Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

scathbeorh I had heard of Dracula, read vampire stories, etc. But never in my young life of 10 years had I _seen_ evil incarnate. And I fell in love. Now don't misunderstand. At 10 I needed Dracula as a guise--I needed vampires and the lord of them all. It was protection. But, through the years, have I been able to shake those strange, volatile, sexually charged images? They now inform my fight for righteousness, yet, on this side of the veil, what better way to run into the battle against evil than to 'know thine enemy'? Jack Palance was a consummate actor, and I do admire him for refusing all subsequent offers to play more vampires on screen. Yet, of all vampire films produced, including the Coppola version of the 90s, this one remains the truest and best, though it does not follow the original book by Bram Stoker. I say as much in the opening to my novel The Vampires of Dreach Fola, available from James Ward Kirk Publishing sometimes in late 2016.

hung_fao_tweeze The problem with Dracula or vampire movies these days is that there are so many of them and each clings to its various qualities (or lack of) so that watching a TV movie from 1974 and expecting it to register positively against this intimidating backdrop is probably too much to burden any single feature with. However, 'Kolchak: The Night Stalker', also a TV movie from 1974, exceeds expectations and still plays well with audiences today. So, when I mentioned to a fellow movie-buff that I had watched this Jack Palance vehicle, he had never heard of it but felt that it must somehow be awesome simply because of Jack's presence. Unfortunately, this does not hold true here and I had to tell him. Written by Richard Matheson, I was expecting something with a bit of a twist. He wrote 'Twilight Zone' episodes, after all! Perhaps my anticipation was not called for here. This is pretty much a straight-up retelling or alternate realization of the basic Bram Stoker character and tale. There are really no surprises unless one would want to call Dracula seeing a photo of a girl who resembles a woman he loved centuries ago and that becomes his raison d'etre for the rest of the film a surprise twist. Actually, that was a fairly common theme in the old TV show 'Dark Shadows'. Well, what a surprise. Old Dan Curtis is at the directorial helm here and is essentially rekindling ideas he has used previously. So, maybe the failure of this movie lies with the director? That is not to say that this movie is terrible. It is not. But as noted, the sheer prevalence of so many really good vampire movies shoves this one into obscurity as demonstrated by my movie-buff friend's complete ignorance of this film's existence. The bright spot in this limp production is Palance's performance. He is really great here. Without him there isn't much point in viewing this, quite frankly. Alas, gone is the vampire that changes into a bat, a wolf (dark German Shepherds, actually), or a cloud of fog. He still sleeps in a coffin by day, though. He can still be deterred by a crucifix and garlic. Thus, some of the reliable Hollywood vampire nuances are still present. Even the sunlight can be hazardous although he doesn't flake away like Christopher Lee. OK. We can deal with that. Yet, the one that is missing that seemed the most annoying is his ability to enter a household or residence without first getting permission to do so. (Handled superbly in 'Let The Right One In') Lugosi's Dracula, at least, schmoozed his way in and socialized providing dreadful anticipation of what is to become. Palance is much more direct and just crashes in. However, Jack does the absolute best with the material and occasionally transforms a couple of instances into very successful terror. Unfortunately, absolutely everyone else in this presentation is nearly instantly forgettable. In addition, one very annoying feature is the lack of detail to the general surroundings. I realize this was a TV movie and a very limited budget. Still, Dracula's 15th century castle's architecture was occasionally too modern and, in fact, sported catacomb arches built from a very modern brick and mortar painted over with lumpy white paint. It looked very much like any number of more recent basement crawlspaces. The outer facade was unconvincing as well looking frequently like some kind of smoothed stucco. The ambiance of the countryside tries to be mysterious but every now and then I halfway expected someone on a little motorbike to come putting through. Also noted previously are the stock German Shepherds substituting for wolves. Yet, should this film be faulted for resorting to this when so many other movies manage to do so and still chill? That is the problem, isn't it. This movie just didn't chill the way it could have. I am giving it a 6 mostly for Palance's performance. Watch for the way he tries to get around the crucifix held in his direction. He paced nervous and restless like a caged lion. Also, see the screaming rages he flies into. Some of those are surprisingly frightening. It is a shame the rest of the film couldn't keep up with Jack's performance.

