Why? It really is. It was shot by a fairly good English director John Badham, 1979. There are few reviews (especially for us), a few positive reviews. Even Dracula from Hammer Studios (with numerous sequels), received a little more attention in Russia (I always thought that 2 to 3 people knew about horror films, I was wrong).
But the movie Bedham played earlier on TV (late 90s, maybe a little later), Coppola more often, but still. In my head from early childhood, the moment was postponed as Frank Langella (he plays the Count) crawls upside down the wall of the castle. Yes, and the license was released, so it becomes a little hurtful. The picture is worth seeing, especially if you love Gothic and vampirism.
That the film sometimes departs from Stoker's novel is trivial. They switched places between Mina and Lucia, some were outraged. Come on, it's the end result. Plus, there is a theatrical production from Broadway (in which Frank Langella originally played), tried to move. By the way, check out the cast, the director gathered brilliant theatergoers around him. It’s just a cult actor.
The naming names are Langella, Olivier and Pleasens (you need to know such things). These three can move mountains. Of course, Laurence Olivier is old (he plays Van Helsing), in some scenes shifted the initiative to the understudy, but the classic English school can not be hidden behind wrinkles. We played five. And what the atmosphere is, there were rumors that director Bedham even planned to remove color from the film. The producers were banned.
Costumes, music, makeup, scenery. I was satisfied. The fact that Langella is not suitable for the role of Dracula is very controversial. Guys, he's different. Beautiful. Romantic. Gothic. It does not sparkle with bloody fangs (although it often resorts to transformation into a bat or a wolf, an interesting detail), as Christopher Lee did at Hammer Studios.
Langella showed the sad image of the count, who was tired of eternal life. Maybe not the best Dracula, of course, the favorite of Lugosi has not yet been canceled, but for the second step he can compete. I recommend it. Stylish movie.
I always have this film in reserve and watch it when I want a cozy, familiar one. For me, this is not even a horror movie, but rather a terrible fairy tale in the entourage of theatrical scenery and theatrical play of actors.
Dracula (Frank Langella) is not a modern fighting vampire, but an ancient creature multifaceted, sad, cruel, ruthless, vulnerable and at the same time very strong. My favorite moment is when he says ' If you get bored of my company, you should only blame yourself'.
Lucy (Kate Nelligan) is a very lively, energetic woman. A woman who can go where the heart calls. By the way, I have been puzzled over the final for many years (maybe there is a spoiler here). When Lucy sees a flying black cape and smiles. What does she think? Are you glad that Dracula's soul is free from the curse? Or is this ancient evil returning to Transylvania to gather strength and wake up in a thousand years? I've always been interested in Lucy and Jonathan's future life - marriage, kids, stability? Will she remember him only as a disgusting monster? And here is the eternal female conflict between 'good and reliable' and 'dangerous and incomprehensible'.
Lawrence Olivier (Dr. Van Helsing) - that's what you can say about 72 years, about the fact that he starred in the film only for the sake of earnings, but nowhere you can hide the breed of English gentleman and the talent of a classic actor. In the scene when he meets Mina, turned into a vampire, he plays excellent.
In general, for those who are interested in the topic, as well as for fans of Frank Langel like me, it is a pleasure to watch this autumn dark evening.
A very interesting version of the story about Dracula, in very restrained tones: how many times the next adaptation of the Stoker novel rolled into vulgarity, both in general and in individual moments.
I decided to watch mainly because of the music of John Williams (I wanted to listen to his understanding of the vampire theme). I have nothing to say about the soundtrack except “Awesome!” I also have to say a few warm words about writers. First of all, they are very good, which is always a rarity: both dialogues and the disclosure of the plot – everything was done thought out and honestly. Secondly, they took the backbone from the original and increased their “meat”, this is the case when “distant motives” allow you to enjoy a quality film and not compare it with “Dracula” Stoker.
In fact, the image of the count is almost the perfect combination: it seems that he is an ordinary person with a drop of strangeness and a pinch of marginality. In my understanding, he should seem ordinary, to merge with the crowd, and not so that when you look at him, it is immediately clear that we are a vampire (these views of Lugosi in 1931 are simply ridiculous, and Oldman is no better). Here Vlad Dracula conducts small conversations, is hospitable, he did not give himself up until he wanted to. The only strange thing is that he does not clean his own house.
Jonathan Harker was very much like Dr. Watson, he even behaved almost the same way, which made me laugh, and I could not take him seriously. I really liked Lucy, everyone else was a nice addition.
At the same time, in the picture there is a big-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oh minus, it is also the main requirement of Langella. After all, a good vampire can not do without fangs, and in general, fangs that fit into the defenseless neck - this is already a classic.
9 from 10
"Who's the vampire?" he asked, the count said, "Well, I'm a vampire!"
From Dracula Lee to Dracula Oldman, right in the middle is Dracula Langella.
His appearance is not very vampire - a blossoming young man, just blood with milk, more like some ancient deity, for example, Dionysus, than a blood-sucking undead. His Dracula is performed in the romantic tradition - a kind of Lermontov's Demon, evil, but experiencing feelings, but still not trying to go against his nature and not be evil. This is very close to the villain with “his own truth”, but personally, this version of Dracula did not cause sympathy for me.
