This movie remains greatly in the shadows of both previous (Lee and Lugosi) and the later 1991 (Oldman) movie interprztations of the Bram Stoker novel. I have watched it and I can only say the movie does actually do almost everything good, it is actually scary at a few times, but Frank Langella may be very talented, but you never can imagine him as Count Dracula. There are many reasons, not in the least that he does not have anything in common with the figure Stoker, that means he is not scary. And that is no plaussible to be member of an ancient Transylvanian (Romanian) family. instead we see an American prince charming doing his utterly best to sound so English, it was like he was doing audition for a James bond movie. I just keep wondering why they did not cast him as Jonathan Harker. My bet is that of this cast Laurence Olivier (professor Van Helsing) had the most potential to make a plaussible Dracula.Still, the rest of the movie is a surprise, in a good way. Yes, you can nag that this movie is a very loose interpretation of the novel, but that is the case with kind of allmost every Dracula movie (the 1991 movie being a lonely exception). Wath matters for me, is that the storyline works! It keeps you watching the movie! It was was well scripted, with well chosen locations and, the best thing, It had the atmosphere the better of the Hammer movies also had! Last but not least: Donald Pleasence was again at his best in this movie, he makes it worth watching the movie, no doubt about it!

This 1979 version of the Bram Stoker tale takes it's cue from the then-recent hit Broadway revival of the old Hamilton Deane & John Balderston play than from the original source.The familiar tale has been reconfigured, with some characters changing drastically while others are dropped all together. Lucy is now the central female role, played ably by a fetching Kate Nelligan. Instead of being one of her suitors, Dr. Seward (Donald Pleasence) is now her father. The Mina character takes the secondary role held by Lucy in the book, and in this version, she's the daughter of Dr. Van Helsing. That iconic role is played by Laurence Olivier, looking very old and frail. Jonathan Harker, fiancée of Lucy and real estate agent to Dracula, is a bland Trevor Eve. The crazed Renfield acts as little more than an inept butler to Dracula, and is played by Tony Haygarth, who the previous year had played an especially detestable Nazi in the TV miniseries "Holocaust".The center of the film is Frank Langella as the title count. His performance made him a true superstar of the stage, and it translates fairly well to the big screen. His full lips, big dark eyes and thick head of blown dry hair make him the most overtly sexual of all the screen Draculas.The production is nice to look at for the most part, but some scenes are a little too under lit. The sweeping John Williams score is suitably evocative. One romantic sequence using backprojected laserlight has the unfortunate effect of casting a disco vibe about the whole thing, suitable since directing duties went to Saturday Night Fever's John Badham. Olivier's performance is all over the place, at turns leaden, then scenery-chewing, with a wandering accent to boot. His health was a serious issue at this time, so some understanding is in order. One shouldn't expect much in the way of scares or gore, with a few minor exceptions. The novel's unsavory subtexts regarding fear of immigrants and female sexuality are thankfully absent. All in all, suitable viewing on lonely nights for those with a darker taste in romance.

If you like your Dracula with sex appeal, this is the film version for you. Frank Langella provides just the right amount of emotive flourish to make women swoon. How can one doubt it when Lucy's (Kate Nelligan) response to the Count upon their introduction is "Oh, I love to be frightened..." The story line also builds on the accepted traditions of vampire lore with mentions of corporeal transference, materialization and astral bodies. Langella's eyes have a hypnotic power that was never so expertly utilized in prior incarnations of the Dracula character, and the idea that he would cut himself so Lucy could drink his blood to claim immortality was a clever bit of writing. Sort of sexy too if one is inclined that way.As a classic, old time movie fan, I was particularly pleased with the nod to the original Bela Lugosi film "Dracula" from 1931. It was when Count Dracula brought Lucy outside of Carfax Abbey to the sounds of howling wolves in the distance. Waxing poetic, Dracula says "Listen to them, the children of the night. What sad music they make". By adding the word 'sad' to the description, the writers improved the original dialog in a way that conveys a surreal, romantic flavor to the encounter between vampire and victim.Interestingly, the film is not big on special effects, and I was curious about the version shown on Turner Classics the other evening that almost appeared to be a black and white film. Some other viewers have commented on it, and I'm curious as to why Universal Pictures took this approach. Be that as it may, the 'bleached' treatment shouldn't detract from one's enjoyment of the picture, with it's stylistic handling of the Dracula mythos.

Romanticized adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 classic. Set in 1913 England, the bloodsucking, but handsome, charming and seductive, Count Dracula seeks an immortal bride.This film is somewhat notorious because the color is "drained" or faded. Apparently the theatrical version is vibrant and later releases (DVD, Laserdisc, etc) have the color almost completely removed. Indeed, the Universal / Image DVD is very pale. Some say it almost looks black and white. Stylistically, it is not a great choice.That being said, the story is interesting. Frank Langella plays an interesting Dracula, much more charming than the most notable earlier versions (Bela Lugosi or Max Schreck). A wise decision, and one that really speaks to the romantic undertones many read in the novel.