Bram Stoker's original novel is hard to adapt for film. I doubt we will ever get that truly faithful film adaptation just because Stoker tells the story through so many perspectives and methods. The Count himself is more of a presence than a character for much of the novel. I bring this up because with so many adaptations and reimaginings it is nice to see a screenwriter attempt to revisit Stoker because in truth his work gets neglected in the tellings and retellings. Adaptation is an art and the best thing about this 'Dracula' is Richard Matheson and how he took the epic horror masterpiece and it's best elements and turned it into an intimate effective thriller.
The film peaks in it's introductory sequences. It isn't surprising that these scenes are when the film is closest to the novel. Murray Brown is the best screen Jonathan Harker. Harker is really a thankless and tricky role to play. Even the best adaptations like 'Nosferatu' and the '31 classic clumsily deal with the character. He's portrayed as a doubter or naive to the point of being self destructive. Brown finds an effective middle ground, playing Harker as a little bit naive but mostly in awe of the strange world Dracula lures him to; not knowing whether to be fascinated or terrified. Brown isn't a milquetoast David Manners at all. He has screen presence and isn't overwhelmed in his interactions with Palance.
Palance kind of makes or breaks the film. He's creepy; whether or not it is intentional is up for debate as he kind of was a very creepy presence in everything he starred in! He could have been an amazing horror star had his career steered that way. Palance is a good Dracula, not a great one. I say this because he really doesn't fit the Dracula written in this story. As I mentioned earlier Matheson had a challenge as he wanted to stay quasi-faithful to Stoker's novel which the Count is absent from for quite a while. And so he creates the story of a Count pining for a lost love for centuries. Palance is not the kind of actor for this material. This is Langella/Lugosi material. Palance is the animal Dracula not the sexual one. He could have been a great Dracula had he starred in Dracula in the vein of a Nosferatu approach, showing vampirism as a curse.
The movie does a great job condensing everything and making it more intimate. Nigel Davenport is a serviceable Van Helsing as he rhapsodizes about vampirism in large ballrooms or caverns. He doesn't quite have the eccentric factor of a Cushing but he bears himself as a man of knowledge quite well. Simon Ward is completely wasted as Arthur. Murray Brown might have fared better. He just is meek and isn't able to match Davenport who completely overwhelms him. Fiona Lewis has the most hypnotic eyes, she is perfect as the doomed Lucy.
This 'Dracula' has it's moments. Your opinion of it will largely come down to what you think of Palance. The 1970's were a good decade for Dracula. The last two Lee Hammer films are highly entertaining. Kinski and Langella rank as two of the best Dracula's. Palance isn't quite in that territory in my opinion. Yet if we look at the screenplay and how it plays with Stoker I think we have something really special here. It makes me wish Matheson wasn't confined to a made forTV movie.
The film peaks in it's introductory sequences. It isn't surprising that these scenes are when the film is closest to the novel. Murray Brown is the best screen Jonathan Harker. Harker is really a thankless and tricky role to play. Even the best adaptations like 'Nosferatu' and the '31 classic clumsily deal with the character. He's portrayed as a doubter or naive to the point of being self destructive. Brown finds an effective middle ground, playing Harker as a little bit naive but mostly in awe of the strange world Dracula lures him to; not knowing whether to be fascinated or terrified. Brown isn't a milquetoast David Manners at all. He has screen presence and isn't overwhelmed in his interactions with Palance.
Palance kind of makes or breaks the film. He's creepy; whether or not it is intentional is up for debate as he kind of was a very creepy presence in everything he starred in! He could have been an amazing horror star had his career steered that way. Palance is a good Dracula, not a great one. I say this because he really doesn't fit the Dracula written in this story. As I mentioned earlier Matheson had a challenge as he wanted to stay quasi-faithful to Stoker's novel which the Count is absent from for quite a while. And so he creates the story of a Count pining for a lost love for centuries. Palance is not the kind of actor for this material. This is Langella/Lugosi material. Palance is the animal Dracula not the sexual one. He could have been a great Dracula had he starred in Dracula in the vein of a Nosferatu approach, showing vampirism as a curse.
The movie does a great job condensing everything and making it more intimate. Nigel Davenport is a serviceable Van Helsing as he rhapsodizes about vampirism in large ballrooms or caverns. He doesn't quite have the eccentric factor of a Cushing but he bears himself as a man of knowledge quite well. Simon Ward is completely wasted as Arthur. Murray Brown might have fared better. He just is meek and isn't able to match Davenport who completely overwhelms him. Fiona Lewis has the most hypnotic eyes, she is perfect as the doomed Lucy.
This 'Dracula' has it's moments. Your opinion of it will largely come down to what you think of Palance. The 1970's were a good decade for Dracula. The last two Lee Hammer films are highly entertaining. Kinski and Langella rank as two of the best Dracula's. Palance isn't quite in that territory in my opinion. Yet if we look at the screenplay and how it plays with Stoker I think we have something really special here. It makes me wish Matheson wasn't confined to a made forTV movie.