Dracula

Audience Reviews

View More (42)

Michael C I was interested in seeing this lesser known made for television film adaptation of "Dracula" mainly because of who the director and producer is. Being a huge fan of the original "Trilogy of Terror" and of other work by Dan Curtis, I decided to give this particular movie a look. It is often said that one actor's performance in a movie can have a significant negative impact on the movie as a whole. That certainly can be true. The best example of that is Sofia Coppola in "The Godfather, Part 3". The late Jack Palance's performance as the title character in this movie, while not as bad, is another good example. He in my opinion is all wrong as Count Dracula. His performance is just pure cornball. He practically whispers all of his dialogue. The scenes of his reactions to such things as finding the crates of his native soil incinerated, finding his vampire minions dead or to sunlight are laughable. This version of "Dracula" also has the problem of the supporting cast outperforming the lead actor. The late Nigel Davenport (Abraham Van Helsing) and the late Simon Ward (Arthur Holmwood) are much better and help keep the movie watchable. One thing I will say in the movie's favor is the climax is well staged. In the end, Dan Curtis' take on the iconic vampire just does not work for me. I do not recommend it. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 04/10/25 Full Review 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 Read all reviews

Dracula

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now