Waste of time

Crappy film

A different way of telling a story

I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Dracula (1979)** (out of 4)This big-budget adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel has Frank Langella playing the role of Dracula who sets his eyes (and teeth) on Lucy (Kate Nelligan) while it's up to her father (Donald Pleasence) and Prof. Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier) to stop him.With a capable director like John Badham, a ton of money and a great cast, this 1979 version of the classic story should have been so much better than it actually is. With that said, even though it's easy to call the film a disappointment there's still no question that it does feature some good things but in all honesty that just pours salt into your wounds and is an easy reminder that with a few changes this here could have been one of the best adaptations.I will start off with the good stuff. There's no question that Badham has created a wonderful looking picture. The film contains some wonderful cinematography and the set design is among the greatest that you'll ever see. I especially loved the look of Dracula's castle and the cemetery also. John Williams' music score is another major plus. One of the highlights is an extremely effective moment where Van Helsing is in a mine when he sees a reflection of his daughter. I'd also argue that the performances are a plus with Langella doing a nice job in the lead role, although he's more sex than scary but more on that in a bit. Pleasence is also fun to watch and I think Olivier is good in the role of Van Helsing but it's far from the type of "great" performance you'd expect from one of the screen's greatest actors.Now for the bad and there is plenty. The first fifty minutes of the movie are quite bland and boring because there really aren't any horror elements and instead the film goes for romance. That would have been okay had the film actually been romantic but these scenes fail terribly and the sexy side of Dracula just never comes across. That's especially true since the sexuality has been drained from the picture and you realize that Hammer had more sex in their pictures from twenty years earlier! I'd also argue that the film has a bit of a pacing issue and that it just can't recover from the opening.Still, Dracula is a failure but at the same time there are enough interesting moments to make it worth sitting through.

I had never seen this version of Dracula, but I had heard things about it. Apparently, I still haven't seen the version most people remember as it was filmed in more vibrant colors than what I had gotten with my DVD that I happened to stumble upon and decided to buy. This version of Dracula I rather enjoyed, more so, than the 1992 version (I liked that one too). This one was said to be the more romanticized Dracula, but I think the 92 version was the one that was a bit too romantic. Here people's throats get ripped out right from the get go and there are cool scenes of undead creatures residing under the cemetery. Sure, Frank Langella's Dracula is a bit of a smooth talker, but at his core is a darkness and arrogance that feels that the men have no power to stop him as he takes the women from their lives and threatens to end their pitiful existence. There are things that are changed from the novel, but I do not find a problem with that, in fact, it made for a surprise as I thought Mina was going to be the object of Dracula's desire. This one did Van Helsing a bit differently too as the cast of this one did a great job for the most part.The story has a ship trying to get rid of one of its boxes of cargo. Surprise, it gets stuck and one of the crew's throat is ripped out. The residents of a mental asylum are restless and Mina goes out and finds a man who has seemingly survived a terrible boat crash. Seems his name is Count Dracula and he is soon invited to dine at the doctor in charge of the mental asylum, Seward. He arrives and seems very polite and charming and he is not there five minutes before putting the moves on both ladies present. There is something dark about him, and why try to hide it, he is going to try to have some blood.The cast sets this Dracula apart as Frank Langella does a great job as the count, though Christopher Lee is my favorite all time Dracula. He was a monster, plain and simple, while in this one he is a charmer with a darkness about him. I read where Langella's eyes have a hard time focusing and in scenes I saw them moving, but I did not know of this condition so I just assumed he was doing it purposely as it actually made his stare more unsettling. Laurence Olivier plays Van Helsing and he is rather good, like Cushing best, but I like how he was presented here. He was a father who had lost his daughter and he wanted his revenge. They did a much better job making he and Dracula enemies than they did in the 92 version. However, I thought Donald Pleasence as Doctor Jack Seward was a more interesting character than Van Helsing. a bit of an odd man who was very helpful as he saved Van Helsing and Johnathon Harker! I read where he turned down the role of Van Helsing because he felt it was too close to Dr. Loomis, but the character he did choose, ran the mental institution. Johnathon Harker was okay, they usually miscast the character and here is no exception. I did not think he did as bad as others do, but he was a bit weak. The two girls were okay too, neither really exploding on screen though.So, all in all, a rather good retelling of the Dracula story. Granted, it does deviate from the book and while I wish they had just gone all out and made Dracula the monster he is, I still found this portrayal interesting. The movie ends on an ambiguous note that could have lead to a sequel which never occurred, which is probably for the best as it is not too long after this film that Langella kind of aged quickly. Who knows? Perhaps he was Dracula and the sun he was exposed to at the end aged him quickly or something. Seriously, I had never seen Langella look this young on screen and I had seen him in movies from the 80's! All in all a rather good Dracula film that you can really sink your teeth into...and yes, I went there!

Of the 90 or so horror films that I have watched this year, this is one of my absolute favourites after "Witchfinder General" and the very best of the Hammer films (including their 1958 version of "Dracula"). Frank Langella is excellent as Dracula. A sorely underrated actor, he brings a great sense of sophistication, class and danger to the title character, in part due to his terrific voice. It also has a very strong supporting cast: Donald Pleasence, Laurence Olivier, Kate Nelligan (who, crucially, has great chemistry with Langella) and Trevor Eve. However, Sylvester McCoy's part is disappointingly brief.The film is very well written and John Badham's direction is superb. While I thought that the horror elements were extremely strong, I adored the dark romance elements, something which sets it apart from many other adaptations of the novel. For my money, the most successful of these scenes are Dracula and Lucy's conversation at the dinner table, which is covered by lit candles (which I took as being representative of the fires of Hell) and the very sexy and surreal sex scene.The main characters are all well characterised and I liked the fact that Jonathan Harker was far more sceptical and dismissive of the idea of the supernatural than many characters in similar films. It takes several attempts for Van Helsing (who is Mina's father in this version) to convince him that not only vampires exist but that Count Dracula is one. As it takes place in the Edwardian era, it is set later than many other adaptations and consequently it features cars and gramophone records, which I think was done deliberately to give the film a more modern feel while still retaining a period setting.

This review does contain spoilers. This is without a doubt the most erotic Dracula movie ever made. Frank Langella's Dracula is handsome, charming, seductive and very believably able to seduce any woman on whom he focuses his attention. The B&W movie is classically eerie and spooky, the sets are almost cliché's of the horror genre as is Mini's 'heroic' solo dash from her sick bed to the shore to try to rescue those on the storm lashed ship wreck instead of calling for help. That scene was enough to steal a 9 or 10 rating from me, although if it was intended to be humorous, a bit of comic relief, then it succeeded. The seduction scene between Dracula and Lucy was brilliantly handled leaving details to the imagination of the viewers. Olivier was marvellous, as always, as was Donald Pleasence, an actor who, in my opinion has been frequently undervalued. Tony Haygarth was very effectively creepy. And Kate Nelligan was superb as the strong willed Lucy who still remains strong willed after Dracula's seduction.We have watched this DVD a few times and have been entertained each time we see it. And being entertained is a major criteria for us ... were we entertained and will we watch this again? The answer to both questions is - Yes.