Cineanalyst Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" is many things, but a romance novel it's not. It's got religion, but not the kind involving the transmigration of souls to identical bodies separated by centuries. It has a sense of history, which includes a couple sentences of Van Helsing's semi-ambiguous speculation that the immortal vampire may've once been "that Voivode Dracula" who fought the Turks, but it's not about, nor significantly inspired by (except the title), the historical Vlad the Impaler. This 1974 TV movie, speciously titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula," as with the later 1992 theatrically-released movie of the same name, is about those things which Stoker's "Dracula" is not about. What it adapts from Stoker is mostly superficially done and sometimes incompetently so.Exaggerating and expanding on the connection between the vampire and Vlad within a reincarnation romance, turning Stoker's Gothic horror novel into a silly love story seems to have been a bad idea whose time had come. There had been some recent popular books in the early 1970s on the Prince of Wallachia in relation to Stoker. And, vampires were already being turned into romance figures in film and TV, including in the reincarnation romance of the Dracula-related blaxploitation flick "Blacula" (1972), as well as in the "Dark Shadows" series, a TV soap opera, which was also turned into two films and which was created by this TV-movie Dracula's director-producer, Dan Curtis. Unfortunately, these threads, the historical and romantic, have pervaded most subsequent big Dracula movies, from the love-sick "Nosferatu" remake and the dime-novel-like Universal reiteration, both of 1979, to Francis Ford Coppola's aforementioned 1992 rip-off, to the ahistorical "Dracula Untold" (2014).Like Hammer's 1958 "Dracula," Jonathan Harker's role is reduced to his stay at Castle Dracula, and the later part of the film focuses on the investigation duo of Van Helsing and Arthur Holmwood. Also like Hammer's productions, the cast is full of Brits; except, here, the dangerous foreigner Dracula is portrayed by an American, the soft-spoken Jack Palance (also the physically-strongest Drac since Lon Chaney Jr. in "Son of Dracula" (1943)). It's a bit amusing, considering the many Hollywood movies casting Brits in roles for foreigners across the world, to see the same thing done in reverse across the pond, for this originally-British TV movie. Inexplicably, Harker also encounters a Russian couple en route to the Count's Transylvanian abode. Like Jesus Franco's poor 1970 international Dracula, the filmmakers laughably try to pass off German Shepherds as wolves. This one even features a hopeless attempt, by quick editing and silly hairstyling, to pass one of these pups off as a wolf attacking Arthur. Almost as ridiculous is the poorly-acted fainting of Lucy's mother during the episode (in the book, this killed her).The limits of a TV-movie budget and imagination also results in a slow pace emphasizing supposed tension building at the expense of actual action. That only a ticking clock can be heard in some of Arthur's interior scenes, as he keeps watch over Lucy, doesn't help--in the same spirit, they should've added just crickets chirping for the counter shots of Dracula standing outside. There are also the then-typical TV zooming and lengthy dissolves, including the clichéd wavy ones for flashback montages of Vlad and his sweetheart. There are some canted angels that become un-canted. And there's some obvious cheating going on in the edits between exterior views of Drac's impressive castle and Carfax Abbey and the unexpectedly small interiors. Much of which could've been overlooked if the adaptation were more interesting than a reincarnation romance, or if it evidenced any competent reworking of the familiar story.Harker's carriage ride to Borgo Pass, for instance, fails to foreshadow the horror of Dracula due to the absence of apparent fear from the locals. When Harker cuts himself shaving, Palance's restrained bloodlust merely manifests as an expression of constipation. Instead, this Dracula throws a hissy fit when he finds his lost-love, un-dead Lucy with stake in her heart. Oblivious to the sexual implications of the blood-transfusion business in Stoker's novel, here, the maid, in a bit part, donates the blood rather than Lucy's suitors. Worst of all, but all too typical of Dracula movies, is the reduced role for Mina, who was the main hero and surrogate storyteller of Stoker's novel. This time, she provides a couple clues to detectives Van Helsing and Arthur regarding Dracula's identity and location, but her character is otherwise sidelined for the male heroics. Apparently, she's