Perhaps strangely, I can't say that I've ever found the story of Dracula (Bram Stoker's novel, Bela Lugosi's movie or any other "serious" adaptation of the story to be either particularly exciting or especially frightening. In that regard this movie (which is a reasonably good adaptation of the story) is no different. It has its moments, but it isn't really a "horror" movie in the way that we usually think of that term. The story of Dracula, to work, really depends on atmosphere and mood. Does it pull you into the story? Do you believe that you're there, experiencing this with the characters? All in all, this movie is fairly successful at that. This was a made for TV movie, as opposed to a big budget Hollywood blockbuster, so expectations have to be adjusted accordingly, but the sets are good and director Dan Curtis does get the "feel" of the story right. And Jack Palance (mostly known for westerns) actually pulled off the role of the monstrous count quite well. Mind you, this is an "adaptation" of the story. Mostly, the difference is in the fact that this version actually does equate Count Dracula with Vlad the Impaler of the Middle Ages, which Stoker did not. That's actually a fairly significant part of the storyline, as Palance's Dracula sets his sights on a young Englishwoman who is the spitting image of his old love from the 15th century, when he was actually alive, hoping to pull her into the world of the undead as his companion.This was OK. I wouldn't call it great, but it had a certain nostalgic quality for me. I think I watched this when it was on TV. I would have been 11 years old at the time. I certainly saw it - whether it was the original broadcast or a repeat I'm not sure - but it was the first version of the Dracula story that I can remember being exposed to. It holds up reasonable well all these years later. The supporting performances were good. The story at times did seem a bit rushed to me. There are a few mistakes. One that stands out for me came at the very end. As Van Helsing finally kills Dracula by plunging a wooden stake through his heart, blood spurts out of his chest - and turns his black suit a bright red in that spot. Huh? Blood on a black suit wouldn't be bright red. It would just be a wet spot. It seriously looked like someone had put wet red paint on the suit. So, yes, there are a few glitches. Overall, though, it's a decent version of the story. (6/10)

The problem with Dracula or vampire movies these days is that there are so many of them and each clings to its various qualities (or lack of) so that watching a TV movie from 1974 and expecting it to register positively against this intimidating backdrop is probably too much to burden any single feature with. However, 'Kolchak: The Night Stalker', also a TV movie from 1974, exceeds expectations and still plays well with audiences today. So, when I mentioned to a fellow movie-buff that I had watched this Jack Palance vehicle, he had never heard of it but felt that it must somehow be awesome simply because of Jack's presence. Unfortunately, this does not hold true here and I had to tell him. Written by Richard Matheson, I was expecting something with a bit of a twist. He wrote 'Twilight Zone' episodes, after all! Perhaps my anticipation was not called for here. This is pretty much a straight-up retelling or alternate realization of the basic Bram Stoker character and tale. There are really no surprises unless one would want to call Dracula seeing a photo of a girl who resembles a woman he loved centuries ago and that becomes his raison d'etre for the rest of the film a surprise twist. Actually, that was a fairly common theme in the old TV show 'Dark Shadows'. Well, what a surprise. Old Dan Curtis is at the directorial helm here and is essentially rekindling ideas he has used previously. So, maybe the failure of this movie lies with the director? That is not to say that this movie is terrible. It is not. But as noted, the sheer prevalence of so many really good vampire movies shoves this one into obscurity as demonstrated by my movie-buff friend's complete ignorance of this film's existence. The bright spot in this limp production is Palance's performance. He is really great here. Without him there isn't much point in viewing this, quite frankly. Alas, gone is the vampire that changes into a bat, a wolf (dark German Shepherds, actually), or a cloud of fog. He still sleeps in a coffin by day, though. He can still be deterred by a crucifix and garlic. Thus, some of the reliable Hollywood vampire nuances are still present. Even the sunlight can be hazardous although he doesn't flake away like Christopher Lee. OK. We can deal with that. Yet, the one that is missing that seemed the most annoying is his ability to enter a household or residence without first getting permission to do so. (Handled superbly in 'Let The Right One In') Lugosi's Dracula, at least, schmoozed his way in and socialized providing dreadful anticipation of what is to become. Palance is much more direct and just crashes in. However, Jack does the absolute best with the material and occasionally transforms a couple of instances into very successful terror. Unfortunately, absolutely everyone else in this presentation is nearly instantly forgettable. In addition, one very annoying feature is the lack of detail to the general surroundings. I realize this was a TV movie and a very limited budget. Still, Dracula's 15th century castle's architecture was occasionally too modern and, in fact, sported catacomb arches built from a very modern brick and mortar painted over with lumpy white paint. It looked very much like any number of more recent basement crawlspaces. The outer facade was unconvincing as well looking frequently like some kind of smoothed stucco. The ambiance of the countryside tries to be mysterious but every now and then I halfway expected someone on a little motorbike to come putting through. Also noted previously are the stock German Shepherds substituting for wolves. Yet, should this film be faulted for resorting to this when so many other movies manage to do so and still chill? That is the problem, isn't it. This movie just didn't chill the way it could have. I am giving it a 6 mostly for Palance's performance. Watch for the way he tries to get around the crucifix held in his direction. He paced nervous and restless like a caged lion. Also, see the screaming rages he flies into. Some of those are surprisingly frightening. It is a shame the rest of the film couldn't keep up with Jack's performance.

