RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

shoobe01-1 Unusually authentic, and effectively scripted, for a filmed work from a written work. Some unusually good choices such as a handsome and charming Count which leads to other useful, relevant choices of desire vs terror.But... it is 1977 BBC. Video interiors, film exteriors. Hideous VFX. Strange musical cues, and long stretches with no audio. Oh the posterizing! It's horrible! Oh, and pretty poor sound quality, with no subs on the DVD I got, so often hard to tell what anyone is saying. If I didn't already know what was up, would be hard to watch.Would love to see this exact script remade by someone. In the current TV era, it seems like it would go awfully well. Stretch to 4 hours or so and make a week of it, or a streaming binging series.

leonardmlee 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.

JoeKarlosi I finally saw this for the first time, and I agree with the general opinion that it is probably the most faithful rendering of Stoker's book. I thought Frank Finlay gave the best performance, as Van Helsing... but as for Louis Jourdan, he disappointed me somewhat as The Count. He played the King of Vampires as calm and charming, and not nearly savage or evil enough when the need arose (such as when he is supposed to turn with rage against his brides, for instance). He still manages to be villainous, though, and thankfully not a romantic hero. But I just wish he could have been more hateful or emotional when the situation called for it. It's still unfathomable to me that NO VERSION of this story has ever got it all accurate.. and in this case, the biggest thorn in my side with the BBC rendition is that Dracula doesn't appear as an older man who gradually gets younger as he drinks blood.I did enjoy this presentation quite a bit overall despite some complaints, though. Oh - another quibble was that surrealistic "Andy Warhol" stuff that went on with characters' faces now and then. Just silly. Very good staking sequence, though. Another thing I am starting to feel more than ever, is that Dracula probably should be told as a rather slow-paced and calculated tale. From the Bram Stoker book, to the Lugosi version, to the Palance film, to this BBC adaptation... it's a deliberately lightly-paced story that builds slowly and gradually. After I saw the Jourdan movie I again sketched my head wondering how so many people can still think the wild westernly-paced HORROR OF Dracula -- which is possibly the LEAST Stoker-ish film of them all to date -- can be considered "THE Best Dracula Telling" ! While full of action and dynamic lunging about and bombastic music soundtrack, it's very unlike the Stoker classic. *** out of ****

tertoolian When this PBS version of Dracula first was shown on TV it contained a scene in Dracula's castle where the "brides" were about to attack Jonathan Harker and Dracula walked in and stopped them. In place of Harker he offered them an infant to feast upon. At this point Jordan, as the Count, opened up a sack and withdrew a real, live infant, which he held up over his head and offered to the vampire brides to feed upon. All subsequent showings of Count Dracula had this scene edited out. This was part of Stoker's novel but, I suppose, censorship dictated that the scene should be omitted. I don't know if there is a full,uncut version of this PBS version, but, regardless, if you want to know what the original Stoker's Dracula was all about, attempt to get a copy of this PBS version.