Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" is many things, but a romance novel it's not. It's got religion, but not the kind involving the transmigration of souls to identical bodies separated by centuries. It has a sense of history, which includes a couple sentences of Van Helsing's semi-ambiguous speculation that the immortal vampire may've once been "that Voivode Dracula" who fought the Turks, but it's not about, nor significantly inspired by (except the title), the historical Vlad the Impaler. This 1974 TV movie, speciously titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula," as with the later 1992 theatrically-released movie of the same name, is about those things which Stoker's "Dracula" is not about. What it adapts from Stoker is mostly superficially done and sometimes incompetently so.Exaggerating and expanding on the connection between the vampire and Vlad within a reincarnation romance, turning Stoker's Gothic horror novel into a silly love story seems to have been a bad idea whose time had come. There had been some recent popular books in the early 1970s on the Prince of Wallachia in relation to Stoker. And, vampires were already being turned into romance figures in film and TV, including in the reincarnation romance of the Dracula-related blaxploitation flick "Blacula" (1972), as well as in the "Dark Shadows" series, a TV soap opera, which was also turned into two films and which was created by this TV-movie Dracula's director-producer, Dan Curtis. Unfortunately, these threads, the historical and romantic, have pervaded most subsequent big Dracula movies, from the love-sick "Nosferatu" remake and the dime-novel-like Universal reiteration, both of 1979, to Francis Ford Coppola's aforementioned 1992 rip-off, to the ahistorical "Dracula Untold" (2014).Like Hammer's 1958 "Dracula," Jonathan Harker's role is reduced to his stay at Castle Dracula, and the later part of the film focuses on the investigation duo of Van Helsing and Arthur Holmwood. Also like Hammer's productions, the cast is full of Brits; except, here, the dangerous foreigner Dracula is portrayed by an American, the soft-spoken Jack Palance (also the physically-strongest Drac since Lon Chaney Jr. in "Son of Dracula" (1943)). It's a bit amusing, considering the many Hollywood movies casting Brits in roles for foreigners across the world, to see the same thing done in reverse across the pond, for this originally-British TV movie. Inexplicably, Harker also encounters a Russian couple en route to the Count's Transylvanian abode. Like Jesus Franco's poor 1970 international Dracula, the filmmakers laughably try to pass off German Shepherds as wolves. This one even features a hopeless attempt, by quick editing and silly hairstyling, to pass one of these pups off as a wolf attacking Arthur. Almost as ridiculous is the poorly-acted fainting of Lucy's mother during the episode (in the book, this killed her).The limits of a TV-movie budget and imagination also results in a slow pace emphasizing supposed tension building at the expense of actual action. That only a ticking clock can be heard in some of Arthur's interior scenes, as he keeps watch over Lucy, doesn't help--in the same spirit, they should've added just crickets chirping for the counter shots of Dracula standing outside. There are also the then-typical TV zooming and lengthy dissolves, including the clichéd wavy ones for flashback montages of Vlad and his sweetheart. There are some canted angels that become un-canted. And there's some obvious cheating going on in the edits between exterior views of Drac's impressive castle and Carfax Abbey and the unexpectedly small interiors. Much of which could've been overlooked if the adaptation were more interesting than a reincarnation romance, or if it evidenced any competent reworking of the familiar story.Harker's carriage ride to Borgo Pass, for instance, fails to foreshadow the horror of Dracula due to the absence of apparent fear from the locals. When Harker cuts himself shaving, Palance's restrained bloodlust merely manifests as an expression of constipation. Instead, this Dracula throws a hissy fit when he finds his lost-love, un-dead Lucy with stake in her heart. Oblivious to the sexual implications of the blood-transfusion business in Stoker's novel, here, the maid, in a bit part, donates the blood rather than Lucy's suitors. Worst of all, but all too typical of Dracula movies, is the reduced role for Mina, who was the main hero and surrogate storyteller of Stoker's novel. This time, she provides a couple clues to detectives Van Helsing and Arthur regarding Dracula's identity and location, but her character is