of so little importance, that Van Helsing, otherwise inexplicably, drops his cross and allows Dracula to feed her his breast blood--thus threatening her with vampirism. And they don't even pronounce her name correctly! Unlike the 1992 film, since Lucy is Dracula's reincarnated love, it's also unclear why the Count attacks Mina at all. But, then, this is the same vampire who has a pit of stakes and another pointy torture device in his basement. Logic is not his strong suit. Why not replace his ceilings with skylights while he's at it and decorate his coffin with crucifixes and garlic.On the plus side, this TV production did manage a decent painting of Vlad and Lucy. And the main reason I didn't rate the movie lower is because there are a couple shots that are staged as painterly tableaus--even using the TV zooming to some advantage. The first is the dead, cross-baring seaman tied to the ship's helm, with the shot zooming in on Dracula on the beach in the background. This is a nice, economical transition to the Count's move to England; something that would've also benefited the 1977 TV version. The second and final shot of the movie wraps up the narrative nicely with a zoom-in on the painting. Unfortunately, it's followed by red ahistorical text restating the point in the blunt fashion that pervades this TV production.(Mirror Note: Another failure of Harker's shaving scene is that it includes a mirror, but Dracula's lack of a reflection isn't addressed.)

sddavis63 Perhaps strangely, I can't say that I've ever found the story of Dracula (Bram Stoker's novel, Bela Lugosi's movie or any other "serious" adaptation of the story to be either particularly exciting or especially frightening. In that regard this movie (which is a reasonably good adaptation of the story) is no different. It has its moments, but it isn't really a "horror" movie in the way that we usually think of that term. The story of Dracula, to work, really depends on atmosphere and mood. Does it pull you into the story? Do you believe that you're there, experiencing this with the characters? All in all, this movie is fairly successful at that. This was a made for TV movie, as opposed to a big budget Hollywood blockbuster, so expectations have to be adjusted accordingly, but the sets are good and director Dan Curtis does get the "feel" of the story right. And Jack Palance (mostly known for westerns) actually pulled off the role of the monstrous count quite well. Mind you, this is an "adaptation" of the story. Mostly, the difference is in the fact that this version actually does equate Count Dracula with Vlad the Impaler of the Middle Ages, which Stoker did not. That's actually a fairly significant part of the storyline, as Palance's Dracula sets his sights on a young Englishwoman who is the spitting image of his old love from the 15th century, when he was actually alive, hoping to pull her into the world of the undead as his companion.This was OK. I wouldn't call it great, but it had a certain nostalgic quality for me. I think I watched this when it was on TV. I would have been 11 years old at the time. I certainly saw it - whether it was the original broadcast or a repeat I'm not sure - but it was the first version of the Dracula story that I can remember being exposed to. It holds up reasonable well all these years later. The supporting performances were good. The story at times did seem a bit rushed to me. There are a few mistakes. One that stands out for me came at the very end. As Van Helsing finally kills Dracula by plunging a wooden stake through his heart, blood spurts out of his chest - and turns his black suit a bright red in that spot. Huh? Blood on a black suit wouldn't be bright red. It would just be a wet spot. It seriously looked like someone had put wet red paint on the suit. So, yes, there are a few glitches. Overall, though, it's a decent version of the story. (6/10)

hung_fao_tweeze The problem with Dracula or vampire movies these days is that there are so many of them and each clings to its various qualities (or lack of) so that watching a TV movie from 1974 and expecting it to register positively against this intimidating backdrop is probably too much to burden any single feature with. However, 'Kolchak: The Night Stalker', also a TV movie from 1974, exceeds expectations and still plays well with audiences today. So, when I mentioned to a fellow movie-buff that I had watched this Jack Palance vehicle, he had never heard of it but felt that it must somehow be awesome simply because of Jack's presence. Unfortunately, this does not hold true here and I had to tell him. Written by Richard Matheson, I was expecting something with a bit of a twist. He wrote 'Twilight Zone' episodes, after