Watch Dracula For Free

Absolutely Fantastic

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

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.)

I had heard of Dracula, read vampire stories, etc. But never in my young life of 10 years had I _seen_ evil incarnate. And I fell in love. Now don't misunderstand. At 10 I needed Dracula as a guise--I needed vampires and the lord of them all. It was protection. But, through the years, have I been able to shake those strange, volatile, sexually charged images? They now inform my fight for righteousness, yet, on this side of the veil, what better way to run into the battle against evil than to 'know thine enemy'? Jack Palance was a consummate actor, and I do admire him for refusing all subsequent offers to play more vampires on screen. Yet, of all vampire films produced, including the Coppola version of the 90s, this one remains the truest and best, though it does not follow the original book by Bram Stoker. I say as much in the opening to my novel The Vampires of Dreach Fola, available from James Ward Kirk Publishing sometimes in late 2016.

A lot of folks I imagine will kind of giggle at the mere notion of Jack Palance in the role of Count Dracula, but I persist that he's one of the most fierce and menacing I've seen to date. Even as die hard a Palance fan as I am, he even surprised me because his Dracula is absolutely intense and quite passionate. One superb sequence has Dracula throwing men around like rag dolls while moving through a hotel looking for Mina, it completely works because Palance simply towers over his opposition. The final confrontation, as Van Helsing and Arthur intrude upon his castle("You're now in my domain, gentlemen. And, you shall not leave"), Dracula lifts Van Helsing in the air, hurling him into a suit of armor! While director Dan Curtis' version of Dracula, based on a screenplay written by the great Richard Matheson, doesn't relish in bloody heart stakings, it does feature Dracula casting those that stand in his away to the side, clutching their throats with benevolent intent, moving them out his way. What I liked about this Dracula was his determination to achieve his aspirations in regards to finding and recovering Lucy(Fiona Lewis), who resembled identically a former love from his days as a mighty Hungarian warrior fighting armies..many attribute this romantic sub-plot(..nowhere even near as overbearing as it was in Coppola's film)to Curtis' own Dark Shadows, which he even admitted in an interview regarding the similarities of a vampire desiring to attain his true love through any means necessary.There's a magnificent scene where Dracula calls for Lucy to come, not knowing that she had been put to rest by Van Helsing who relieved her vampire curse by ramming a stake into her heart, the result showing the Count going berserk, destroying objects in the mausoleum, including turning over her casket! Matheson's screenplay avoids major emphasis on Jonathan Harker's(Murray Brown)time with Dracula, opting instead to move from Transylvania to England where the Count eyes Lucy, Arthur(Simon Ward), her fiancé, calling on Van Helsing(..an impressive Nigel Davenport, who remains restrained and contained, not going over-the-top or creating a too eccentric scientist, firmly grounding his character into a dedicated pragmatist)to assist in determining what exactly is contributing to her anemia and sudden sickly nature. Penelope Horner's Mina isn't as richly presented, more of a supporting character whose endangered life(..Dracula, as revenge against Van Helsing and Arthur for the loss of Lucy, has Mina drink from his blood so he can control her)will need rescuing. What I truly love about this production(..and the BBC version, featuring Louis Jordan as a more sophisticated, aristocratic Count)is the location shooting, evoking a totally different period by shooting in England, particularly the Castle Dracula, where Van Helsing and Arthur discover a pit and Iron Maiden, not to mention the coven of vampire brides in their coffins. Great jump scare where we find out about Harker's fate after being left behind by Dracula to become fodder for his brides. Unlike the Hammer Dracula films, this version shows that sunlight only paralyzes the Count, not burning his flesh. Another element not seen in other Dracula films is how the Count uses a mad dog to attack those he doesn't wish to bother with, and I was amused by how irritated he would get with those who would start up a row when he'd appear on the scene, trespassing, a contempt for mortals who thought they could harm him with pistols or fisticuffs.

No point in going over the story, of course, since it's been filmed and staged for theater so many times. This production sticks close to the Bram Stoker novel, but adds an extra element of romance with a love story that in turn adds depth and texture to the character of Dracula.Dan Curtis of "Dark Shadows" fame does a fine job of directing this -- as he did earlier with an outstanding version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (also with Jack Palance playing masterfully in the title role). And the script by the famed supernatural and fantasy writer Richard Matheson ("I Am Legend", etc.) is excellent. The sets and art direction -- right down to the bright red location captions -- are reminiscent of the Hammer Films' Dracula movies with Christopher Lee (which is not a bad thing), however, the soundtrack could have been better-composed in my opinion. However, the most distinguishing aspect of this production of the Dracula story is Jack Palance. I have to believe that Jack Palance could have seemed ominous when buying a loaf of bread at the supermarket or putting a quarter in a parking meter, such is the man's presence. In contrast to the contemporaneous (and excellent, tho' different) Frank Langella version, Jack Palance makes the viewer believe instantly that the character of Dracula really was an ancient Warlord of Wallachia who commanded armies with his sheer presence and force of character -- something that would be a stretch for, say, Bela Lugosi to pull off. Palance gives the viewer a constant and riveting portrait of restless energy, enormous physical strength, singled-minded will and relentless focus.