now, the story should be known to everybody and doesn't need to
be repeated over and over again. In principle, Dan Curtis and his
author Richard Matheson stick to the novel by Bram Stoker, leaving
out some scenes and adding others. As in Murnau's Nosferatu the
passage to England makes part of the movie, Draculas change into
a wolf and the rapid pursuits are all shown according to the novel.
Dan Curtis was the first one to bring in the historical model Vlad
Tepes and 19 years later, Francis Ford Coppola was to follow his
example when shooting "Bram
a TV-production, this movie adaptation by Dan Curtis is still the
least known of all Dracula movies. It was meant to be shown on TV
and therefore there's no explicit violence shown, making the movie
suitable for the whole family. Nevertheless: Curtis movie is worth
seeing: the careful and detailed setting, together with Oswald Morris's
great camera movements give the movie it's special look.
Palance's Dracula-interpretation is quite expertly done, even if
he is not as demonic and charismatic as Christopher Lee. It was
impossible though to surpass Lee, who was, for most fans of that
time the personification of the blood sucker par excellence. This
and the fact that to many fans of the genre this movie seemed to
be too old-fashioned and not bloody enough made Dan Curtis "Dracula"
sink into oblivion.