SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

project717-629-119383 1. ATMOSPHERE: Carl Dreyer's "Vampyr" had it. Herzog's "Nosferatu" had it. Even Roman Polanski's semi-comedic "The Fearless Vampire Killers"" had it. John Badham's film does not. Riddled with Gothic clichés, it's huge Hollywood set pieces scream "look at all the money we've spent!" rather than evoking any real sense of foreboding or dread. 2. FRANK LANGELLA: Too mannered, too externalized, too theatrical, too fey, too much. It's "dangerous charisma" with quotes around it, conveying none of the kind of truly threatening phallic energy that is determined to smash through the gates of Judeo-Christian chastity and take down all the hypocrisy of the Victorian world with it. What should be Marlon Brando with fangs is instead effete and aristocratic dandyism, with a bouffant hairdo and overworked smoke machines tipping everything into the absurd. 3. LAURENCE OLIVIER: At the height of his paycheck period, and hired to be nothing more than just another expensive prop, it's an ineffectual and sad affair, heightened by his fragility and his illness. Van Helsing is the ultimate moralist, as sociopathic and possessed in his protection of the maidenhead as Dracula is towards it's violation, and his complexity is in knowing that he may well be the larger demon in terms of his own impotence in the face of orgasmic female sexuality willingly reconciling itself to the grave, rather than upholding the brides of Christ who are physically pure but dead in spirit. 4. None of the actresses seem to boil over with twisted and latent eroticism, nudity or not. Kate Nelligan's unleashed desires appear too politely British and above-the-waist, when we should be seeing a proper young lady turn into a half-mad Eve thrusting an obsidian apple into the lower regions. There shouldn't be a sweet little smile at the end of the movie; there should be a painfully tormented and spasmodic moan with more than just wet tears flowing.

a_chinn Lavishly produced Dracula adaptation is a mixed bag, but there are enough positives to outweigh the weaker elements. On the plus side, Frank Langell is wonderfully suave and also quietly menacing as The Count. The production design is terrifically atmospheric, aided by moody photography by Gilbert Taylor (the same guy who shot "Dr. Strangelove," "The Omen," "Flash Gordon," and the original "Star Wars"). There's also a strong supporting cast that includes Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing, Kate Nelligan, Donald Pleasence, and the seventh Doctor, Sylvester McCoy. Top that off with a John Williams score and a smart script by W.D. Richter (the guy who directed cult classic "Buckaroo Banzai") and it's hard to imagine this film going far wrong. On the downside, the film is not particularly scary and instead is more of a bland Gothic romance where the characters all seem rather cold, which weakens the the romantic elements and results in the audience never fully engage the romantic drama. Still, it's a gorgeous production that is a must see for fans of the oft filmed Bram Stoker tale.

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 remember 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!

Claudio Carvalho In Whitby, England, the sick Mina Van Helsing (Jan Francis) is spending some days with her friend Lucy Seward (Kate Nelligan) and her father Dr. Jack Seward (Donald Pleasence) in their house that is also an asylum at the seaside. When a ship wrecks on the coast, all the crew is dead and Mina helps the only survivor Count Dracula (Frank Langella), who has just bought the Fairfax Abbey through Lucy's fiancé Jonathan Harker (Trevor Eve). Soon Dracula drinks Mina's blood killing her. Dr. Seward summons Mina's father Prof. Abraham Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier) for the funeral but he arrives late. On the next night, the son of the patient Annie (Janine Duvitski) is attacked by Mina. Prof. Van Helsing discovers that his daughter is undead and the Count Dracula is a vampire. Now Van Helsing, Dr. Seward and Jonathan have to protect Lucy from the powerful vampire."Dracula" (1979) is an adaptation of Bram Stocker's novel with beautiful cinematography, haunting music score and a wonderful cast. However this is not my favorite adaptation of the novel. I prefer Werner Herzog "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht" of the same year and Francis Ford Coppola's version that was made thirteen years later (1992). My vote is six.Title (Brazil): Not Available on DVD or Blu-Ray