 | Gary T. |
3 out of 3 people found this review helpful
Simply one of the best renditions of Bram Stoker's classic vampire story. Frank Langella may have given the best Dracula performance of any actor in the modern era. The supporting cast is amazing, with, among others, Sir Laurence Olivier. This is not a special effects gore fest as most contemporary films of the genre. Rather, it is a brilliant adaptation of a classic stage production which attempts to recreate an appropriate late Victorian environment and atmosphere. In fact, one might even describe this as a gothic romantic thriller, without the over-the-top sensuality and poor casting of the1992 Coppola version. Superb direction, scripting, acting and production values make this version of Dracula an easy recommendation. Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
 | Joseph A. |
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful
One of the best of all Dracula movies. The cast, production, all of it. Remains my favorite. Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
| Thomas O. |
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful
IMHO This is by far the best Dracula movie ever. It was played with a certain sensitivity and sensuality that the other versions didn't have. Christopher Lee once said grudgingly that Langella's version was better than the version he made.
One of the things that made it so good is that, contrary to popular conceptions, Van Helsing did NOT win. !!!SPOILER!!! At the end, as the cape was flying away, seemingly under conscious direction, there was the howl that caused Lucy to give that slight smirk or smile. It was obvious, at least to me, that she expected to meet up with him again because he was not dead. Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
| January H. |
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful
Frank Langella is a very handsome actor in this movie. He gives sensuality and gentleness to this vampire character. One can't help but to be mesmerized with his portrail. The romantic scene is one to be remembered. The highlights surrounding this scene take the imagination on a pure lovemaking ride. Yet, there is no nudity involved. Brilliant photography. The best DRACULA actor of all in my opinion. Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
| Ali A. |
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful
I saw this movie way back in 80 or 81 on cable. Yes, I was only a kid, but this film imprinted a certain image of
dracula. I saw the Coppala version when I was in high school, and I found myself throughly disappointed, Gary
Oldman sucked. Frank Langella, on the other hand, is by far creepier and more frightening. There is a strong cult
following for this film, and now with it being on DVD you can see what all the buzz is about! Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
 | Rick H. |
2 out of 3 people found this review helpful
It is difficult not to compare this R. rated movie of 1979 with the PG-13 movies of today. The more current PG-13 flicks are a lot more graphic and bloody. This version has more in common with the Hammer films of the 30's and less with the over the top special effects and blood of the more recent films in the genre, in that it is more of an atmospheric and romanticized rendition. The plot should of strayed from the original novel for originality and maybe a few surprises along the way. The suspense level is almost nil, it's not scary folks. There's a wonderful cast here, but to be honest they are mostly wasted. ( I must confess I found some of Mr. Langella's eye movements a bit on the unintentional campy side). The real stars are the films eerie atmosphere, elaborate sets, and cinematography. It's worth a look just don't expect it to compare to today's standards. Best watched in the wee hours of the night when there's nothing else on. Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
| Diana F. |
0 out of 0 people found this review helpful
OUTSTANDING!!! Better then the 1994 version with Gary Oldman.. Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
| Laurie B. |
0 out of 0 people found this review helpful
HE IS THE MOST HANDSOME DRACULA I HAVE EVER SEEN...SEEN THIS MOVIE WHEN I WAS A TEENAGER IT IS GREAT! Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
 | Elizabeth E. |
0 out of 0 people found this review helpful
Dracula (1979) - This movie wasn't so bad. It was definitely higher quality than I expected from the 70's. It wasn't terrible either. It had story, it had plot, it was entertaining enough to keep us interested. Now, granted, you had to throw out everything you know about the novel Dracula - i.e. the fact that Lucy and Mina's rolls were reversed, and Mina was the daughter of Professor VanHelsing and Jonathan Harker was engaged to Lucy, blah blah blah ... Once you got past that it was all good. The man who played Count Dracula had crazy shifty eyes, but otherwise the acting wasn't too bad. I would recommend this to others as a good Halloween film. Rated R for 1979 standards, but I'd say it is now a mild PG-13. Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
 | James L. |
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful
Come on Frank Langella was the first sexiest vampires! I just get a little creeped out the way his eyes kinda rotate quickly when he is staring at someone. Makes me dizzy! Good romantic vampire story. ~ Susan L. Was this review helpful? Yes
|
No
|
