Dracula
Dracula
R | 20 July 1979 (USA)
Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream thousands of hit movies and TV shows

Start 30-day Free Trial
Dracula Trailers View All

Romanticized adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 classic. Count Dracula is a subject of fatal attraction to more than one English maiden lady, as he seeks an immortal bride.

Reviews
Hellen

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

View More
Matrixston

Wow! Such a good movie.

Nonureva

Really Surprised!

Zlatica

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

View More
sorendanni

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!

View More
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.

View More
Michael_Elliott

Dracula (1979)** (out of 4)This big-budget adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel has Frank Langella playing the role of Dracula who sets his eyes (and teeth) on Lucy (Kate Nelligan) while it's up to her father (Donald Pleasence) and Prof. Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier) to stop him.With a capable director like John Badham, a ton of money and a great cast, this 1979 version of the classic story should have been so much better than it actually is. With that said, even though it's easy to call the film a disappointment there's still no question that it does feature some good things but in all honesty that just pours salt into your wounds and is an easy reminder that with a few changes this here could have been one of the best adaptations.I will start off with the good stuff. There's no question that Badham has created a wonderful looking picture. The film contains some wonderful cinematography and the set design is among the greatest that you'll ever see. I especially loved the look of Dracula's castle and the cemetery also. John Williams' music score is another major plus. One of the highlights is an extremely effective moment where Van Helsing is in a mine when he sees a reflection of his daughter. I'd also argue that the performances are a plus with Langella doing a nice job in the lead role, although he's more sex than scary but more on that in a bit. Pleasence is also fun to watch and I think Olivier is good in the role of Van Helsing but it's far from the type of "great" performance you'd expect from one of the screen's greatest actors.Now for the bad and there is plenty. The first fifty minutes of the movie are quite bland and boring because there really aren't any horror elements and instead the film goes for romance. That would have been okay had the film actually been romantic but these scenes fail terribly and the sexy side of Dracula just never comes across. That's especially true since the sexuality has been drained from the picture and you realize that Hammer had more sex in their pictures from twenty years earlier! I'd also argue that the film has a bit of a pacing issue and that it just can't recover from the opening.Still, Dracula is a failure but at the same time there are enough interesting moments to make it worth sitting through.

View More
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!

View More