IMDb user comments for
Dracula (1979) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Index

90 comments in total

---

32 out of 39 people found the following comment useful :-
A Gothic masterpiece. The quintessential vampire movie., 3 December 2002

Author: budmassey (cyberbarrister@gmail.com) from Indianapolis, IN

After so many years, Lugosi's performance of Dracula wilts into camp, and the overblown Coppola version, while visually stimulating, comes across as so much hyperbole (Oldman was brilliant, but a few of his lines were poorly delivered, almost laughably so.)

But Langella was the master of all vampires, his performance reels with sexual presence and a charm and sophistication that renders all other Dracula movies null and void. And why not? He had countless performances on Broadway to perfect his character, and perfect it he did. He insisted on touches, such as never wearing fangs, or never appearing with blood on his face, that added class to the vampire legend and places this version a cut above the rest.

Kate Nelligan (Prince of Tides) was so young and beautiful then and it was easy to believe that she could inspire a love that could transcend death and time. Olivier was already a ghost, and many of the scenes that involved activity no more strenuous than walking actually had to be shot with a stand in. It is rumored that Sir Larry's performance was so frail that impressionist Rich Little actually had to be called in to dub some of Olivier's lines, as he had done for David Niven in his final Pink Panther film, because the originals were virtually unintelligible given the poor health of the actors.

The brooding and regal score by John Williams drives the movie quite nicely. The film was edited by John Bloom, who a couple of years later would edit The French Lieutenant's Woman with a similar feel, and shot by Gil Taylor who shot, among other greats, the original Star Wars. Stoker would have been proud of the final result, particularly so with Langella's masterful and groundbreaking performance that launched a career. Dracula is a Gothic masterpiece that has never been given its due.

In 2004 director Badham decided to release a version in which the color had been drained from the movie, in much the same way as its central character drained color, blood and life from his victims, perhaps an intentional comparison. The "making of" featurette is delightful, and producer Mirisch's hilarious tongue in cheek observation of the "holy water" effect has already been misquoted by earnest IMDb reviewers. The remake is nice, but it was gilding the lily. And although the film was indeed improved by this modification, it had already surpassed any of its would be peers and remains the quintessential vampire movie.

---

22 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Underrated, classy take on the vampire legend, 14 September 2005

Author: ThomasHayden

It is surprising to me that, given the popular and critical praise so many mediocre vampire movies have received( this includes the badly dated Hammer flicks), this movie is often dismissed as minor and forgettable. While it is true that the definitive version is still Coppola's 1992 film, this overlooked gem deserves much more attention and praise than it currently gets.

It was possibly the first vampire movie to play up the romantic and sexual implications of the vampire legend, while at the same time remaining faithful to the underlying idea of Stoker's novel( that is, a fight between good and evil). It is worth pointing out that the film depicts count Dracula as a good looking, seductive and charming aristocrat, rather than an impulsive blood-thirsty creature. He is a broody, lonely character, seeking for a female partner with whom share his everlasting loneliness, something he seems to find in the form of Lucy Seward, an independent and strong-willed Victorian lady.

But the fact that this Dracula has a romantic strain to him does not conceal his ultimately evil nature. He consciously seduces and attacks ill, defenseless Mina just for the excitement of it. When Dr Van Helsing meets her at the graveyard galleries, she is no longer that frail but charming girl, but a deathly-pale,putrid, disgusting figure. That is what Dracula's hobby implies.

Badham does an excellent job. He effectively uses Gothic imagery and low key lightning to create an eerie and slightly surreal atmosphere.But what really stands out in this version is the cast. Everyone fits their role perfectly.Langella plays a seductive count. Olivier,inspired by Cushing's performance in 1958 Dracula, puts in a riveting performance as a frail, tortured Van Helsing, with an emotional stake in the story (pun intended). Kate Nelligan( a fine Canadian supporting actress,also starring in Eye of the Needle) delivers a fresh performance. Even Harker's character , which is usually the main casting weakness when it comes to Dracula movies, is quite well handled here, played by an actor with the right appearance.

