Count Dracula (1973)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Don't listen to the negative reviews

A Disappointing Continuation

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

I have the DVD of this Spanish film production from circa '70 with the great Chris Lee and Herbert Lom. Yes, it is online with what Bram Stoker wrote back in the 19th century, yet I have never been overly impressed with Jess Franco's slow and ponderous style of film-making. I am a fan of horror / thriller, so I can deal with and accept the moments of slowness and the various scenes that drag, etc. I heard that Chris Lee was most happy with this production of Dracula. Well, I hope he was paid well to travel to Spain for the film shoot. If it wasn't for his supporting cast of Herbert Lom and Soledad Miranda, I feel this film would've been no better than a stink-bomb. I do not blame the setting or the cast, but rather the lousy direction from Jess Franco. In all reality, Jess Franco is no Terence Fisher. I mean, not even close.

For some years, Christopher Lee had expressed a disenchantment with Hammer films' variations on the Dracula theme. In 1969, he explained to his fan club that he was shortly to embark on a film for Jess Franco which promised to be a most authentic version of Bram Stoker's novel. This is the result.For anyone familiar with Franco's films, this contains no real surprises. The storyline is laboriously told, but at least – thanks to Stoker – there is a storyline. Amidst the many zoom-ins (some of which work – for example, Renfield's delirium is communicated well by their inclusion – and some of them don't), much of the running time focuses on Dracula's possession of Lucy, who we never get to know before his involvement. Therefore, we are not sure whether her robotic manner is the result The Count's mental grip, whether she has always been that way, or Soledad Miranda – who looks stunning, of course - is delivering a performance so understated as to be somnambulistic.Alongside Lee, we have Klaus Kinski, who could have made a memorable Renfield, but is given little to do other than eat the flies he keeps in a box hidden in the latrine! Herbert Lom is a splendidly solemn Van Helsing, and Fred Williams is a fine Jonathan Harker. It is worth mentioning that Dracula, in the novel from which this is apparently closely adapted, had an abhorrence of mirrors and would not allow them in the castle. Here, Harker has barely walked through the impressive main door when he and The Count are confronted by a massive wall mirror revealing, of course, that the earnest host casts no reflection. It seems as if Dracula is advertising the curse of his vampirism.The locations and buildings are mostly suitably austere and impressive. There is a scene where the vampire hunters appear to be attacked/mesmerised by a menagerie of stuffed animals coming to life. This is either very effective (the camera swoops in close for us to see their glassy eyes and unmoving slavering jaws) or laughable if you make the mistake of presuming the director intends us to think the animals are real.Christopher Lee is not aided by the direction in the way he was by Hammer's crew, and without careful camera angles and lighting, is occasionally exposed as giving a hammy performance. That said, his strength of presence imposes nicely. His demise is fumbled – it serves to be both anti-climactic and poorly realised. Buried beneath flames, his despatch seems to be a direct influence to John-Forbes Robertson's final fate in 'Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires (1974).' It would be unfair of me to express the opinion that this lacks the polish of even Hammer's weakest Dracula outing ('Scars of Dracula', made this same year), because there is a deliberately different 'feel' to this. It meanders, parts are under-written and there is clearly very little budget. But it is pretty accurate to Bram Stoker's novel and is enjoyable on its own merits. A flawed but enjoyable, very worthy addition to the many Dracula adaptions.

Herbert Lom as Van Helsing really should be a slam-dunk - Lom was a gifted, charismatic, powerful actor who, if properly directed, could take a part and run hard with it. Van Helsing is one of the great recurring roles in movie history - Anthony Hopkins does wonderful things with the role in the Coppola version of this story; Olivier does good things in the PBS version from the late '70s. If you've got Lom playing the role, let him go, cut him loose, make him the center of the show. He's wasted here. It's like the director said to him, "Play Van Helsing as if he were a tranquilized bore." Klaus Kinski as Renfield should be a slam-dunk too. Christopher Lee as the count, ditto. Add some beautiful women, some Rumanian peasants, a sexual subtext, and some Gothic atmosphere, and you should be able to create something that's at least watchable. Instead, we get a plodding, ponderous, badly paced, poorly photographed, horribly scored, thoroughly unscary work. Why? What went wrong? I'm fascinated by those questions. My best theory is because idiots directed and produced - idiots with too much money to burn and zero talent for direction and production.Addendum: I've just read, in another review here, that the producers scampered off with the money before the film was finished, forcing the director to foot the remaining bills. Noted.

My forgiving temperament allowed me to score it 2, but really this is SO much a 1 ! Mr Lee does his best with a woefully underwritten part and certainly looks wise he is true to the Stoker written description, a lack of rapport from the German actors around him stifled any possible creativity. Herbert Lom is always good value but was written as someone doubtful of his own extensive research and looked too dithering in most of the group scenes. The ladies were pretty clotheshorses and the leading men sturdy and handsome but none seemed to be engaged with the story itself. Cinematography was pretty abysmal, indeed many scenes were cloaked in utter darkness with only the soundtrack to tell us anything was happening. Shooting day-for-night was a farce as the super bright Spanish sun in most exterior shots completely washed out the shaded parts, leaving us bemused and befuddled. Dubbing was generally good but dear me, those cut glass English accents sat ill with those European faces. Kinski was totally wasted, Renfield in the book is central in moving the plot forward, his silence gave us nothing. The minuscule budget meant studio scenes (Renfield's cell etc) were little better than Community Theater quality with plain walls and invisible ceilings. Perhaps American audiences would swallow the "English" scenes but to this Brit the architecture screamed Southern Europe (and I guessed, correctly Spain. If this director is considered cutting edge for the 21st century I feel sorry for the next generation...