otherwise sidelined for the male heroics. Apparently, she's of so little importance, that Van Helsing, otherwise inexplicably, drops his cross and allows Dracula to feed her his breast blood--thus threatening her with vampirism. And they don't even pronounce her name correctly! Unlike the 1992 film, since Lucy is Dracula's reincarnated love, it's also unclear why the Count attacks Mina at all. But, then, this is the same vampire who has a pit of stakes and another pointy torture device in his basement. Logic is not his strong suit. Why not replace his ceilings with skylights while he's at it and decorate his coffin with crucifixes and garlic.On the plus side, this TV production did manage a decent painting of Vlad and Lucy. And the main reason I didn't rate the movie lower is because there are a couple shots that are staged as painterly tableaus--even using the TV zooming to some advantage. The first is the dead, cross-baring seaman tied to the ship's helm, with the shot zooming in on Dracula on the beach in the background. This is a nice, economical transition to the Count's move to England; something that would've also benefited the 1977 TV version. The second and final shot of the movie wraps up the narrative nicely with a zoom-in on the painting. Unfortunately, it's followed by red ahistorical text restating the point in the blunt fashion that pervades this TV production.(Mirror Note: Another failure of Harker's shaving scene is that it includes a mirror, but Dracula's lack of a reflection isn't addressed.)

For me the definitive version is the Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing one(adaptation-wise and own terms wise) with the Bela Lugosi film close behind, but almost all the adaptations of Dracula are worth watching and this one from 1974 acquits itself more than adequately. There are goofy-looking day-and-night shots, a few moments of erratic pacing and Jonathan Harker is so underwritten that it's almost like he was written as an afterthought, his story resolved rather off-handedly. However Dracula(1974) is stylishly made stuff with moody photography, effectively creepy lighting, very evocative and colourful Victorian period detail and some great locations, especially the one for Dracula's castle which is like a character of its own that matches Dracula in being imposing.Dracula(1974) also benefits from having one of the spookiest and suspense-inducing music scores I've heard in a long time and intelligently done writing and direction that respects the source material while having an imaginative touch as well. Likewise with the story, which has plenty of horror and suspense as well as a melancholic air, it certainly feels like Dracula, apart from missing the erotic quality of the book and the Coppola and Lee adaptations, and stays relatively faithful spirit and story structure-wise. Though with some additions and omissions, most notably the inclusion of the love story and having Lucy looking like Dracula's lost love(also done in the Coppola film, except to me it's handled better here) which added a lot to Dracula's character(it gives him a tortured quality while not forgetting that he's evil) and made why he went to England believable, and the omission of Renfield, a shame as he is one of the book's most interesting characters.There are some great scenes here, especially the spine-chilling opening sequence which is accentuated by the sound effects and the score, Dracula moving through the castle throwing around anyone and anything in his way, when Dracula goes berserk and when Dracula unleashes a wolf from the zoo. The pursuit of Dracula's also quite exciting. The ending may seem silly to some and some may feel like Dracula is defeated too easily and that his character is weakened too much(the latter was definitely deliberate though and makes sense). To me it was a very powerful ending that was also lively and intense and if anything it did improve on the ending of the book somewhat(the too-silly and Dracula-defeated-too-easily-and-weakening-his-character criticisms can be true of the book too, just my opinion of course). The performances are good on the whole, though those of Jonathan and Mrs. Westernra are a touch stiff but that's not entirely their fault as the way their characters are written doesn't help them, and Dracula is the only really colourful character. Simon Ward is very likable and solidly forthright and I personally appreciated the subtlety that Nigel Davenport brought to Van Helsing(but if people find him too low-key that's understandable, as Van Helsing is not the most subtle of characters.Jack Palance's superb Dracula is the performance that dominates as he should, not