Count Dracula [DVD]

It’s a film about Dracula that I have not seen (yet) can’t wait and for the price I couldn’t resist the master 🍷😈not a bad film for the time or the price acting isn’t bad though there are plenty of better Dracula films out there this isn’t a bad one worth giving a try

I was 13 when I first saw this on tv in 1977 and it scared the life out of me but had me intrigued at the same time. Louis Jourdan was born to play the part of the Count and he brought an atavistic touch of malevolence on one hand and a simmering sexiness on the other. There is also a high intelligence and undeniable charm in Jourdan’s portrayal that sometimes does not always come through in other peoples performances of Dracula. He is not all about getting on a boat to chase after a couple of girls to another country, he actually NEEDS Mina, as he tells her in their exchange together, she is nourishment to him in every way. Why they made Mina and Lucy sisters in this adaptation is a mystery, but because they seem to have got everything else right, that is no matter because the acting and the portrayal of their relationship is authentic and profound. Dracula's castle looks freezing cold and uncomfortable on the inside, unlike the Christopher Lee castle with its roaring fire and cleanliness as if the maid has just been. This version gives one a real sense of loneliness, isolation, decrepitude and abandonment when we are first introduced to Dracula. You just know it has been a long time since he has had a proper conversation with anyone. His three brides, or sisters, as they are called in this version are horrific in THAT one scene. It was really shocking to see it in 1977, and the scene has not lost any of its potency now. Jack Shepherd is fantastic as Renfield and his meeting with Mina is so very moving, heart breaking. This version for me has it all, intelligence, suspense, sexiness, horror and heart break. Oh and Frank Finlay as Van Helsing is absolute perfection. He is steady, reliable, calm and he knows exactly what is going on when he first meets Lucy. I found myself wishing that I had a doctor just like that. This is an excellent retelling of the book. It brought to life and accurately portrayed what my minds eye saw when I was reading the book, and for me that is really something. Buy it. Believe me, it will haunt your imagination for a very, very long time.

Where Max Schreck was a spindly creature of nightmare, Bela Lugosi insinuating and grave, Christopher Lee {in his own phrase} tall, dark and gruesome, Frank Langella boyishly handsome with a bouffant mop of hair, and recently Claes Bang energetic and irascible, French actor Louis Jourdan is characteristically impeccable and suave, his resonant voice and half-smile a winning look for this 1977 TV version of Bram Stoker's great novel, directed by Philip Saville and written by veteran Gerald Savory.It starts rather too abruptly, but soon settles, with Jonathan Harker's journey to and arrival at Dracula's castle, where the usual ominous events occur.Bosco Hogan as Harker seems odd at first, but soon gives a forceful, solid performance, matched by the English Rose of Judy Bowker as his beloved Mina.But, apart from the increasingly menacing Jourdan's Count, the best and most rounded portrayals come from the lovely Susan Penhaligon as Mina's sister Lucy, rightly bringing out the inherent sexuality of the part, and the wonderful Frank Finlay as Van Helsing, who manages to be both serious and funny in the role.That strangely unknowable actor Jack Shepherd is truly superb as the madman Renfield, and the only fly in the garlic-spread is one Richard Barnes as Quincy, Lucy's American suitor. He's pretty bad, though not as bad as his supposedly deep south accent.This is a very good version of the Victorian tale, with some original touches, and good use of location work in Whitby.Louis Jourdan is the most cultured, and one of the most vocal Draculas we've seen, unlike Lee's verbally reticent Count, for example. But it pays off, even though it isn't a very scary version of the tale.But it sure beats Coppola's overdone turkey, whose only assets were Gary Oldman pulling out all the stops and the very different Renfield of Tom Waits.This one's by no means perfect, but it's better than most.Recommended.

Very atmospheric film

The BBC has always maintained a pretty solid reputation of providing great drama and adaptations of the classics and this 1977 version of stokers novel is a prime example."Count Dracula" is regarded by many as the most faithful working of the horror story to date and although lacking the menace of Christopher Lee's vampire, Louis Jourdan makes very good casting indeed.But what really makes this adaptation so good? - well firstly the cast is a good one. Frank Finlay seems to be having a great time in the role as Van Helsing, while Judi Bowker and Susan Penhaligon make good vampire fodder. Also Jack Shepherd plays Renfield to perfection. But what i really love about this production are the outdoor locations. The shots of Mina and Lucy going up the huge flight of cliff steps at whitby and sitting on the clifftop bench overlooking the sea is just how you envisage stoker's novel- just as in the scene where Dracula first seduces a sleepwalking lucy in the clifftop churchyard in the dead of night. Also the confrontation between the vampire hunters and an undead Susan Penhaligon in londons Highgate cemetry is quite chilling, especially the scene where they drive a stake into her as it looks very convincing.Lame special effects such as rubber bats and a dreadful mist effect coming though a bedroom window don't particularly help the production but one must think of the time this was made. All in all, a very good effort and this certainly ranks high above recent attempts at the dracula story.

A part les effets speciaux tres old school, l'histoire est tres bien racontee & rested fidele au livre de Bran Stocker. Frisson garantis.

A new and interesting take on the classic story.