all! Perhaps my anticipation was not called for here. This is pretty much a straight-up retelling or alternate realization of the basic Bram Stoker character and tale. There are really no surprises unless one would want to call Dracula seeing a photo of a girl who resembles a woman he loved centuries ago and that becomes his raison d'etre for the rest of the film a surprise twist. Actually, that was a fairly common theme in the old TV show 'Dark Shadows'. Well, what a surprise. Old Dan Curtis is at the directorial helm here and is essentially rekindling ideas he has used previously. So, maybe the failure of this movie lies with the director? That is not to say that this movie is terrible. It is not. But as noted, the sheer prevalence of so many really good vampire movies shoves this one into obscurity as demonstrated by my movie-buff friend's complete ignorance of this film's existence. The bright spot in this limp production is Palance's performance. He is really great here. Without him there isn't much point in viewing this, quite frankly. Alas, gone is the vampire that changes into a bat, a wolf (dark German Shepherds, actually), or a cloud of fog. He still sleeps in a coffin by day, though. He can still be deterred by a crucifix and garlic. Thus, some of the reliable Hollywood vampire nuances are still present. Even the sunlight can be hazardous although he doesn't flake away like Christopher Lee. OK. We can deal with that. Yet, the one that is missing that seemed the most annoying is his ability to enter a household or residence without first getting permission to do so. (Handled superbly in 'Let The Right One In') Lugosi's Dracula, at least, schmoozed his way in and socialized providing dreadful anticipation of what is to become. Palance is much more direct and just crashes in. However, Jack does the absolute best with the material and occasionally transforms a couple of instances into very successful terror. Unfortunately, absolutely everyone else in this presentation is nearly instantly forgettable. In addition, one very annoying feature is the lack of detail to the general surroundings. I realize this was a TV movie and a very limited budget. Still, Dracula's 15th century castle's architecture was occasionally too modern and, in fact, sported catacomb arches built from a very modern brick and mortar painted over with lumpy white paint. It looked very much like any number of more recent basement crawlspaces. The outer facade was unconvincing as well looking frequently like some kind of smoothed stucco. The ambiance of the countryside tries to be mysterious but every now and then I halfway expected someone on a little motorbike to come putting through. Also noted previously are the stock German Shepherds substituting for wolves. Yet, should this film be faulted for resorting to this when so many other movies manage to do so and still chill? That is the problem, isn't it. This movie just didn't chill the way it could have. I am giving it a 6 mostly for Palance's performance. Watch for the way he tries to get around the crucifix held in his direction. He paced nervous and restless like a caged lion. Also, see the screaming rages he flies into. Some of those are surprisingly frightening. It is a shame the rest of the film couldn't keep up with Jack's performance.

lancaster2778 This version was my first Dracula movie. I was a sheltered, impressionable young girl at the time I watched it on TV. I didn't know about Dracula or Jack Palance--or horror. I stayed awake that entire night expecting Dracula to appear in the bedroom doorway. This movie should have scared me then; I was 10. After I saw this movie, I felt different about things. I know that in the oncoming decades other versions were made; I've seen some of them. I had the opportunity to see this Dracula for the second time in my life a few months back; it scared me as it scared me decades ago. There's something about the way this movie 'tastes' that enables the horror within it to remain pure and palpable. The cast and crew captured the pure essence of Dracula's horror on film for future generations to experience. From the music to the surroundings to Jack Palance, everything about this movie lends itself to the viewer's experience of a true horror classic. Jack Palance's portrayal of The Count is sheer perfection. From the top of his black patent leather hair to the bottom of his black patent leather boots, he's diabolic horror personified. So, I invite you to get your hands on a copy of this version; sit down and let this movie wash over you. Just make sure it's in the middle of the day and all the lights are on in your 'pad'. Oh, this version isn't perfect, but--the--horror--within--it--is. Bela, watch out!