definitive but extremely worthy. He is often very scary in an animalistic way- see how he bares his fangs, hear how he hisses and look at how imposing he looks with his rugged features and tall height- but he also brings a melancholy, nobleman-quality and ambiguity if not as sensual as others in the role. You are genuinely terrified of Dracula but empathise a little with him too but the film doesn't make the mistake of rooting for him too much. Palance's best moments are when he tries to get into the locked hotel room door with the two women in the room- people here have said that this scene was chilling back then and that it came across to this viewer as chilling to this day is testament to how effective it is-, when he's moving through the hotel and how his facial expression of pain and horror has a glint of relief too as he's dying, it is a subtle touch that can easily be missed but it is brilliantly done. Overall, a very solid and atmospheric adaptation of a classic with a superb titular character performance. 7/10 Bethany Cox

When most people think of all the great actors who've played Dracula over the years, names like Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, John Carradine, Gary Oldman, and maybe Frank Langella will come to mind. However, very people are likely to think of Jack Palance as a suitable Dracula since most people think of his roles in "Shane and "City Slickers". But there was a lot more to Jack than just playing cowboys and he proves it here in 1974's "Bram Stoker's Dracula". This little seen TV version, produced by Dan Curtis ("Dark Shadows") and written by the legendary Richard Matheson, portrays Dracula as centuries old warrior Vlad Tepes who journeys to London after he comes to believe that the fiancé of Arthur Holmwood ,Lucy, is the reincarnation of his lost love. If it sounds like you've heard this version before, you probably have since Francis Ford Coppola pretty much used the same storyline for his 1992 version. While I like the '92 version, I find this movie to be more straightforward and less bogged down by the romantic aspect that the Coppola version had, instead choosing to focus more on the horror aspect. Jack Palance makes an excellent Dracula by being able to use his tough guy persona to project the lord of the vampires as a figure of great strength and power, especially physically, while at the same time giving just a little hint of sympathy. Another bonus is the creepy atmosphere that is created in the movie by the filming locations in England and Yugoslavia. Rounding out the cast is Simon Ward as Arthur Holmwood and Nigel Davenport as Prof. Van Helsing, both of whom are excellent in their roles. As proof for the power of this movie, I remember seeing it when I was very young in the 90s on some cable channel and while I couldn't remember the faces very well (memory is a funny thing) I never forgot this movie, particularly the the final scene where Dracula meets his end, which I won't spoil. This is a real gem of a movie that if you ever get the chance, I highly recommend it, either on you tube (which is how I found it) or I believe you can get it on DVD. 9 out of 10

Jack Palance brings a brooding intensity and snarling animal ferocity to the role of Dracula that totally works; Palance's fierce and intimidating vampire is both quite forceful and genuinely frightening (the scenes with Dracula using his superhuman strength against fragile mortals are especially potent and unsettling). Director Dan Curtis, working from an intelligent and absorbing script by Richard Matheson, relates the involving story at a steady pace, vividly evokes the flavorsome 19th century Victorian period setting, and stages the exciting climax with real flair. Moreover, the tip-top cast all contribute fine performances: Nigel Davenport makes for a restrained, believable, and authoritative Van Helsing, the ravishing Fiona Lewis impresses as the frail, doomed Lucy (in a surprisingly moving and inspired touch, she's the reincarnation of Dracula's past lover), plus there are sound turns by Simon Ward as the concerned Arthur, Penelope Horner as the sweet, vulnerable Mina, and Murray Brown as the likable, ill-fated Jonathan Harker. Virginia Wetherell, Barbara Lindley, and Sarah Douglas are pretty sexy and scary as Dracula's deadly, yet delectable vampire brides. Oswald Morris' lush cinematography boasts several graceful fades and a few nifty tilted camera angles. Bob Cobert's spirited shuddery score hits the spine-tingling spot. While not exactly a definitive adaptation of Stoker's book (the gloriously unhinged Renfield alas is nowhere to be seen), but still worth watching all the same.