Reviewed by JONATHAN LEWIS:         

   

DAN CURTIS’ DRACULA. CBS, 1974. Jack Palance, Simon Ward. Nigel Davenport, Pamela Brown, Fiona Lewis, Penelope Horner/ Murray Brown. ScreenplayL Richard Matheson, based on the novel by Bram Stoker. Director: Dan Curtis.

   Dan Curtis’ Dracula, while steeped in a foreboding Gothic atmosphere, lacks the bite that a vampire movie should have. Filmed as a faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker’s horror novel, the movie stars Jack Palance as the titular villain. Palance rages and sneers throughout the proceedings, each time making him a little less supernatural than a fearsome vampire should really be. That isn’t to say that he doesn’t put on a good performance. Rather, it’s that Richard Matheson’s screenplay is – to be perfectly blunt – somewhat dull and muted.

   Another problem with this made-for-television adaptation is that it’s all plot and no story. After watching it, I can’t seem to recall any moment in the entire film where the audience is asked to identify in any meaningful way with the characters who get caught up in Dracula’s web. Everything seems to be held at an emotional distance. There’s a lack of energy that’s hard to describe, but easy to feel. Case in point: Dr. Van Helsing, as portrayed by Nigel Davenport, is rather lackluster. Surely the famed vampire killer should have some passion?

   There are, however, two very important plusses that the movie does have. First, the set design and lighting were exquisite. Second, the score by Robert Cobert fits perfectly with the aforementioned Gothic atmosphere. But these aren’t enough to make me recommend this Dracula adaptation over either the original with Bela Lugosi or the Francis Ford Coppola-helmed one in which Anthony Hopkins portrays Van Helsing.