zardoz-13 Noted sci-fi author and scenarist Richard Matheson of "I Am Legend" fame penned the script for "Dark Shadows" producer Dan Curtis' "Dracula" and excised three characters and eliminated one major setting from the Stoker saga. Nevertheless, this version of "Dracula" qualifies as an above-average endeavor. Mind you, it isn't the least bit scary, but it is well worth watching. This atmospheric yarn about the notorious vampire was produced for television in America, but it was released theatrically in Europe. Curtis and Matheson turn Dracula a tortured, sympathetic character haunted by his distant past and the woman that he lost those many years ago. Palance makes an okay Dracula. Unlike Christopher Lee and Frank Langella, the Palance fangster does not shape-shift into either a bat, a wolf, or a cloud of mist. Matheson and Curtis have scaled back his supernatural attributes, but they have endowed him with considerable strength that he displays in a scene that Stoker never wrote. Meantime, Nigel Davenport is exceptional as Dr. Van Helsing and Simon Ward plays Arthur Holmwood. The chief complaint here is that Curtis and Matheson have deleted the characters of Dr. Seward, Renfield, and Quincy Morris as well as the sanitarium setting. "Dracula" opens at Castle Dracula as the wolves howl at dusk. Dracula descends from his room to go outside. The first thing that differentiates this "Dracula" from others is the tidy abode. Dracula does not walk through any giant cobwebs, and everything looks clean and well-kept. Typically, Castle Dracula is a dilapidated edifice. Unfortunately, this lackluster entrance by the lead character adds little to his larger-than-life statue. Meanwhile, after this expendable scene, we are told that the year is 1897, and the setting is Bistritz in Hungry. Jonathan Harker (Murray Brown of "Vampyres") has arrived to show Dracula several real estate properties that might interest the nobleman in England. Dracula confines Harker to his castle and forces him to write letters that he is will remain on the continent a little longer to conclude other deals. As it turns out, once the Count has finished his business affairs with Harker, he allows his vampire brides to feast on him while he sets sail in the Demeter to Whitby, England. Curtis and Matheson do not take us on the rough seas voyage. They encapsulate everything with one shot of the beached ship and Dracula standing by his coffin. Lucy Westenra (Fiona Lewis of "The Fearless Vampire Killers") is suffering from an ailment that her doctor cannot diagnose so her fiancé summons Dr. Van Helsing. Helsing examines Lucy. He assures her that she will be fine. Secretly, he suspects that a vampire may be at work, but he is reluctant to share his superstitious sentiments with Arthur for fear the latter will not understand. Van Helsing places crosses on the windows of the room where Lucy sleeps and hangs a garlic wreath around her neck. Nevertheless, despite their best efforts, neither Arthur nor Van Helsing can maintain 24-hour surveillance without falling asleep themselves. Eventually, Dracula seduces Lucy to walk in her sleep again. After Lucy succumbs to this massive loss of blood, Arthur is shocked when she appears at the window of his study taping on the pane. Van Helsing arrives in the nick of time as the two lovers embrace. He brandishes a crucifix and prevents Lucy from sinking her fangs into poor Arthur. Incidentally, Lucy's attack on Arthur replaces the scenes in the novel where Lucy preyed on a small children at night. Reluctantly Arthur accompanies Van Helsing to the crypt where he hammers a stake through the sleeping corpse.Mina demands to know what is happening after the death of her friend Lucy. Van Helsing has decided that it would be safer if Mina and Mrs. Westenra took lodgings at the George Hotel. Van Helsing fears Dracula may return to attack them. Meantime, Arthur and Van Helsing set out to find where the vampire sleeps during the day. Van Helsing explains to Mina that vampires must rest in a coffin with some of their native soil. Predictably, Dracula is upset when he finds Lucy staked in her coffin and launches an attack on the hotel. This scene shows Dracula exerting her superhuman strength to fend off his assailants. Van Helsing and Arthur scour London for nine of the coffins that came on the Demeter. Eventually, they locate Carfax and destroy those nine coffins. Dracula uses his time well. He strikes Hillingham and attacks Mina. He makes Mina the flesh of his flesh and kin of his kin by giving her a vampire baptism. Essentially, Dracula rakes his fingernails across his chest and forces Mina to drink his blood so she can become his slave. Van Helsing and Arthur are powerless to prevent Dracula. At one point, Van Helsing tosses aside his crucifix. After Dracula departs, Van Helsing hypnotizes Mina. Van Helsing realizes that they erred in destroying his coffins because the Count has fled to his homeland. Van Helsing, Arthur, and Mina go to the continent to track Dracula down. Curtis' "Dracula" faintly resembles a Hammer Dracula with its period settings. Robert Corbert's heavy-handed music, and the ending where the principals rip the curtains down to expose him to sunlight. This "Dracula" rivals the most authoritative version, the BBC's "Count Dracula," because it retains many of the book's scenes. Sometimes, Matheson and Curtis pile on the exposition in a way that calls more attention to itself than it should. They make it a point to address Dracula's past and his service as a military chieftain who commanded armies. Sadly, Palance doesn't get any memorable dialogue, like the immortal line "Children of the night..." This version never generates anything remotely frightful, but it boasts solid production values and good thesping.

scott-scocar 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.