Action / Horror / Romance

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 58%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 59%
IMDb Rating 6.5 10 7618


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 18,214 times
September 04, 2014 at 01:12 AM



Laurence Olivier as Prof. Abraham Van Helsing
Frank Langella as Count Dracula
Sylvester McCoy as Walter
Donald Pleasence as Dr. Jack Seward
1.64 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 49 min
P/S 2 / 7

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by sorendanni 8 / 10

A very miscasted Dracula in an otherwise great movie

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!

Reviewed by Trey Yancy 7 / 10

A big deal in its day.

Langella made a huge impact with this film and it is the movie that made him a star. While Lugosi was brilliant, his performance was representative of the overacting that was the norm at the time. The Christopher Lee / Hammer version was scary but old school almost to the point of campy - cheap formula films. With the 1979 version we had something completely different - a young(ish) romantic vampire. The passion depicted had never been seen before and it broke barriers in bringing women into the theaters for horror films. By today's standards it is clearly dated and it seems to a degree to be like a series of vignettes, but they were breaking new ground. One can forgive some contrivances, such as an abbey (which represented the absolute best Carfax set in any movie before or since) with the incongruity of a giant stone bat and snarling face door in the interior masonry. These truly were the best Dracula sets ever. The climactic ending also displayed more imagination than any other Dracula film. Overall, this was a great movie for its day. If one were a fan of horror films, this is definitely one that should be in their collection.

Reviewed by Coventry 6 / 10

Oh Count Dracula, you irresistible handsome devil!

Bram Stoker's legendary novella is one of the most adapted stories in history, and one could wonder if it's absolute necessary to watch all the different "Dracula" film versions that exist. The short answer is: yes, definitely in case you're a horror fanatic; or at least as many as possible because each version features a couple of unique and innovative aspects. In 1979, two noteworthy versions were released. There was a classy "Nosferatu" remake directed by Werner Herzog and starring Klaus Kinski, and this dreamy Gothic version directed by John Badham and starring Frank Langella. Although based on the same source novel, there's a world of difference in how these two films portray the titular monster. In "Nosferatu", the Transylvanian count is a traditionally hideous and menacing creep, whereas here we are introduced to the hunkiest and most charismatic bloodsucker in the history of cinema. I kid you not: I'm a 100% heterosexual male, but I think Frank Langella is damn sexy and I believe him when he states in interviews that watching him as Count Dracula sparks the libido of female viewers! Apart from the handsome lead vampire, this version is also beautiful and romantic thanks to the giant budgets spent on enchanting locations, marvelous set pieces and poetic cinematography. The scenario implements a few bizarre changes, like the reversal of Mina and Lucy as the count's principal love-interests, but otherwise the story is treated with respect and – moreover - the essence of Stoker's novel is perhaps even captured better here than in most other "Dracula" films. Yes, whether we horror freaks like to admit it or not, "Dracula" fundamentally remains a love story and its protagonist is merely a sad figure eternally mourning over his lost lover and trying to replace her. The fact that Count Dracula is depicted as a handsome and sophisticated aristocrat generates one major disadvantage, though, namely that he isn't the least bit terrifying. Metaphorically speaking, his charming appearance actually sucks the suspense out of the plot rather than the blood out of its victims. The old Van Helsing (Sir Laurence Olivier) even comes across as more menacing than the Count, especially when he attempts to speak Dutch! I'm a native Dutch speaker, but the short scenes with dialogues in Dutch were the only incomprehensible ones. The "horror" of this version primarily comes from the Gothic recreation of England in 1913, with spooky old abbey dungeons filled with cobwebs, ominous stranded ships and eerie cemeteries enshrouded in fog. The special effects are very admirable too, as the film features several cool sequences where Dracula transforms into a bat or a wolf, or when he crawls down walls.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment