Interesteg What makes it different from others?

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Trey Yancy Langella made a huge impact with this film and it is the movie that made him a star. While Lugosi was brilliant, his performance was representative of the overacting that was the norm at the time. The Christopher Lee / Hammer version was scary but old school almost to the point of campy - cheap formula films. With the 1979 version we had something completely different - a young(ish) romantic vampire. The ion depicted had never been seen before and it broke barriers in bringing women into the theaters for horror films. By today's standards it is clearly dated and it seems to a degree to be like a series of vignettes, but they were breaking new ground. One can forgive some contrivances, such as an abbey (which represented the absolute best Carfax set in any movie before or since) with the incongruity of a giant stone bat and snarling face door in the interior masonry. These truly were the best Dracula sets ever. The climactic ending also displayed more imagination than any other Dracula film. Overall, this was a great movie for its day. If one were a fan of horror films, this is definitely one that should be in their collection.

Kirpianuscus first, for the cast. to meet, together, Laurence Olivier, Donald Pleasence and Frank Langella is a real delight. then - for the nuances who reminds, after so many experiments, the original novel. and not the last, the fascinating Dracula by Frank Langella who is more a seducer than the monster. the atmosphere reminds old fashion Gothic literature. the acting preserves the delicacy of tension and gives force and beautiful sparkles to a story who seems be well - known. maybe it is not exactly the best adaptation. but it remains a must see. maybe for the emotions and for the special feeling to discover hide zones of a novel who remains great source of inspiration for the horrors. and this is the great good point of this film - it is the perfect mixture between thriller, mystery and crime, ignoring the rules of horror for a beautiful story who use in wise manner great cinematography.

Aaron1375 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 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!

lani4-886-903615 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.