There are minor flaws, the most important of them being a lack of screen time devoted to the romance and a muddled color scheme, but this film is nevertheless worth a look, an engaging retelling of the classic horror tale with a poetic, broody edge to it.

---

16 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Much better than I'd heard., 6 March 2007

Author: dr_foreman from Staten Island, NY

For years, I've listened to horror fans talk trash about the 1979 "Dracula." It's not faithful to the book, they'd complain, it's not scary, it's only made for the sake of middle-aged ladies who fancy Frank Langella, etc. etc.

Well, I'm happy to report that the horror fans are way off base this time. This "Dracula" is a classy, creepy, and sometimes downright exciting production. Sure, the script doesn't follow the events of the book exactly - the whole thing takes place in England! - but it makes the most of its limitations, so to speak.

Langella makes a very classy Dracula. He apparently refused to wear fangs or demon eyes for the role, focusing instead on making the count more "human" - not to mention arrogant, intelligent, and, I suppose, sexy (for me and other guy viewers, though, the eye candy in this movie is Kate Nelligan). Perhaps Langella is a little too "normal," and his big hair is slightly amusing, but on the whole I think he plays the role with dignity, inhabiting Dracula in a far more convincing way than the likes of Gary Oldman.

The rest of the cast is pretty good, too. Nelligan makes a lovely, capable heroine, and Trevor Eve is an OK (if underused) Jonathan Harker. Laurence Olivier's Van Helsing is a lot better than most people say he is - he comes across as smart, brave and an overall worthy opponent for Dracula. Reviewers tend to mock his Dutch accent, but I don't get too wrapped up in stuff like that; it sounds fine to me. I certainly think the cast here is much better than the parade of wooden actors and crazy hams in the Coppola version.

I like the production values of this film, too. The special effects are mostly photographic tricks but they look cool, and they aren't overbearing like modern CGI effects. The sets and locations are attractive, though the designers went a bit overboard with the Gothic ruin of Carfax Abbey (probably because they wanted to make it a substitute for the absent Castle Dracula). And, of course, the eerie John Williams score is a treat, and rightly praised by most critics.

Another plus is that the movie features a number of very powerful scenes - I love Dracula's confrontation with Van Helsing in the study, and the terrifying moment when Van Helsing encounters his vampire daughter in the mine shaft. Creepy stuff; no wonder this movie freaked me out when I was a kid!

On the downside, I found Dr. Seward, as played by Donald Pleasence, slightly too grotesque and lame to be believed. And, as usual for these Dracula adaptations, Renfield seemed borderline extraneous. The plotting flakes apart a bit at the end, too, with the car chase scene coming across as silly - and what, exactly, does the final image in the film mean? It's slightly too enigmatic for my tastes. I am supposed to be rooting for Dracula to survive or something?

Still, this is one of the better Draculas. The 1977 BBC version is more faithful and probably better. But this is arguably the best adaptation of the story to come out of Hollywood.

---

22 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
This is the sexiest Dracula ever made., 3 November 2003

Author: FastFlo from Los Angeles, California

Having seen almost all the Dracula and vampire movies ever made, I have to say this one is my modern favorite. I never understood why all those women went so willingly with Bela Lugosi. I mean, he scares me to death. But Frank Langella. Well. What can I say? He's so beautiful and suave, I started taking iron just in case he dropped by for a sip. About 1 hour into the movie is the sexiest scene I have ever watched. And there is NO nudity. All the women I know who have seen this movie know exactly where and when this scene is. Anything else that needs to taken care of is done BEFORE this scene plays. It is always very quiet while it plays and we always watch that it more than once.

---

13 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Langella's portrayal outdoes them all. Sexy, charming., 30 January 2004

Author: oprlvr from Michigan

I have seen many different DRACULA films since I could ride a bike, and I have to say that this movie, was by far, the best of them all.

