Best movie ever!

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

I remember seeing this when I was a kid... I have fond memories of the film, I loved it. I re-watched the film today and I still find that I completely enjoy it - just wonderful.Jack Palance as Dracula?!! YES!! He can be a menacing villain or a great hero... he is a surprising choice for the role but a great choice. I really think he is one of the creepiest Vampires on film. He, Palance, has the poise, grace, mannerism and Gothic villainy that is needed to play the Count! Personally, I find Palance just as good as Christopher Lee, Bela Lugosi, Frank Langella and others in the role! It does take a special type of guy to play this particular role well - one with eloquence and proper mannerism as well as being vile! This is one of the truest adaptations to the book - not exactly like the written novel but one that is faithful as possible without a lot of veering away.9.5/10

I had heard of Dracula, read vampire stories, etc. But never in my young life of 10 years had I _seen_ evil incarnate. And I fell in love. Now don't misunderstand. At 10 I needed Dracula as a guise--I needed vampires and the lord of them all. It was protection. But, through the years, have I been able to shake those strange, volatile, sexually charged images? They now inform my fight for righteousness, yet, on this side of the veil, what better way to run into the battle against evil than to 'know thine enemy'? Jack Palance was a consummate actor, and I do admire him for refusing all subsequent offers to play more vampires on screen. Yet, of all vampire films produced, including the Coppola version of the 90s, this one remains the truest and best, though it does not follow the original book by Bram Stoker. I say as much in the opening to my novel The Vampires of Dreach Fola, available from James Ward Kirk Publishing sometimes in late 2016.

Television pioneer Dan Curtis's take on that greatest of night stalkers, aided and abetted by maestro Richard Matheson, still chills the blood. While the "reincarnation" of Dracula's long-lost lady love was an idea Curtis lifted from his own DARK SHADOWS, it's Jack Palance's turn as The Lord of the Undead that is most memorable here. Like Charles MacCauley in BLACULA, Palance gives us a driven Dracula who is very much to be feared: he strides purposefully through castle and hotel hallway alike in pursuit of his goal and there is quite literally no one who can stop him. Palance (like MacCauley, and unlike many others) has the presence to pull this off. Christopher Lee was the alternative at the time and his, too, was a powerful presence- but there's something even darker and more dangerous about Palance. When he is confronted on a hotel stairway, he dispatches his assailant with what looks like an open-handed karate chop that sends the man heels over head over the bannister. This Dracula is clearly capable of great violence at a moment's notice. When he confronts the serviceable but oddly unemotional Simon Ward (along with Nigel Davenport) and steps up to the young man, there's a moment where one anticipates nothing less than a full-blown decapitation. It doesn't happen, but the threat there is palpable because of Palance's performance. (The shot of Palance, his craggy countenance pale and bloodless, standing on the beach next to the wreckage of the Demeter, is one of the most memorable images from this movie: one can easily imagine Palance overwhelming the ship's hapless crew...) Robert Cobert's score (as ever) strikes just the right chord(s), conveying a brooding sense of menace. The England and Yugoslavia locations through which these characters move are picture perfect and put to shame many of the stage-bound sets used in the Hammer films of the same period. Curtis and Matheson have reworked the story so that it's even better (and less cluttered) than in any other version and the final shot, of The Impaler impaled against an upturned tabletop before a Dorian Gray-like portrait of himself in battle (with distant cries of "Dracula, Dracula" echoing down through the ages), is brilliant. My pick for the best Dracula movie ever.

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/