Dracula
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.45 You Save: $6.53 (50%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.76 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Dracula
Movie Review: John Badham's Masterpiece
Summary: 5 Stars
After directing the legendary "Saturday Night Fever" (1977), Director John Badham took another job. Well, when his current superiors saw "Saturday Night Fever," they were so horrified by the content of it, that they fired John Badham. Well, this left the great John Badham free to direct this phenomenal masterpiece. While John Badham and Frank Langella respected the Lugosi version, they were careful to not imitate it. The scenery is not only gothic, eerie, and dramatic, but it is plausible. The superb music composed by John Williams is not only dramatic, but it flatters the movie well without stomping over it. In many ways, this is the best "Dracula." Rather than showing a grotesque or disfigured Dracula, Frank Langella makes Dracula very charming, sophisticated, and likable. Some people complained that Frank Langella didn't look scary enough. But in my opinion, the fact that Dracula looked quite normal made him all the more scary. (The more believable something is, the more scary it is.) Laurence Olivier is phenomenal as the eccentric but virtuous Abraham Van Helsing determined to put an end to Dracula's reign of terror. (Laurence Olivier earns extra kudos for delivering this performance while he was very ill.) Donald Pleasence is memorable as Dr. Seward. He has a way of gently inserting some badly needed comic relief into this horror filled story. (He is always eating.) Trevor Eve does a great job of portraying the everyday person thrust into a series of unusual events, who is a skeptic at first, but can be convinced with the right evidence. Kate Nelligan is wonderful as the daughter of Dr. Seward who despite her intelligence, falls under the charm of Dracula. (Director John Badham created a scene of erotic beauty when he created the vampire wedding between Lucy and Dracula. Rather than than the cliche of removed clothing, the scene is done with shadows and artistic elements.) Like a true masterpiece, the story starts at a slow and normal pace, but it gradually picks up and becomes more fast and scary. (Good horror often starts slow and plausible and then gradually picks up the pace and becomes quicker and more frightening.) Director John Badham is also careful not to get carried away with blood and effects. (When blood and effects are overdone, the story becomes less believable, less scary, and more laughable.) Also, Director John Badham seems to know that dramatic wording is more scary than cliches and curses: "It is not matter of life and death, it is that we shall become such as she. That we and your Lucy shall become foul things of the night. There is work. Wild work to be done." I don't want to ruin the movie for those of you who haven't seen it, but one of the strongest elements of horror is how we gradually see Dracula (this seemingly charming and sophisticated gentleman) reveal himself as a terrifying killer. Between the excellent directing, the great acting, the beautiful scenery, and the memorable music, this is arguably the greatest "Dracula" ever made. The dvd has 2 nice extras. One is ("Revamp of Dracula") which is a nice set of interviews with Director John Badham, Frank Langella, and others. The other is the feature length commentary. Some standouts are how Donald Pleasence knew how to draw attention to himself, how Frank Langella was unaware of the eerie effect he created with his vibrating eyes, how Director John Badham had to fight to keep the scene where Vampire Mina reflected in the water, how Laurence Olivier insisted he had a right to drop his jaw when he saw Dracula turn into a wolf, and how Kate Nelligan was really reluctant to smack Laurence Olivier with the buggy whip. If you like this horror filled masterpiece, be sure to look at John Badham's "Saturday Night Fever" (1977) and "Short Circuit" (1986).
Movie Review: Frank Langella is the best Dracula
Summary: 5 Stars
I've read Bram Stoker's original novel and enjoy seeing different film versions of the Dracula story. I especially enjoy seeing different actors' take on the titular character. To properly review this 1979 version with Frank Langella allow me to briefly comment on the various Dracula films and actors in the starring role:
Bela Lugosi in "Dracula" (1931 b&w): Lugosi has the quintessential Drac accent and is charismatic in the role, but the film itself is very dated and most modern viewers will find it boring and unappealing. The film is short at a mere 75 minutes, but I can never manage to get through it.