What is most likely to blame for the ill-conceived script and mood of the film, which constantly fluctuates between the traditional “vampires are bad, van Helsing and Co. are good” and a love story. The film does not have a single emotional vector. The director, it seems, is not rooting for either side. Van Helsing and his associates do not cause sympathy, some of them are soulless and incomprehensible. One daughter died in the color of years, the second – the best friend, and they seem not to be hooked, only once (each time) van Helsing and Lucy will deign to howl half a minute over the deceased, after which they will finally forget about her as having lost the plot significance. Dracula, for his part, gives a lot of pathetic speeches and quite frankly, stupidly burns, forgive the high syllable, in front of the hunters. He'd put a "I'm a vampire" sign on his chest. Well, it's my fault, as they say.
The film again features an obscure but traditional shuffling of roles and names (including Mina-Lucy's switch). Unfortunately, the film is quite long, filled with a bunch of unnecessary episodes and therefore boring. The visual series, in my opinion, is overloaded with the emphasized “expectation of evil” – all these fogs, ruins, madmen and wolves directly climb into the viewer’s face, convincing him to be filled with a premonition of horror – and therefore do not work.
But in the film there is an image of a strong woman, a kind of emancipe, not wanting to be a “decent girl”, and boldly and I would say heartlessly (I don’t care about the same death of my best friend, who I don’t know, but I would not be up to a new affair at such a time, save me the gods from this), going to take what I want. The love line, however, does not stand out among the standard works on the topic of “vampire love for a potential victim”, the count is refined in the standard rhetoric a la von Krolock from the musical (" I love a tram to buy” in the style of “dark romanticism”), and the only thing that touched me is how tenderly a couple sleeps together in the same coffin.
So, in all its glory, the Dracula line: Lugosi, Lee, Langella, Oldman - from the classic villain to the antihero. In 2014, another film, Dracula, was announced. Let’s see if its creators will be able to “jump” the tendency to glamorize vampires and give us something interesting.
There are films that can easily be attributed to the definition of “cozy”. They are slow, perfectly conveying the atmosphere, classic, spaced in volume. It is comfortable to immerse in them, as in a pleasant book, where the author gradually drags deeper and deeper into the plot, canceling the frisky attacks. That’s the current “Dracula” (Dracula) just like that, it is a measured horror film with its restrained charm.
The theme of the vampire count from the mysterious half-mythical unknown Eastern Europe beckons and attracts to this day a lot of different figures of cinema. Many versions have succeeded, no fewer are impossible, where, apart from the kitsch associated with the name of writer Bram Stoker, there is nothing curious. Therefore, it is difficult to take up a production that is worn down and down, even for the late 70s. A special thoughtful emphasis is needed, an initial goal is needed so that the viewer does not yawn from frank repetitions of former films on a given topic. In my opinion, the talented versatile director John Badham (John Badham), well known to most for his successful work in the youth cult disco-drama “Saturday Night Fever” (Saturday Night Fever), the action movie “Blue Thunder” (Blue Thunder), children’s fiction “Short Circuit” (Short Circuit), the comedy-romantic police dilogy “Survenger” (Souttake), etc., seized the originality of her book, where it is very difficult to find it. He definitely tried to convey all the ominous luxury of cloudy England, where the image of a vampire will fit as well as possible, in the atmosphere of the eternal gloomy heavy firmament with low dirty clouds, with ancient bricks of Gothic buildings, with endless empty landscapes of roads, with mansions on the hills. Each frame is understated in color with a shade of weak green or gray, any character does not have a blush, bearing in small details hairstyles and clothes the imprint of his time, when the mention of the nosferat was breathtaking and caused panic awe. This closeness to the truth, to the scrupulous introduction of the viewer into the old ghostly England under the frequent roaring wolf howls, the sounds of night owls, the rustling of the wings of bats, the door creaks, and frightening conversations and guesses of people about sinister vampirism, all this makes to shade the notoriously recognizable base of the novel. However, the screenwriters tried here, making “cosmetic” adjustments to the plot, modifying or simply eliminating something to settle their own share of intrigue.
The film is not rampant with bloody horrors, its genre horse in a gradual predatory unspoken approach to fatum, when the viewer observes the versatile power of a vampire who can easily move along walls, turn into a wolf and a bat, become a fog, and introduce victims into pliable hypnosis. The clash of unprepared people with an elegant monster is inevitable. All the accompanying details perfectly inspire the idea: the trembling lights of candles barely illuminate luxurious rooms, human silhouettes cast frightening shadows, the operator conveys much only by hitting on non-blinking pristine eyes or expressive brushes. When the narrative flows from mysticism into action, the underground raw crypt with human skulls and fussy rats is able to settle the already obvious discomfort aimed at denouncing the frightening underground abode turned into a vampire, which did not rest the coffin.
Of course, in addition to directing efforts and skillful camera work, coupled with excellent decor and concomitant in the spirit of the area, it is worth mentioning a worthwhile acting group. Count Dracula is performed by Frank Langella, who authentically gets used to his role, showing even small gestures of a sublime image of a creature with a proud posture, much older and stronger than the people around him. I think, in need of representation, Lawrence Olivier (Laurence Olivier) now appears as Abraham Van Helsing, forced to challenge the vampire, enlisting his knowledge. It should also be noted the British artist Donald Pleasance (Donald Pleasence), as always reliably tried on the proposed character, not forgetting in small barely perceptible strokes to make it a bit comical. Other people in front of the camera may not be famous, but harmoniously truthfully inserted into the cinema due to the work of make-up artists and costume designers, who laid down on their personalities the iconic details of the former classical era.
Consequently, the film adaptation was successful, it feels solid in all approaches to create a real atmospheric leisurely film, mixed with destructive passion, repulsive details of the living dead - vampires, their cunning machinations, and with the preservation of the foundation of the book classics, but with some new touches.