English solicitor Jonathan Harker (played by Murray Brown) travels to Castle Dracula in Transylvania to sell a house in England to the reclusive aristocrat Count Dracula (played by Jack Palance). However, Harker soon discovers that the Count is a vampire, an undead who must feed on the blood of human beings to survive. He discovers his secret tomb and attempts to destroy him, but is overpowered and vampirised by Dracula's vampire brides. Dracula journeys to the English coastal resort of Whitby, Yorkshire, where he has purchased an old gothic mansion called Carfax. He seduces and vampirises Lucy Westerna (played by Fiona Lewis), the fiancée of Arthur Holmwood (played by Simon Ward), because she looks exactly like his wife whom was killed during a war in his homeland centuries earlier. Holmwood and Dr Van Helsing (played by Nigel Davenport) destroy Lucy in her coffin. But, a vengeful Dracula now turns his attention to Harker's fiancée, Mina (played by Penelope Horner). Van Helsing and Holmwood realise that she too will turn into one of the undead unless they journey to Transylvania, find the vampire's castle and destroy him...
Originally made for American television but released theatrically in Britain, this is a flawed but still a very worthy attempt to revert faithfully to Bram Stoker's classic novel. Jack Palance does seem an odd choice for the title role, but his performance is actually very restrained and he does succeed in conveying the emotional element to the story of the loss of his beloved wife centuries ago, which is why he targets Fiona Lewis's Lucy since she looks exactly like her. The film is also interesting because it commits to film key scenes from the book that Hammer had never attempted to do, no doubt due to budgetary constraints. They include Dracula's arrival in Whitby by ship, the Count not being reflected in Harker's shaving mirror and the latter's encounter with the vampire brides. There are some references to the Hammer films such as the climax where Van Helsing pulls back the curtains to expose the Count to the sunlight. Alas, it looks like a poor imitation here and lacks the power and impact of Terence Fisher's marvellous 1958 film. Director Dan Curtis creates some admirable gothic atmosphere early on, but fails to sustain it throughout the film and the staging of some of the key scenes do look somewhat rushed in places. The supporting performances are generally good all round with Davenport making a pretty good Van Helsing, but he gets too little to do.
Nevertheless, despite its flaws, the film emerges as a commendable try at making a more faithful version of the timeless horror classic and fans of the novel and the genre should on no account miss it.
Originally made for American television but released theatrically in Britain, this is a flawed but still a very worthy attempt to revert faithfully to Bram Stoker's classic novel. Jack Palance does seem an odd choice for the title role, but his performance is actually very restrained and he does succeed in conveying the emotional element to the story of the loss of his beloved wife centuries ago, which is why he targets Fiona Lewis's Lucy since she looks exactly like her. The film is also interesting because it commits to film key scenes from the book that Hammer had never attempted to do, no doubt due to budgetary constraints. They include Dracula's arrival in Whitby by ship, the Count not being reflected in Harker's shaving mirror and the latter's encounter with the vampire brides. There are some references to the Hammer films such as the climax where Van Helsing pulls back the curtains to expose the Count to the sunlight. Alas, it looks like a poor imitation here and lacks the power and impact of Terence Fisher's marvellous 1958 film. Director Dan Curtis creates some admirable gothic atmosphere early on, but fails to sustain it throughout the film and the staging of some of the key scenes do look somewhat rushed in places. The supporting performances are generally good all round with Davenport making a pretty good Van Helsing, but he gets too little to do.
Nevertheless, despite its flaws, the film emerges as a commendable try at making a more faithful version of the timeless horror classic and fans of the novel and the genre should on no account miss it.