Best movie of this year hands down!

the audience applauded

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

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.

When most people think of all the great actors who've played Dracula over the years, names like Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, John Carradine, Gary Oldman, and maybe Frank Langella will come to mind. However, very people are likely to think of Jack Palance as a suitable Dracula since most people think of his roles in "Shane and "City Slickers". But there was a lot more to Jack than just playing cowboys and he proves it here in 1974's "Bram Stoker's Dracula". This little seen TV version, produced by Dan Curtis ("Dark Shadows") and written by the legendary Richard Matheson, portrays Dracula as centuries old warrior Vlad Tepes who journeys to London after he comes to believe that the fiancé of Arthur Holmwood ,Lucy, is the reincarnation of his lost love. If it sounds like you've heard this version before, you probably have since Francis Ford Coppola pretty much used the same storyline for his 1992 version. While I like the '92 version, I find this movie to be more straightforward and less bogged down by the romantic aspect that the Coppola version had, instead choosing to focus more on the horror aspect. Jack Palance makes an excellent Dracula by being able to use his tough guy persona to project the lord of the vampires as a figure of great strength and power, especially physically, while at the same time giving just a little hint of sympathy. Another bonus is the creepy atmosphere that is created in the movie by the filming locations in England and Yugoslavia. Rounding out the cast is Simon Ward as Arthur Holmwood and Nigel Davenport as Prof. Van Helsing, both of whom are excellent in their roles. As proof for the power of this movie, I remember seeing it when I was very young in the 90s on some cable channel and while I couldn't remember the faces very well (memory is a funny thing) I never forgot this movie, particularly the the final scene where Dracula meets his end, which I won't spoil. This is a real gem of a movie that if you ever get the chance, I highly recommend it, either on you tube (which is how I found it) or I believe you can get it on DVD. 9 out of 10

A lot of folks I imagine will kind of giggle at the mere notion of Jack Palance in the role of Count Dracula, but I persist that he's one of the most fierce and menacing I've seen to date. Even as die hard a Palance fan as I am, he even surprised me because his Dracula is absolutely intense and quite passionate. One superb sequence has Dracula throwing men around like rag dolls while moving through a hotel looking for Mina, it completely works because Palance simply towers over his opposition. The final confrontation, as Van Helsing and Arthur intrude upon his castle("You're now in my domain, gentlemen. And, you shall not leave"), Dracula lifts Van Helsing in the air, hurling him into a suit of armor! While director Dan Curtis' version of Dracula, based on a screenplay written by the great Richard Matheson, doesn't relish in bloody heart stakings, it does feature Dracula casting those that stand in his away to the side, clutching their throats with benevolent intent, moving them out his way. What I liked about this Dracula was his determination to achieve his aspirations in regards to finding and recovering Lucy(Fiona Lewis), who resembled identically a former love from his days as a mighty Hungarian warrior fighting armies..many attribute this romantic sub-plot(..nowhere even near as overbearing as it was in Coppola's film)to Curtis' own Dark Shadows, which he even admitted in an interview regarding the similarities of a vampire desiring to attain his true love through any means necessary.There's a magnificent scene where Dracula calls for Lucy to come, not knowing that she had been put to rest by Van Helsing who relieved her vampire curse by ramming a stake into her heart, the result showing the Count going berserk, destroying objects in the mausoleum, including turning over her casket! Matheson's screenplay avoids major emphasis on Jonathan Harker's(Murray Brown)time with Dracula, opting instead to move from Transylvania to England where the Count eyes Lucy, Arthur(Simon Ward), her fiancé, calling on Van Helsing(..an impressive Nigel Davenport, who remains restrained and contained, not going over-the-top or creating a too eccentric scientist, firmly grounding his character into a dedicated pragmatist)to assist in determining what exactly is contributing to her anemia and sudden sickly nature. Penelope Horner's Mina isn't as richly presented, more of a supporting character whose endangered life(..Dracula, as revenge against Van Helsing and Arthur for the loss of Lucy, has Mina drink from his blood so he can control her)will need rescuing. What I truly love about this production(..and the BBC version, featuring Louis Jordan as a more sophisticated, aristocratic Count)is the location shooting, evoking a totally different period by shooting in England, particularly the Castle Dracula, where Van Helsing and Arthur discover a pit and Iron Maiden, not to mention the coven of vampire brides in their coffins. Great jump scare where we find out about Harker's fate after being left behind by Dracula to become fodder for his brides. Unlike the Hammer Dracula films, this version shows that sunlight only paralyzes the Count, not burning his flesh. Another element not seen in other Dracula films is how the Count uses a mad dog to attack those he doesn't wish to bother with, and I was amused by how irritated he would get with those who would start up a row when he'd appear on the scene, trespassing, a contempt for mortals who thought they could harm him with pistols or fisticuffs.

It's the combination of the '70's- and dark horror atmosphere that makes this movie such an highly effective and great one. It's a real shame that this made for TV Dracula version, based on the Bram Stoker novel, is not any better known. The movie has an amazing dark atmosphere that adds to the tension and horror of the movie. This is a true genuinely scary horror movie and definitely amongst scariest of all the Dracula movies out there.The movie uses some great settings. Despite the fact that this is made for TV movie, it's not a cheap looking film. They did a real good job with this and its low budget can be seen nowhere back on screen.It's certainly true that the movie uses a bit too many zooms into the characters faces and all but that all was part of '70's film-making when film-makers experimented a lot with cinematography. Perhaps it was also an homage to the old days of horror cinema. Technically its a fine made movie by TV director and horror expert Dan Curtis.Too bad that the acting is also quite laughable at times. And no I'm not talking about Jack Palance as Dracula. I actually quite liked him in his role and I think he did a good job with his interpretation of the character. Too bad that he never played the famous count again after this movie, despite having several movie offers to do so. All the other actors in this movie aren't obviously amongst the most experienced or talented ones. I especially disliked the way Nigel Davenport portrayed the Dr. Van Helsing character.It's not like this movie version is adding anything new with its story to the Dracula movie legacy. As a matter of fact it's rather leaving out stuff then putting in some new elements. For instance there is no Renfield character in this movie or any mentioning of him. If you're familiar with the Dracula story or any of its movies you'll notice that this is a movie version that runs pretty much by the book with its story.A version truly worth seeing!8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/