Okay, call me a sensitive, (lusting) hopeless romantic - if you will. But Frank Langella's exquisite performance was a new twist on the horrid, vengeful, bloodsucker from the classic Stoker novel.

For over two decades, women have found Langella's portrayal to be the most erotic, sexy and desirable by comparison, because of his physique, masculinity, voice, and natural charisma. In fact, to me - Frank Langella IS/WAS Dracula, not just an actor who played the role.

But, I wholly credit the film makers for opting to steer THIS film into a more romantic, passionate, sexual approach. With the dozens of DRACULA films produced---the flavor does begin to stagnate. After all, how many other (Dracula) films have flopped? Not just due to the poor casting, bad direction or writing either. A film goer can only stand to see exact or similar performances for so long---(remember the "FRIDAY THE 13TH" series?)

Also, the special effects used in this film were very impressive, for 1979. Most of the Dracula/wolf morph scenes were pulled off convincing, as was the Dracula/bat changes during the VAN-HELSING / HARKER / DRACULA scene at Carfax Abbey. I was duly impressed by the 'invisible man' door opening effect (after Lucy's seduction) when DRACULA pays VAN-HELSING a "surprise" visit -

"...I did not hear you come in, Count..."

In addition, Frank Langella's natural astigmatism or "dancing eyes" only completed an intensifying, dramatic effect, that no effort of modern technology could possibly recreate.

MOVING ON TO THE FILM: what woman doesn't dream of being kissed as Dracula kisses Lucy during (you know what scene I'm talking about). At first, they are standing atop the balcony, commenting about "the children of the night". Well, Dracula would have swept me off my feet too! And then, later in the bedroom scene, when Dracula seduces Lucy---well, what more can I say?

Stepping backward, if you please, to the intermediate `Seward Dinner', following the opening scene; when Count Dracula finally makes his first bold appearance. I felt as though I were actually watching the drama unfold on a live stage, in front of me!

Yes, Hollywood has been producing DRACULA films for nearly a century. However, the film producers really put the monster in a whole new, more human perspective - as only Frank Langella could do - with perfection.

In fact, it was Langella's stunning Off-Broadway performance that sparked the film maker's idea to adapt this script to the big screen.

Alongside a stellar cast of fine performances from Nelligan and veterans Olivier and Sutherland, this film deeply portrays DRACULA; at first as an alluring, romantic, sexy, suave Monarch. But then, gradually untwists to reveal the true lusting, hideous, destructive 'creature of the night'.

That's my say [for now]

Peanut

---

10 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Underrated adaptation of Stoker's classic, 16 February 2005

Author: Libretio

"Dracula"

Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 (Panavision)

Sound format: Dolby Stereo

The vampire Count Dracula (Frank Langella) arrives in England from Transylvania and targets a wealthy middle-class family, including the daughter of arch-enemy Abraham Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier)...

John Badham's underrated adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel takes most of its cues from the stage play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston (which had launched Bela Lugosi to stardom in 1927), and while it may not be entirely faithful to the book - events are compressed for reasons of timing - it adheres faithfully to the spirit of the thing. It's also an immensely CINEMATIC work which uses the wide Panavision frame in painterly fashion, creating a landscape of Gothic architecture and Victorian excess (note the breathtaking shot looking down from the ceiling inside Dracula's castle, where an ornate spider's web fills the entire screen). Badham and screenwriter W.D. Richter emphasize the film's Romantic elements - helped immeasurably by Langella's complex performance - though the corruption underlying Dracula's handsome exterior is often betrayed by certain details (the Count clawing at a windowpane, seeking entrance to his latest victim; the ghoulish vampiress who continues to rot even as she pursues her lust for human blood, etc.).

