For anyone who has taken the time and effort to actually read “Dracula”, the very idea of the character as a romantic lead is like saying broken rocks and sand make for a tasty afternoon snack. The text has no ambiguity about the predatory nature of Dracula’s interest in his “brides”. There’s nothing romantic about Dracula’s approach. He makes no attempt to woo or court the living women he desires. He uses his supernatural ability to entrance them into compliance or perhaps into a stupor. This is the literary equivalent of putting a “roofie” in a woman’s (or man’s) drink to make raping them much easier.
And yet, Dracula as romantic figure is hardly a new idea. Smarter people than me have referenced Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of Dracula in the original 1927 Broadway production as one of the earliest versions conceptualizing Dracula as a darkly appealing if not outright romantic figure.
“Dan Curtis’ Dracula” 1973 is perhaps the first cinematic incarnation of Dracula as a tragically cursed romantic figure. This TV adaptation is an overall faithful manifestation of the story except for the added back story of Dracula’s tragic origin. Mr. Curtis certainly knew his way around gothic horror being the creator of Dark Shadows. He almost certainly was the first USA filmmaker writing about a vampire as a sympathetic tragic figure rather than a soulless predator. (This is my understanding. As always if I’m wrong please feel free to correct me in the comments.) This is a lavish and quality production that was released theatrically (with added gore) in the UK. Jack Palance might have seemed an odd choice. His performance is remarkable, demonstrating again just how much range the accomplished actor had. The entire cast is excellent, as is almost everything about the film. This movie is well worthy of a watch and is available on several streaming resources.
“Dracula” 1979 is where everything begins to go very, very wrong. Frank Langella, like Bela Lugosi, performed the role on Broadway beginning in October 1977 and continuing to January of 1980 for 925 performances. Curiously, both the stage play and the film are based on the same play written by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston in 1927. When it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Except by the standards set by the original text, this is very, very broken. This is the film with the maddeningly wrongheaded tagline: “Throughout history, he has filled the hearts of men with terror, and the hearts of women with desire.”
Riiiiiiight.
My best friend took me to see this as a bachelor party thing the night before my wedding. It filled me with horror all right. The horror of seeing the cinematic castration of a classic gothic tale and character. This Dracula wasn’t scary in any way. This is a movie, not to be watched, but to be endured. It fills me with joy to know I might go the rest of my life without watching it again.
“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” 1992 (Please allow me time to spasmodically vomit) is perhaps the most cynical, disrespectful, and contemptuous film ever made. Francis Ford Coppola occupies the rarefied universe of the “important” filmmaker. And to be sure, he had made some of the films that almost defined that particular concept. “The Godfather” 1972, “The Godfather Part II” 1974, and “The Godfather Part III” 1990 can only be considered one of the greatest cinematic journeys in US cinema history. If he had only made those films he would be worthy of mention among the greatest US filmmakers of all time. And his stable of films represents some exceptional films working in several different genres. But as someone who continually swings for the bleachers, he’s had his share of misfires, large nuclear meltdown dumpster fire misfires and this adaptation leads that toxic list.
The incredibly contemptuous title, profound misunderstanding or complete ignorance of the novel, sets this up to be one of, if not the worst possible adaptations ever and of all time in every possible universe.
Which is a shame, because this film is hugely improved by simply removing the words “Bram Stoker’s” from the title. This is a gorgeous, star-studded, technically perfect in every possible way movie. Everyone in the film has their personal performance meter set to 11 in the best possible way for this particular film. Taken on its own merits and allowing for a filmmaker’s personal vision, this is a fantastic effort.
“Dracula A Love Tale” 2025 is a film. It’s not a film I’ve seen or ever care to see. It’s always exciting to learn of a new incarnation of a beloved story and I was very excited for this movie. And then I learned it was being directed by Luc Besson. Mr. Besson is an exceptional filmmaker with a genius for directing action and adventure films. His films are filled with smart and witty characters, all of whom know how to take and throw a punch, shoot guns filled with infinite ammunition, run at superhuman speeds indefinitely, look sexier than humanly possible, and turn a witty phrase. His films essentially define the action film genre.
And all of that genius relates not at all to the story of Dracula. Sure, Dracula is a grand adventure story at heart, with some of the greatest stakes (See what I did there?) ever. If he had chosen to make that movie, I’d probably (oh shit, there’s no probably) be first in line to see it. But again, with the addition of three words in the title, fans of the actual novel are brutally informed that this isn’t Mr. Stoker’s Dracula.
It’s actually not even Mr. Besson’s Dracula, as (from what I understand) this is nothing more than a rehash of nearly every frame of Mr. Coppola’s vision.
If only Mr. Besson had elected to rehash any other Dracula adaptation, we might have something worthy of watching.
“Count Dracula’s Great Love” 1973 is the ultimate and perfect version of as Dracula as romantic figure. I love this movie without hesitation. I own it on Blu Ray and will buy the 4K, 8K, 1024K versions if and when they are ever released.
If viewed with any objective regard for the accepted conventions of filmmaking, this is a glorious piece of trash. And that’s what I love about it. Javier Aguirre knew the film he was making. He wasn’t making a Dracula movie. He was making a Paul Naschy movie. And this is the ultimate Paul Naschy movie.
For the uninitiated all of the films in which Mr. Naschy stars contain some very common elements:
- Mr Naschy plays a character that, irrespective of his appearance is completely irresistible to every desirable woman in the film
- Every woman in the film is stunningly beautiful
- Every woman in the film is often naked
- Mr Naschy’s character has sex with every woman in the film, multiple times
This films works because it dispenses with the actual character of Dracula and the story almost entirely. This is bare bones Dracula and it is all the better for it.
If you choose to see any of these films, this is the one to see, if no other reason than it’s the one that is entertaining in every possible way. It’s available for rental on Amazon.
Don’t know what’s next.
See you then
