Dracula

Audience Reviews

View All (41) audience reviews

This Old G A modest made for TV production. Closer to the original Braum stoker novel then most earlier adaptations. The movie is elevated by Jack Palance's performance as the infamous count. In my opinion one of his best performances ever. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 07/08/24 Full Review CodyZamboni A straightforward, unremarkable retelling of Bram Stoker's book. Most notable for Jack Palance's menacing turn as Dracula, as well as a few creepy scenes. But this should've been alot better given the talent behind the camera. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 03/25/24 Full Review Dallas H I enjoyed this adaptation of Dracula. Jack "Curly" Palance is in the horrific lead role! The movie's vibe is a hybrid of Hammer Films and the Francis Ford Coppola adaptation of the same story. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 03/24/24 Full Review Deke P "DRACULA" 1974. 5 RT STARS! Maybe the BEST DRACULA movies ever, & JACK PALANCE maybe the BEST DRACULA ever! Why wasn't I told?! I never even knew about this til saw it on the Movie Channel on TV 1-27.2023. & very similar in parts to the original 1920s NOSFERATU classic. Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 02/10/23 Full Review glen a I realize how unfair it is to be sitting here in 2021, reviewing this made for TV movie from 1974, but that is what is happening. First off, I am so glad this movie exists. The greatest Dracula movie of them all, 1992's Coppola version, clearly references this film several times, which leads me to believe that the 1992 movie would not have been as amazing if Coppola didn't have such a rich legacy of earlier adaptations to draw from. However, this version is just so 1970's in all the worst ways. I am a massive fan of the writer, Richard Matheson, but there just isn't anything remarkable about the dialog. I do believe this may be the first time the Dracula story was treated as a romance, though, so Matheson did break ground there. As for everything else, no scene delivers on the passion that it deserves. Seriously, the only reason to watch this version would be if you want to introduce the Dracula story to someone who is too young to appreciate the brilliant cinema (or the very mature R rating) of the 1992 version. I give it a D, just don't bother. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 03/31/23 Full Review Audience Member From Nosferatu to the latest portrayals, no Dracula presentation has done justice to the original character, this is no different. Each reiteration seems to base the character mostly on the original stageplay adaption of the (admittedly tedious original book). To do it proper justice, the Count in the book is a hideous cadaverous creature, not the suave, tuxedo and cape clad foreign gentleman. Palance is not a cadaverous being by any account anymore than was the meaty Bela Lugosi. The added romantic elements have nothing to do with the original concept and this Dan Curtis version is far more akin to his Dark Shadows horror-soap opera than Dracula per se. Palance gives a slow-motion menace but with the same snarly, showing fangs portrayal as Christoper Lee in the Hammer films of the same ilk. They are Hollywood/Hammer versions of what ought to be a supernatural story. It's not supposed to be a gore fest or a tongue-in-cheek tale, but one of serious human vs immortal undead thesis. Just my opinion. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 02/03/23 Full Review Read all reviews

Dracula

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now