Christopher Lee in the Hammer film series (1958-1973): Christopher is evil incarnate in the role; unfortunately he comes off one-dimensional and therefore a bit boring (he rarely ever speaks), not to mention he gets very little screen time in the grand scheme of things. The series has its share of good moments ("Tastes the Blood of Dracula"), bad ("The Satanic Rites of Dracula"), decent ("Horror of") and bizarre ("Dracula A.D. 1972").
Jack Palance in "Dracula" (1973): This is a surprisingly effective made-for-tv version of the tale. Palance is sympathetic as a man in miserable bondage to vampirism. Quite good despite its tv-oriented limitations.
Gary Oldman in Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992): This one is visually oppulent and captivating throughout the first half. Unfortunately Oldman is unmemorable in the titular role and is only effective as the old-man Dracula seen at the beginning. Later in the story he does a great imitation of John Lennon (lol). Despite its title the film is not truly faithful to its source. Dracula here is portrayed as a not-truly-bad victim of severe love-sickness rather than a paragon of unadulterated evil as portrayed by Stoker. Still, the first half is loaded with great scenes, including Drac's Brides' seduction of Harker and the subsequent horrifying baby sacrifice. The second half unfortunately loses the film's initial captivating appeal.
Which brings us to Frank Langella's take on the character in this 1979 version. Langella plays Dracula as a gentleman with serious dark charm. Behind this facade lurks beastial evil, total arrogance and powerful supernatural abilities. The story shows that Dracula can seduce just about any woman with his hypnotic powers and dark charisma; he can also climb walls upside down and morph into a creature of the night at a whim. The story shows his weaknesses as well, which Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier) and his partner (Donald Pleasence) take advantage of.
Another highlight is Kate Nelligan's effective portrayal of Lucy, whom Drac chooses as his vampire bride.
In addition, more than any other Dracula film this one features the best dialogue bits, e.g. "Time is on my side. In a century when you are dust I will call and awaken Lucy my queen from her grave," "You fools -- You think with your crosses and your waffers you can destroy me? I AM THE KING OF MY KIND," etc. (The band Helstar utilized quotes from this film for their 1989 masterpiece NOSFERATU).
The story completely omits the initial Transylvania sequence, opting to start with Drac's arrival in England on a mysterious shipwreck of dead men. Ordinarily I'd object to this since I love that creepy opening sequence, but it works here. The rest of the film plays loose with Stoker's novel, but all the necessary elements are here. This works for those who are bored with the basic Dracula tale and require fresh ideas to stay interested.
PERSONAL RATING: A-
Movie Review: This is the best Dracula movie of them all
Summary: 5 Stars
I really like this 1979 Dracula movie. Personally, I like it better than Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992. I personally think Frank Langella is a great Dracula who portrays the character the way he should be portrayed - evil, mysterious, dark, romantic, stylish. He possesses supernatural powers, almost as if he uses The Force, like in Star Wars. The atmosphere in this movie can't be beat. For one thing, Dracula's castle is one wicked place. There is a gothic quality to this movie that is unmatched. The dark atmosphere is outstanding. The props are outstanding. The costumes are outstanding. The special effects are outstanding. The script is outstanding. The musical score by John Williams is outstanding. The acting is outstanding. Sure, this movie doesn't follow the novel exactly, but I say...who cares. Take the movie for what it is - a Dracula movie with a great gothic atmosphere. It takes place in England in the early twentieth century.
This movie also stars Donald Pleasence (Halloween I, II, IV, V, VI, The Prince Of Darkness), the red hot Kate Nelligan as Dracula's bride Lucy, and Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing, the vampire hunter who is out to put an end to Dracula's dark deeds. Everybody gives good performances. Donald Pleasance provides some comic relief because he is always doing a certain thing in every scene he's in. Watch to find out what it is. The movie is scary throughout. The ending of the movie is cool and will leave you guessing.
