tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7913319789564397699.post1051956684969187654..comments2024-03-28T08:17:07.009-05:00Comments on The Other Side blog: October Movie Reviews: Dracula 1979Timothy S. Brannanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02923526503305233715noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7913319789564397699.post-51164322845789657102011-03-16T15:08:27.214-05:002011-03-16T15:08:27.214-05:00Hello. It's 02.58 in Jakarta... and you wrote ...Hello. It's 02.58 in Jakarta... and you wrote your review at around midnight. So I guess we're both "children of the night". In my case it's more prosaic: I'm doing a load of corny copywriting for business / industrial clients. Stuff like "Projects, where significant costs of goods are dependant on imports. <br />Volatile Laws on profit repatriation and withholding taxes". Got to eat somehow.<br /><br />The Langella / Badham film continues to be one of the best, if not the best, Dracula work around. It got knocked about a bit when it came out - I think some of its glory may have been nicked by Mel Brooks. As for setting it in 1913, that worked excellently for me: Dracula is clearly not one for this modern age, and in the end it's a modern mechanical contraption which is his undoing. <br /><br />He is also crossed and cheated (out of Lucy and his "undead life") by his lawyer, which is another modern ha-ha theme that worked well. None of this seemed to occur to reviewers, perhaps because of the star-studded cast and the excellent visuals (no computer graphics back then!)<br /><br />Thirty years later and that was STILL Langella's high point, one that people undoubtedly remember him for, in spite of many roles since then. I wonder how that feels. All the rest of the cast has aged remarkably (or become not undead but quite dead, including Olivier, Pleasance, Turner), but Frank's kept his looks. And his charm. Thanks for putting this up!Bakhirunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12131607564292675808noreply@blogger.com