Count Dracula (1977)

Simply Perfect

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

LOUIS JOURDAN, for all his charm and elegance as an actor, does nothing to increase his acting reputation with his lackluster portrait of the evil vampire count. Moreoever, despite the attempt to tell "all" of the Bram Stoker tale, the end result is bound to disappoint any fan of Dracula expecting real Gothic horror or suspense.The production has the sort of trimmings you'd expect from a BBC made-for-TV movie produced in the late '70s, but it plays more like a stuffy Victorian melodrama without a sharp focus on the heart of the tale, the count himself. Instead, it treats all of the subsidiary characters to a close inspection (including Renfield), and gives us a Dr. Van Helsing who is unabashedly overplayed by FANK FINLAY in the worst sort of "watch my acting" way. Not since Paul Muni hammed up the role of Chopin's tutor in A SONG TO REMEMBER ('45) have I seen the camera hogged by such a big slice of ham. Furthermore, JACK SHEPHERD plays Renfield with wild-eyed histrionics that defy any sort of reality the weird and unsettling character should have, possibly a fault of director Philip Saville. By contrast, Jourdan's Count Dracula is a study in subtlety.The cast is merely adequate, going through their paces without much flair or style, and the result is a tepid, passionless thriller which is supposed to be fraught with Gothic chills. After a promising opening full of the proper atmosphere, this is a sleep-inducing version which wanders too far and wide from the main thrust of the tale with a talky narrative that never really comes to life the way vampires are expected to.

Like most people on here I also thought this BBC version was the most faithful adaptation of Stoker's original novel. Granted, they have changed a few details; for example, Mina and Lucy are sisters, the characters of Quincy and Arthur have been amalgamated and Jonathan visits the Count at his castle in Bohemia rather than Transylvania, but these minor deviations aside, I think even Stoker himself would have said this version was fairly close to what he had in mind while writing his famous novel. Being from the UK I have grown up with the BBC and the programmes it produced in the 1970's. Watching 'Count Dracula' as an adult on DVD was, in many ways, a very pleasant nostalgic journey back to my childhood. Yes, I agree the budget did impose certain restrictions on the production...fake bats and obvious stage sets instantly spring to mind.....along with the mix of video and film but, to me, instead of being negative points these so called 'flaws' all added to its charm. That said, it also had some genuinely outstanding points; it is truly creepy, fantastically acted, perfectly cast and and had excellent script. The undoubted highlight for me has to be the location filming in Whitby cemetery; the scenes of Lucy being attacked in the graveyard were actually filmed in the very graveyard that inspired Stoker when he was writing the novel back in the 1890's. Cut to Francis Ford Copploa's 1992 version....which also makes a claim to being a faithful adaptation of the novel... and it doesn't even mention Whitby at all. As for Louis Joudan, in my opinion, he is simply the best ever Dracula; understated, sophisticated, menacing and arrogant. Both Lugosi and Oldman were good but they were a bit too camp and shouted their evil from the rooftops. Jourdan, on the other hand, whispered in your ear and chilled the very depths your soul without you even really knowing why. In a word, genius. Another role worth noting is Jack Shepherd as Renfield. Again, not a typical over the top portrayal of a madman in an asylum but rather a somewhat more complex character; a normal man tortured by very specific moments of madness. The scene when he begs Dr. Seward to release him is truly, truly magnificent. I'll not hide the fact that I am a Dracula fan. I love Stoker's original novel and I love the Victorian Gothic ambiance that it contains. While the BBC's version doesn't quite match Coppola's film for atmosphere and special effects, it certainly makes up for it with its script, the quality of the acting and its faithfulness to the original novel. It has to be, without doubt, my single favourite version of the Dracula story.

After waiting years to see this, I was expecting something incredible with all the rave reviews here on IMDb. I suspect that anyone giving this 1977 film more than average compliments must be remembering it from their childhood, or have very poor taste in film. There are so many flaws, it is hard to list them all, but one should start with the Count himself. As Dracula, Louis Jourdan exhibits little to no personality. He brings absolutely nothing to the role, and appears to simply be reading his lines from a teleprompter, which brings us to the second problem. Exterior shots are filmed, while interiors are shot with video cameras. The lack of consistency here really is distracting. The weird special effects are also very intrusive. The film repeatedly shifts from color to black and white, and then to some bizarre Andy Warholesque effects in bright red, orange and blue. The rest of the cast do an admirable job, but nothing to write home about. Overall very disappointing. If you want to see a GOOD Dracula film from the 1970's, I recommend the 1979 version with Frank Langella.

The 1970s were not the best decade for Count Dracula and vampires.(that distinction is still held by the 1960s). The horror movies of the time focused on the slasher sub genre and things were changing. But out of the dark, came the best version of Dracula ever made! The Dracula story is so well known that I will not go into it.Basically however, it is about a small group of people struggling against an epidemic of vampirism, propagated by the vampire lord known as 'Count Dracula' A vampire as you definitely know, is a dead human who has been brought back by the powers of darkness. In order to sustain this foul 'unlife' as it is called, they must regularly drink the blood of human beings. The victims then die and rise as vampires themselves. Vampires have many supernatural powers which aid them such as the ability to transform into a variety of animals and super strength. They can also control the minds of their victims.The Script features lines that work WITH Jourdan, and the rest of the dialog is well done as well, giving a perfect description of what a vampire is, and revealing that they exist in order to multiply the evils of the world. They make vampires with each victim they take, and they need victims so they can make more vampires etc. The direction is crisp, with most of the scenes presented flawlessly.The Music score deserves a special mention. The film is creepy in a subtle way and the music helps that. In particular, is an eerie flute piece which manages to build a feeling of anticipation.Four of the actors/actresses do extremely well in their roles. Louis Jourdan gives the best Count Dracula performance ever. Of all the Draculas I have seen, he behaves the most like a real person who became a vampire would act in my opinion. He is charismatic, and menacing in a very low key way. For example, in one scene, he is confronted with a cross wielded by Van Helsing saying a prayer in Latin and Jourdan says, ''It's always more convincing in Latin isn't it? You give an order to retreat, using a cross as your talisman.'' In another scene, when he doesn't reflect in mirrors, he calmly removes the mirror from another person and says, ''The trouble with mirrors, is that they don't reflect quite enough.'' He has suave sophistication and pulls the role off better than anyone else ever has or ever will.Another great performance here is Frank Finley as Van Helsing, the older vampire hunter. He does very well at capturing the essence of the role and will live on in the memories of many!Also, Jack Shepard does well as Renfield, Dracula's insane minion. He is gentlemanly, yet also eccentric at the same time and is prone to fits of rage and/or sorrow. Shepard really manages to nail the character!Last, but mentionable. Judy Bowker plays a good Mina. She is very concerned, yet she seems very wise in several scenes. She is also brave enough to take part in the final battle. As for the rest of the cast, they are adequate in their roles, but nothing special. Yet have no fear, the notorious 'Reeves brand' did not manage to get any of their wood products in here(HAHA!) What really makes this film unique however, is it's surrealistic quality. In some scenes, things are colored in unnatural ways. Other times, characters faces are superimposed over the screen in a psychedelic style. In one scene, the screen is a fuzzy black and white and everyone's voices are deep. Especially notable, is Draculas second attack on Lucy. Everything is colored red and black in a beautiful, otherworldly way. The surrealism adds a strange feel to the film that works with it to achieve near perfection......So if you are in the mood for a Dracula movie that is very well acted, yet strange and otherworldly, pick this one up! It is the best version ever made!