sorendanni This movie remains greatly in the shadows of both previous (Lee and Lugosi) and the later 1991 (Oldman) movie interprztations of the Bram Stoker novel. I have watched it and I can only say the movie does actually do almost everything good, it is actually scary at a few times, but Frank Langella may be very talented, but you never can imagine him as Count Dracula. There are many reasons, not in the least that he does not have anything in common with the figure Stoker, that means he is not scary. And that is no plaussible to be member of an ancient Transylvanian (Romanian) family. instead we see an American prince charming doing his utterly best to sound so English, it was like he was doing audition for a James bond movie. I just keep wondering why they did not cast him as Jonathan Harker. My bet is that of this cast Laurence Olivier (professor Van Helsing) had the most potential to make a plaussible Dracula.Still, the rest of the movie is a surprise, in a good way. Yes, you can nag that this movie is a very loose interpretation of the novel, but that is the case with kind of allmost every Dracula movie (the 1991 movie being a lonely exception). Wath matters for me, is that the storyline works! It keeps you watching the movie! It was was well scripted, with well chosen locations and, the best thing, It had the atmosphere the better of the Hammer movies also had! Last but not least: Donald Pleasence was again at his best in this movie, he makes it worth watching the movie, no doubt about it!

Coventry 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.

calvinnme This 1979 version of the Bram Stoker tale takes it's cue from the then-recent hit Broadway revival of the old Hamilton Deane & John Balderston play than from the original source.The familiar tale has been reconfigured, with some characters changing drastically while others are dropped all together. Lucy is now the central female role, played ably by a fetching Kate Nelligan. Instead of being one of her suitors, Dr. Seward (Donald Pleasence) is now her father. The Mina character takes the secondary role held by Lucy in the book, and in this version, she's the daughter of Dr. Van Helsing. That iconic role is played by Laurence Olivier, looking very old and frail. Jonathan Harker, fiancée of Lucy and real estate agent to Dracula, is a bland Trevor Eve. The crazed Renfield acts as little more than an inept butler to Dracula, and is played by Tony Haygarth, who the previous year had played an especially detestable Nazi in the TV miniseries "Holocaust".The center of the film is Frank Langella as the title count. His performance made him a true superstar of the stage, and it translates fairly well to the big screen. His full lips, big dark eyes and thick head of blown dry hair make him the most overtly sexual of all the screen Draculas.The production is nice to look at for the most part, but some scenes are a little too under lit. The sweeping John Williams score is suitably evocative. One romantic sequence using backprojected laserlight has the unfortunate effect of casting a disco vibe about the whole thing, suitable since directing duties went to Saturday Night Fever's John Badham. Olivier's performance is all over the place, at turns leaden, then scenery-chewing, with a wandering accent to boot. His health was a serious issue at this time, so some understanding is in order. One shouldn't expect much in the way of scares or gore, with a few minor exceptions. The novel's unsavory subtexts regarding fear of immigrants and female sexuality are thankfully absent. All in all, suitable viewing on lonely nights for those with a darker taste in romance.

Hitchcoc I read Bram Stoker's book when I was in sixth grade (that would be around 1959). I had seen most of the Dracula movies that existed at the time on television. I had watch the 1931 effort at least ten times. So after all the Hammer films and a host of others, I became somewhat of a connoisseur. One problem for me (as with Conan-Doyle's, "Hound of the Baskervilles") is that the book's plot, which was perfectly OK, was messed around with. I've never seen "Dracula" or "The Hound" done with integrity on the screen. Why change names? Why expand the plot to include peripheral characters? While Frank Langella's performance is wonderful, they had to do it again. They had to mess with the women. They did away with all kinds of elements. I know it's based on a state play (I actually saw the Broadway production), but why is there a need to mess with success. Of course, since I loved many of the others, I forgive them for this. I'm hoping that before I'm gone, someone will take on the task of a reasonable adaptation of Stoker's book. The Gary Oldman had the title but once again didn't follow through.