Olivier has been criticized in some quarters for his 'silly' European accent, and it's true that his performance lacks some of the dynamism Peter Cushing once brought to the role of Van Helsing, but Olivier comes into his own when confronting Dracula with evidence of his vampirism, and in the deeply moving moment when he drives a stake through his daughter's heart and cradles her corpse in his arms whilst sobbing uncontrollably. The fine supporting cast includes Trevor Eve, Donald Pleasence and a wealth of familiar British character actors (Tony Haygarth, Teddy Turner, Sylvester McCoy, etc.), alongside Canadian actress Kate Nelligan, giving a finely-tuned performance as a potential bride of Dracula. A beautiful film - romantic, tragic, Gothic and sinister, it satisfies in almost every respect, and is ripe for rediscovery. John Williams' glorious music score is the icing on the cake.

---

13 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
The best of the Dracula's, 16 November 2004

Author: Mark Conklin (mccspqr@comcast.net) from Bolingbrook, Illinois

Having been privileged to see Mr. Langella in the Broadway production several times, This film is the best in the series. Mr. Langella is one of only a handful of actors and actresses whose persona is very keenly transferred to film. The film contained the same romance, suspense, horror and humor as the play, holding true to the Edwin Gory staging where possible. Mr. Langella's eyes danced, his stature towered and powered, and his presence was awesome. I was happy to read that there is a new DVD release from Universal. For anyone who has not seen a Dracula film, this one with Mr. Langella's fine performance is a must, to experience some of the more subtleties of the psyche of Dracula.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Good Dracula Movie For 1979, 10 July 2005

Author: rj65 from United States

I rate this movie a 7 out of 10. I believe that the movie is good for its time. Although it doesn't follow the book 100%(What movie ever does?) it is entertaining. The acting by Langella is as good as you can get and the others did a good job as well. Sir Laurence Olivier is considered the greatest actor to ever live and did a great job as Van Helsing. Donald Pleasance does a good job also but I would rather have seen another actor in this role but maybe its because I still think of his character in The Great Escape. The actor who plays Jonathan Harker is a bit flat. The scenes, screenplay, cinematography and the special effects are all very good for 1979. I also really like the ending of this movie. The music is outstanding but what would you expect from John Williams?

---

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Under rated, 16 May 2004

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois

Come on, are you telling me that this wasn't a good Dracula film? This brought excitement and romance back into the idea of Dracula. Frank made Dracula into his own and became the perfect cast for the dark prince. When I was younger, I wanted this guy to be my boyfriend! LOL! But he was just that effective.

The story takes some different turns and isn't too close to Bram Stroker's novel, but still has high entertainment. Dracula still comes to buy Carfax Abbey in England by Jonathan Harker, which the actor scared me because he looks so much like my dad, but instead of keeping Jonathan as a prisoner, he is invited to a party with Jonathan and his fiancée Lucy's, that's right, Lucy, not Mina, family with her friend Mina who happens to have two little puncture marks on her throat.

When Mina passes on, Dracula makes his move onto Lucy and falls in love with her. But of course Van Helsing has something else to say about that and will destroy the fiend that killed his daughter, that's right, you heard me! Mina is Van Helsing's daughter in this one! Well, anyways, I would recommend this Dracula movie. It's one of the better must see's for Dracula fans!

9/10

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Come on Universal DVD - Release the proper Colour version!!!, 2 April 2008

Author: alucard69 from London

This is a classy version of the Stoker/Hamilton Deane play with a strong cast, excellent use of locations and some amazing production design (especially Carfax Abbey). It's such a shame then that cinematographer Gillbert Taylor's work has been totally washed out by a horrid colour timing decision by the director many years after it's first release. Sacrilege!!!

The original 1979 print looked beautiful, full of vivid, rich, golden colours, a far cry than what is seen today, a dull and grey looking film. Now don't get me wrong I love black and white movies, but this was shot in full colour and therefore works only as such. It wouldn't be so bad if the original version was not out of print, but alas it is.

I long to see this movie once again in its original glory.

Please, please, please, please Universal raid your vaults and put the original colour version onto DVD or even better, Blu Ray!

---

---

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history