't need red eyes, blood, fangs, and all the other stuff to make you think he was Dracula...you know by looking at him. One sceen which shows in hunger of blood is when they are at the Steward's house and the butler cuts himself with the knife. Dracula is telling a story, then he looks up and notices the butler sucking his cut finger. He was this look of hunger. His eyes widen with hunger.

The last is the famous sex scene. Just how he enters the room, the colors, and the music brings you closer to realizing he is not just a regular vampire, he is truly the king of his kind.

Rating:
Summary: A fun movie
Review: There are several things wrong with this movie, including the rubber bats, but that doesn't take away from the fun performances by the actors.
I first saw this movie when I was about 15. It scared the poo out of me. Dracula is supposed to be handsome, charismatic, evil and arrogant. Langella is the suave and charismatic Dracula that we have come to expect. I am not a big fan of Sir Laurence Olivier, but I liked his portrayal of Van Helsing. He brings a humanness to the character as Van Helsing weeps when forced to stab his own daughter, Mina(Jan Francis), because she had become a vampire. Donald Pleasance is...well..., Donald Pleasance. I've never seen a bad performance by this man. He exudes confidence and I have always felt that he enjoys himself no matter which role he takes on. Kate Nelligan is good too. She is a very strong actress who kept up with the strength of her male couterparts. Lucy irritated me the way she used Jonathan Harker. Surprisingly, Jonathan Harker was played by a very young Trevor Eve. When I watched this movie for the first time, I had no idea who Eve was, which makes sense because this was his first feature film. Now after almost 25 years in film and theater, he has created a reputation for quality work.
Now looking back on the cast and crew of this film, it makes sense to me, that considering the quality of actors, why I enjoyed it so much.
When actors respect and trust one another, that feeling comes across on the screen as chemistry. This film exudes loads of chemistry beginning with Olivier and Pleasance and radiating downward to the younger actors.

Rating:
Summary: Dracula
Review: I want to add a few comments to the review of this film

I just left. An excellent comparison that could be done,

if your discoving this character for the first time is.

Read Bram Stoker's novel and then watch the 1979 version.

The author doesn't imply how handsome or attractive Dracula

really is. The only thing you know is, that Dracula is

attractive to women especially, but your not given a reason

for it, accept that women can be easily be manipulated and

controlled, as opposed to men. Dracula can easily bend the

will of his victims, that's why women fall under his spell.

Men on the other hand appear slightly stronger when coming up

against the Dracula character. There are different

interpretations of this character, but again we don't know how

appealing and sexy dracula is. In the 1979 version that

sexy quality comes out more then any other quality this

man may have. It shows how irrestible and attractive he

is to women. But their are different levels associated

with attraction. I think part of the interpretation of

Dracula in the 1979 version, comes from the actor who

played the role and the writers for the film. Well,

that's what I think anyway. Yes, I am a fan of this

actor.

Rating:
Summary: My favorite Dracula Film
Review: I don't agree that this is the best version of
Dracula. Of course Frank Langella is a wonderful and talented
actor, but my favorite dracula film is the classic
version which starred Bela Lugosi. I think it is the
better version of Dracula. But judge for yourself.
So many actors have done this one role over and over
again. How can anyone judge the better version of this
film. Of course, Frank Langella steamed up the
screen in 1979 as a more sensuous and sexy dracula.
Definitely any woman's fantasy. If you want a good
scare, definitely either rent any of the Dracula
films with Christopher Lee or the old version from
1931.

Rating:
Summary: Poor treatment of a great film.
Review: Frank Langella breathed new life into the role of Dracula with his performance in this 1979 Broadway adaptation. I truly had high expectations for the film on DVD but was sorely disappointed with the transfer. I remember this film having wonderfully vibrant colors but you'll not find them on this disc. Evidently, the director (John Badham) wanted to make a B&W movie and totally drained the color levels from the transfer to make his vision a reality.

Unfortunately, for those of us who are fans of the film as we first experienced it, no tranfer meeting our needs will be forthcoming. Which is really a shame because this film was very well done and has a killer cast to boot. Kate Nelligan, Sir Laurence Olivier, Donald Pleasance and Frank Langella just to name a few!

If you can get past the bland transfer and the "scratches and hairs" added in post-production for more "effect", you'll actually have a very good movie on your hands.

There was a full-frame(Pan & Scan)DVD version of the film, with its original color released before the Widescreen version was produced. That version like this current version is also out of print. Normally I would never recommend a Non-OAR (Original Apect Ratio) version of a film but, if you can find, it get it.