A lot of people complain about the color being deliberately dulled in this DVD transfer. Personally, it doesn't bother me. It's still in color, no doubt about it. I understand why some people are upset about it, because when the movie came out in '79 this movie was praised for its brilliant colors. Director John Badham originally wanted to film this movie in black and white, but then chose color instead. Some 25 years later when it was time to put the movie on DVD, he decided he wanted to tinker with the color to make it duller so it would flirt with coming close to being a black and white movie. But even with the duller color, it's still a color movie.
If you want to watch a really good undated Dracula movie that has held up extremely well over the years, then I highly recommend Dracula 1979.
Movie Review: Frank Langella as Count Dracula? Awesome.
Summary: 5 Stars
First off, I just want to say, this is not a totally accurate adaptation of the novel "Dracula" by Bram Stoker, it's more of a stylistic, late 70s remake of the 1931 Bela Lugosi film that was based on the same novel. With that out of the way, let's move on. The movie opens with a sailing ship crashing ashore, with only a single living survivor, Count Dracula, who is found and rescued by Mina Harker. It turns out the Count was on his way to this town, anyway and decides to take up permanent residence at Cairfax Abbey, a castle not to far from the Harker residence. Soon after he moves in, strange things begin to happen, and I don't want to give away too much, but it is the usual Dracula fair, but with that 1970s style.
That's all I'll give away, you have to see the rest for yourself.
I want to say again that this isn't so much an adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel as much as it is an adaptation of the Bela Lugosi movie, if you're looking for a balls to the wall adaptation of the novel, check out Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula," which is about the most faithful adaptation you're going to get of the book. Also, side note, this movie was released the same year as Werner Herzog's remake of F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu," which was also based on Bram Stoker's book. I'm not quite sure, because I wouldn't be born for another seven years, but I think the two films competed against each other at the box office. On the one hand you had a remake of an unauthorized adaptation (Nosferatu), and on the other hand you had a remake of an authorized adaptation (Dracula). I'm not entirely sure, but I think they were released in the same year on purpose, as to drive up ticket sales so people might go see both of them. It's hard to tell, overall, neither of the two films (Frank Langella's Dracula or Klaus Kinski's Nosferatu) are faithful adaptations of the novel from which they are both based, but they're both darned fun movies that are good for Halloween, or just a rainy Saturday afternoon.
All in all, I liked this version of Dracula, I'm sure if Bela Lugosi had been alive to see it, he would have been proud of Frank Langella's performance.
Movie Review: Eternal Love or Vampirism ? The Most Sensual/Romantic Dracula Ever Made
Summary: 5 Stars
This Dracula is far from the bloodfest that most modern vampire movies are today. It is also nothing like Bela Lugosi's classic but stereotypical/cardboard portrayal of the Transylvanian Count. Made in 1979, this film stars Frank Lagella as a handsome, sexy and romantic Count who belives he has found his true love and Bride in Kate Nelligan's character, who, seduced by the Count, is willing to give up her blood for him. The music is romantic and moody and the cinematography is brilliant. The use of fog, authentic turn of the century costumes (and automobiles/Model Ts)and the darkness, candles and crumbling castle full of cobwebs is a nice touch. Much of the movie seems surreal and symbolic. A lot of it is covertly sexual. This is probably the best Dracula version out there. He is even less frightening than Hammer's Dracula movies starring Christopher Lee. Fran Lagella is doing a terrific job. Laurence Olivier, in one of his later roles is doing a fine job as Van Helsing. This film strays from the original source of the story- Bram Stroker's novel. For one thing, there is no victimizing going on. Dracula seduces these women. He borders on a kind of spiritual romanticism when he tells Kate Nelligan's character "at last you will be flesh of my flesh and blood of my blood" which is an actual quote from the Bible - its what Adam said when he first saw Eve. The atmosphere of this film is a combination of Gothic romance and savage vampirism. There is absolutely no flaw in this film scriptwise or direction wise. A must have for fans of the many renditions of Dracula on film.