Bram Stoker's novel Dracula is a classic, if not a literary masterpiece, and the last 40-plus years of scholarship have revealed the great depth of meaning to be found in every aspect of the story. On top of that, the book has passages that can definitely evoke a thrill of horror, such as the brides' abortive vamping of Jonathan Harker and the climactic confrontation Van Helsing and his companions have with Lucy in the graveyard, along with the famous staking of Lucy. With all this to work with, you'd think that for all the times the novel has been adapted for the screen, someone would have stuck to the original story at least once. Yet producers have usually refused to give us a straight rendition of the novel, apparently convinced that their own visions of the story are superior to Stoker's. Usually they aren't.Well, this is the exception. In fact it's THE version (as far as I'm aware the only one, including even 1922's Nosferatu) that really sticks to the original, keeping not just plot but character largely intact. Yes, there are a few modifications, but most of them are harmless. The biggest deviation is Louis Jourdan as the Count; he portrays a more urbane and seductive Dracula than the one depicted by Stoker, who is more of a physically imposing, flamboyant (and older) alpha male. At first reading you could be forgiven for believing that this must make a huge difference. But given the fairly limited screen time for the Count (this, too, reflecting faithfulness to the original), the change isn't that big of a deal. (And Jourdan is far better at urbane and seductive than Frank Langella, which is all to the good).The other modifications are inconsequential. Lucy and Mina are now sisters, but this has no impact at all on the telling of the story; it merely serves as a way to keep them together more of the time, since the screenplay doesn't need to rely on the novel's epistolary device. Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris are merged into a single character, but again, this has very little if any effect on the story. Arthur and Quincey being two most minor of the book's major characters, the merger makes sense and does little if any violence to the story line. If the movie had been a longer miniseries, it might have made a difference, but at 150 minutes it didn't.One area in which this production really shines is in what it doesn't do. It avoids over-the-top melodrama (cf. the 1992 version and many others), approaching climactic moments with a cold, unadorned bluntness, letting the narrative speak for itself. When we see Dracula climbing down a wall, or Harker finds him lying in his tomb, such moments should (and do) speak for themselves, without big musical crescendos or overdone reaction shots from Harker. When the vampire brides attack the baby, the mere fact of what they're doing, along with the glimpse of the orgiastic expressions on their faces (mouths dripping with blood), needs (and is given) no elaboration. The direction and acting tell us all we need to know at such moments, and the producer hasn't insulted us by going for overkill.Of course, there are shortcomings. As has been noted, the production is a cheap one, and the effects are horribly dated. Most of the characterization and acting is good, with special kudos to Frank Finlay as Van Helsing; while he may not be precisely as I imagine Van Helsing to be, he comes close, especially given that a lot of Van Helsing's expositions from the novel are absent. Susan Penhaligon is winsome as the human Lucy, but as vampire Lucy her attempt at seductiveness seems too forced and relies too much on over-the-top breathing and raspy voice. (On the other hand, her staking scene is just as bloodily erotic and violent as in the novel, and other productions could learn from it.) Also, while what we have is faithful, a lot has still been removed. Most of it deals with character development (especially Seward's and Mina's) rather than with plot, although there was a little skimping on the storyline involving the corruption and redemption of Mina. Likewise, Dracula's vamping of Lucy could have been given more extended treatment, although it is treated more fully than the Mina episode. Would that we had four hours instead of two and a half.Of the few bad reviews here, many complain about how "slow" the story is. In fact, it is no slower than is the novel. In the book, things take a while to unfold; it's not a continual bloodbath. In that, as in other ways, the production is faithful to the original.Could a better job be done today? Probably, and I hope that it will be. Until then, though, this production is quite satisfactory, especially for the purist. All in all, it's such a great thing to have a faithful adaptation that the production's flaws can easily be overlooked.

Bueno, la verdad es que se ve mejor que la versión que me descargué por Internet, pero la diferencia es tan sólo en el color, que es un poco más vivo, ya está. Creo que al ser una versión de culto muy apreciada por sus fieles seguidores, la restauración debería estar más cuidada.

Nice to see this fine adaptation again after all these years!! (1977 from my records)....I kept notes when it first aired on PBS Great Performances series...and my notes are pretty accurate when reading them again...special notes made of the cast especially Jourdan and Finlay..the music while effectively spooky hearing it today, I suppose was not intrusive enough to make my notes originally, but shades of Bernard Herrmann come to my mind now. Also back then, I gave the program six accolades (my own version of the Emmys!)for Art Direction, Camerawork (for both the multi and single camerawork), Lighting Design, Makeup Design, Sound, and Technical Direction/Video (those negative images are nice effects). I hope this review (and those from others) will make Bram Stoker fans want to add to their Dracula colleciton, a faithful and wonderfully atmospheric production that while sometimes a bit slow-moving, is well worth the viewing effort...notice how quiet the program is most of the time, the unhurried approach via smooth editing, the unjerky camerawork so prevalent in most productions today from the UK...this was done in a different era, to be sure, but I find it so relaxing to settle into (like the novel) and just be memsmerized by it..another in a long line of period BBC productions that thanks to DVD can be enjoyed and cherished by new generations of viewers.