Excellent but underrated film

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

1. ATMOSPHERE: Carl Dreyer's "Vampyr" had it. Herzog's "Nosferatu" had it. Even Roman Polanski's semi-comedic "The Fearless Vampire Killers"" had it. John Badham's film does not. Riddled with Gothic clichés, it's huge Hollywood set pieces scream "look at all the money we've spent!" rather than evoking any real sense of foreboding or dread. 2. FRANK LANGELLA: Too mannered, too externalized, too theatrical, too fey, too much. It's "dangerous charisma" with quotes around it, conveying none of the kind of truly threatening phallic energy that is determined to smash through the gates of Judeo-Christian chastity and take down all the hypocrisy of the Victorian world with it. What should be Marlon Brando with fangs is instead effete and aristocratic dandyism, with a bouffant hairdo and overworked smoke machines tipping everything into the absurd. 3. LAURENCE OLIVIER: At the height of his paycheck period, and hired to be nothing more than just another expensive prop, it's an ineffectual and sad affair, heightened by his fragility and his illness. Van Helsing is the ultimate moralist, as sociopathic and possessed in his protection of the maidenhead as Dracula is towards it's violation, and his complexity is in knowing that he may well be the larger demon in terms of his own impotence in the face of orgasmic female sexuality willingly reconciling itself to the grave, rather than upholding the brides of Christ who are physically pure but dead in spirit. 4. None of the actresses seem to boil over with twisted and latent eroticism, nudity or not. Kate Nelligan's unleashed desires appear too politely British and above-the-waist, when we should be seeing a proper young lady turn into a half-mad Eve thrusting an obsidian apple into the lower regions. There shouldn't be a sweet little smile at the end of the movie; there should be a painfully tormented and spasmodic moan with more than just wet tears flowing.

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.

This 1979 version of the Bram Stoker tale takes it's cue from the then-recent hit Broadway revival of the old Hamilton Deane & John Balderston play than from the original source.The familiar tale has been reconfigured, with some characters changing drastically while others are dropped all together. Lucy is now the central female role, played ably by a fetching Kate Nelligan. Instead of being one of her suitors, Dr. Seward (Donald Pleasence) is now her father. The Mina character takes the secondary role held by Lucy in the book, and in this version, she's the daughter of Dr. Van Helsing. That iconic role is played by Laurence Olivier, looking very old and frail. Jonathan Harker, fiancée of Lucy and real estate agent to Dracula, is a bland Trevor Eve. The crazed Renfield acts as little more than an inept butler to Dracula, and is played by Tony Haygarth, who the previous year had played an especially detestable Nazi in the TV miniseries "Holocaust".The center of the film is Frank Langella as the title count. His performance made him a true superstar of the stage, and it translates fairly well to the big screen. His full lips, big dark eyes and thick head of blown dry hair make him the most overtly sexual of all the screen Draculas.The production is nice to look at for the most part, but some scenes are a little too under lit. The sweeping John Williams score is suitably evocative. One romantic sequence using backprojected laserlight has the unfortunate effect of casting a disco vibe about the whole thing, suitable since directing duties went to Saturday Night Fever's John Badham. Olivier's performance is all over the place, at turns leaden, then scenery-chewing, with a wandering accent to boot. His health was a serious issue at this time, so some understanding is in order. One shouldn't expect much in the way of scares or gore, with a few minor exceptions. The novel's unsavory subtexts regarding fear of immigrants and female sexuality are thankfully absent. All in all, suitable viewing on lonely nights for those with a darker taste in romance.

I read Bram Stoker's book when I was in sixth grade (that would be around 1959). I had seen most of the Dracula movies that existed at the time on television. I had watch the 1931 effort at least ten times. So after all the Hammer films and a host of others, I became somewhat of a connoisseur. One problem for me (as with Conan-Doyle's, "Hound of the Baskervilles") is that the book's plot, which was perfectly OK, was messed around with. I've never seen "Dracula" or "The Hound" done with integrity on the screen. Why change names? Why expand the plot to include peripheral characters? While Frank Langella's performance is wonderful, they had to do it again. They had to mess with the women. They did away with all kinds of elements. I know it's based on a state play (I actually saw the Broadway production), but why is there a need to mess with success. Of course, since I loved many of the others, I forgive them for this. I'm hoping that before I'm gone, someone will take on the task of a reasonable adaptation of Stoker's book. The Gary Oldman had the title but once again didn't follow through.