sddavis63 Perhaps strangely, I can't say that I've ever found the story of Dracula (Bram Stoker's novel, Bela Lugosi's movie or any other "serious" adaptation of the story to be either particularly exciting or especially frightening. In that regard this movie (which is a reasonably good adaptation of the story) is no different. It has its moments, but it isn't really a "horror" movie in the way that we usually think of that term. The story of Dracula, to work, really depends on atmosphere and mood. Does it pull you into the story? Do you believe that you're there, experiencing this with the characters? All in all, this movie is fairly successful at that. This was a made for TV movie, as opposed to a big budget Hollywood blockbuster, so expectations have to be adjusted accordingly, but the sets are good and director Dan Curtis does get the "feel" of the story right. And Jack Palance (mostly known for westerns) actually pulled off the role of the monstrous count quite well. Mind you, this is an "adaptation" of the story. Mostly, the difference is in the fact that this version actually does equate Count Dracula with Vlad the Impaler of the Middle Ages, which Stoker did not. That's actually a fairly significant part of the storyline, as Palance's Dracula sets his sights on a young Englishwoman who is the spitting image of his old love from the 15th century, when he was actually alive, hoping to pull her into the world of the undead as his companion.This was OK. I wouldn't call it great, but it had a certain nostalgic quality for me. I think I watched this when it was on TV. I would have been 11 years old at the time. I certainly saw it - whether it was the original broadcast or a repeat I'm not sure - but it was the first version of the Dracula story that I can remember being exposed to. It holds up reasonable well all these years later. The supporting performances were good. The story at times did seem a bit rushed to me. There are a few mistakes. One that stands out for me came at the very end. As Van Helsing finally kills Dracula by plunging a wooden stake through his heart, blood spurts out of his chest - and turns his black suit a bright red in that spot. Huh? Blood on a black suit wouldn't be bright red. It would just be a wet spot. It seriously looked like someone had put wet red paint on the suit. So, yes, there are a few glitches. Overall, though, it's a decent version of the story. (6/10)

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a great movie. A r.o.m.i.a.n vampire moves to England to find new victims. This is a very scary movie. If you do not get scared of this movie then no movie will ever scary you. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects . Jack P.a.l.a.n.c.e is the actor who played the part of Dracula. He was a great acting. This was one of his best movies. He also played Doctor Jekyll. He was in Batman. He was also in the Mask of Zorro. Nigel Davenport who played the part of Van H.e.l.s.i.n.g is also a great acting. Murray Brown who played the part of Jonathan H.a.r.k.e.r is also a good actor.

kriitikko This 1973 version of Bram Stoker's novel is produced and directed by Dan Curtis, an American television producer most famous from his Gothic TV-series "Dark Shadows" (1966-1971). During the late 1960's and the early 1970's Curtis produced many famous horror stories to American television, but directed only few of them. "Dracula" is one his directions and a very good one also. Although the TV-budget obviously isn't that great and the film is lacking many special effects, it has a great atmosphere over it, and should also be mentioned of few other things.Richard Matheson's screenplay would not appear as anything but another simplified version of Stoker's book unless Curtis would have added his own touch to it. This is the first version where Dracula travels from Transylvania to England to find a reincarnation of his lost love (Coppola used the same idea more popularly in 1992). In this version the lost love is Lucy (Fiona Lewis) whom Dracula immediately seduce. When Lucy is later destroyed by her own fiancé Arthur (Simon Ward) and Dr. Van Helsing (Nigel Davenport) Dracula's fury knows no boundaries and he takes his revenge through Lucy's best friend Mina (Penelope Horner).This is also the first version to make a clear connection between fictional vampire Count Dracula and the historical Vlad Tépés Dracula, who was the king of Walachia in the 15'Th century. Stoker hinted the connection in his book, as did Jess Franco's movie "El Conde Dracula" and later in 2002 a two-part long TV film. Mostly though, the connection is forgotten from the film adaptations. This version is the only one (with Coppola's film) to make the connection very clear by showing a portrait of Dracula and saying it is Vlad Tépés.The true heart and soul of this film is Jack Palance. Palance, who had worked with Curtis in 1968 in "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", is probably the most faithful Dracula to Stoker's book. Palance plays Dracula as an ancient warlord whose will was so strong it survived death and who doesn't allow anything or anyone to stand in his way. His Dracula is furious demon who is having a hard time of trying to play human. Just like in Stoker's book, Count Dracula in this film only appears at ease with humans when he retells his ancient battles against the Turks. Otherwise he appears to be not comfortable when playing a nice guy and breaks out into terrible fits of anger when something goes against his wishes. Palance's performance is the most faithful one to Stoker and it completely overshadows other performances in this film (even Davenport can't make his Van Helsing interesting when facing this Dracula). And also, he looks incredible with the black cape.This film should enjoy a wider attention for it is definitely one of the better Dracula films, with a professional direction, great story telling and Jack Palance's wonderful performance. Dracula fans, do not miss this one, totally worth seeing!

boettcher30259 The reason why I say that is because I remember the apartments we were living in in Atlanta, Ga. at the time I seen this movie on television. My father was working at the Television station and called home to tell me to watch it on the afternoon, "Dialing for Dollars" show. We moved yearly when I was in grade schools and these apartments were the ones we lived in when I was in the third grade. The third grade was 1970-1971. I dug out my VHS copy of this same movie and it shows a 1970 Copy-right. I wonder how anyone could double check this? But anyway, this has to be the best Dracula yet. Jack Palace snarling like an animal and seemed to have that aurora of evil about him. Then there is Dan Curtis only wanting to do one take of each scene so that the actors had to recover from their goofs like normal people would in a normal conversation makes this a very enjoyable event.