A lot of folks I imagine will kind of giggle at the mere notion of Jack Palance in the role of Count Dracula, but I persist that he's one of the most fierce and menacing I've seen to date. Even as die hard a Palance fan as I am, he even surprised me because his Dracula is absolutely intense and quite passionate. One superb sequence has Dracula throwing men around like rag dolls while moving through a hotel looking for Mina, it completely works because Palance simply towers over his opposition. The final confrontation, as Van Helsing and Arthur intrude upon his castle("You're now in my domain, gentlemen. And, you shall not leave"), Dracula lifts Van Helsing in the air, hurling him into a suit of armor! While director Dan Curtis' version of Dracula, based on a screenplay written by the great Richard Matheson, doesn't relish in bloody heart stakings, it does feature Dracula casting those that stand in his away to the side, clutching their throats with benevolent intent, moving them out his way. What I liked about this Dracula was his determination to achieve his aspirations in regards to finding and recovering Lucy(Fiona Lewis), who resembled identically a former love from his days as a mighty Hungarian warrior fighting armies..many attribute this romantic sub-plot(..nowhere even near as overbearing as it was in Coppola's film)to Curtis' own Dark Shadows, which he even admitted in an interview regarding the similarities of a vampire desiring to attain his true love through any means necessary.There's a magnificent scene where Dracula calls for Lucy to come, not knowing that she had been put to rest by Van Helsing who relieved her vampire curse by ramming a stake into her heart, the result showing the Count going berserk, destroying objects in the mausoleum, including turning over her casket! Matheson's screenplay avoids major emphasis on Jonathan Harker's(Murray Brown)time with Dracula, opting instead to move from Transylvania to England where the Count eyes Lucy, Arthur(Simon Ward), her fiancé, calling on Van Helsing(..an impressive Nigel Davenport, who remains restrained and contained, not going over-the-top or creating a too eccentric scientist, firmly grounding his character into a dedicated pragmatist)to assist in determining what exactly is contributing to her anemia and sudden sickly nature. Penelope Horner's Mina isn't as richly presented, more of a supporting character whose endangered life(..Dracula, as revenge against Van Helsing and Arthur for the loss of Lucy, has Mina drink from his blood so he can control her)will need rescuing. What I truly love about this production(..and the BBC version, featuring Louis Jordan as a more sophisticated, aristocratic Count)is the location shooting, evoking a totally different period by shooting in England, particularly the Castle Dracula, where Van Helsing and Arthur discover a pit and Iron Maiden, not to mention the coven of vampire brides in their coffins. Great jump scare where we find out about Harker's fate after being left behind by Dracula to become fodder for his brides. Unlike the Hammer Dracula films, this version shows that sunlight only paralyzes the Count, not burning his flesh. Another element not seen in other Dracula films is how the Count uses a mad dog to attack those he doesn't wish to bother with, and I was amused by how irritated he would get with those who would start up a row when he'd appear on the scene, trespassing, a contempt for mortals who thought they could harm him with pistols or fisticuffs.

It's the combination of the '70's- and dark horror atmosphere that makes this movie such an highly effective and great one. It's a real shame that this made for TV Dracula version, based on the Bram Stoker novel, is not any better known. The movie has an amazing dark atmosphere that adds to the tension and horror of the movie. This is a true genuinely scary horror movie and definitely amongst scariest of all the Dracula movies out there.The movie uses some great settings. Despite the fact that this is made for TV movie, it's not a cheap looking film. They did a real good job with this and its low budget can be seen nowhere back on screen.It's certainly true that the movie uses a bit too many zooms into the characters faces and all but that all was part of '70's film-making when film-makers experimented a lot with cinematography. Perhaps it was also an homage to the old days of horror cinema. Technically its a fine made movie by TV director and horror expert Dan Curtis.Too bad that the acting is also quite laughable at times. And no I'm not talking about Jack Palance as Dracula. I actually quite liked him in his role and I think he did a good job with his interpretation of the character. Too bad that he never played the famous count again after this movie, despite having several movie offers to do so. All the other actors in this movie aren't obviously amongst the most experienced or talented ones. I especially disliked the way Nigel Davenport portrayed the Dr. Van Helsing character.It's not like this movie version is adding anything new with its story to the Dracula movie legacy. As a matter of fact it's rather leaving out stuff then putting in some new elements. For instance there is no Renfield character in this movie or any mentioning of him. If you're familiar with the Dracula story or any of its movies you'll notice that this is a movie version that runs pretty much by the book with its story.A version truly worth seeing!8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/