Count Dracula

1977
7.3| 2h30m| en| More Info
Released: 22 December 1977 Released
Producted By: BBC
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

For those familiar with Bram Stoker's novel, this adaptation follows the book quite closely in most respects. Jonathan Harker visits the Count in Transylvania to help him with preparations to move to England. Harker becomes Dracula's prisoner and discovers Dracula's true nature. After Dracula makes his way to England, Harker becomes involved in an effort to track down and destroy the Count, eventually chasing the vampire back to his castle.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

BBC

Trailers & Images

Reviews

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a great movie. This version of Dracula is the closed to the book. It is best on one of the best horror book ever. So it is one of the best horror movies ever. It is very scary. A r.o.m.a.n.i.n vampire movie to England to find new victims. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If you do not get scared of this movie. Then no movie will scary you. This is a classic. Louis J.o.u.r.d.a.n who play the part of Dracula also played a Bound villain. In O.c.t.o.p.u.s.s.y staring Roger More. He did a great job in this movie. B.o.s.c.o Hogan who play the part of Jonathan H.a.r.k.e.r was also great in this movie. B.o.s.c.o Hogan was also in King Arthur.
bth2004 Story-wise, this is similar to the 1990's version with Gary Oldman in the title role.Production-wise, this is more or less what you'd expect from 1970's BBC.But there is no actual way that performance-wise, any of these actors could be considered the quintisential anybody, and that very much includes Louis Jourdan as Count Dracula himself. The entire production featured characters who were on roughly the same emotional level throughout the whole thing; for Jourdan, that level was rather dull. He was not creepy, charming, imposing, or anything else that Dracula should be.Very disappointing.
eugene1001us I have a comment for Author: kriitikko from Kirkkonummi, Finland. I will first use his comments and then respond."Ironically, the only performance not so faithful to Stoker, comes from Louis Jourdan as Dracula. This however is not a bad thing. Instead of copying Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, or playing Dracula more faithfully as a furious warlord (which Jack Palance had done few years earlier in another TV adaptation), Jourdan plays Dracula as calm, calculating demon who seduces his victims by offering them power and eternal life, but who is just coldly using them for his own advantages. In fact Jourdan portraits Dracula as a sort of Anti-Christ creature, who is looking for disciples and going against God. In one of the scenes Van Helsing raises his cross against Dracula and starts to enchant a prayer in Latin, only to receive an arrogant comment from the Count of how prayer always sounds more convincing in Latin. Jourdan may not be most faithful Dracula, but certainly one of the best, making Dracula seem far superior to humans." You are exactly correct. In the novel, Van Helsing states that because Dracula has what he attributes to a be mere "child's mind", that he is "slow to make haste". He uses the Latin term: Festina Lente, which means Hasten slowly or as Van Helsing puts it, "slow to make haste".This however proves to be Dracula's ultimate downfall.Though Van Helsing also warned Jonathan that "if he (Dracula) dared to use his full array of his powers, he would have been long beyond our (meaning the vampire hunters) reach".Thus proving his point. And Dracula's arrogance about believing himself to be vastly superior to mere mortals. He thought himself to be so superior, that in the end they finally defeated him. Because he failed to prepare for the fact that humans in the late 19th Century were better able to combat him, than human contemporaries of his 15th Century.
kriitikko The BBC's first attempt to make their own version of Bram Stoker's classic is not only the better one of the two (the second was made in 2006) but also one of the best adaptations of the book and also the most faithful one. Aside from few little changes, like making Mina and Lucy sisters and uniting characters of Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris to one named Quincey Holmwood, this TV film follows Stoker's book faithfully, having most of its dialog directly from the pages of the book. This is a relief to yours truly, for I am a big fan of Stoker and have been amazed how many versions base their plot on theater plays or simplify the story or set it in modern era or make Dracula fall in love with either Mina or Lucy.Showing that BBC already knew quality back in the 1970's, the team working on "Count Dracula" has put an effort to sets and costumes to create the feeling of the late 19'Th century Victorian era England, with its people living by high morals, yet being easily tempted by the arriving Prince of Darkness. The music is very peaceful, not having any dynamic shock effects in it, but reminding more of the old world's music. The only minus point of the film is really its special effects that are not only old but also cheap, considering the TV film budget.The actors are over all doing a great job, varying from decent to superb. Frank Finlay is the most closest to the Professor Abraham Van Helsing of Stoker's book. Finlay plays Van Helsing as the older, wise, brave and gentle professor, who deeply cares for the people around him and is not afraid to defy the vampire lord. Judi Bowker is the best Mina I've ever seen in any film version. She is young woman in love, yet mature enough to bravely understand what they're dealing with and what might be the worst outcome. She loves her fiancé and her family, but is also slightly tempted by Dracula. Instead of playing Renfield as yet another insane, giggling servant of Dracula, Jack Shepherd gives a marvelous performance as a desperate man who serves evil but finds courage in himself to defy it in the end. This film also goes against the usual tradition of casting a bad actor to play Jonathan Harker. Bosco Hogan is the only good Harker I've ever seen. He really makes the character believable, not just a stone faced man who speaks monotonously like so many others (David Manners, Keanu Reeves etc.). Mark Burns as Dr. Seward, Susan Penhaligon as Lucy and Richard Barnes as Quincey don't bring anything new to their roles, but are decent enough not to ruin the film with their presence.Ironically, the only performance not so faithful to Stoker, comes from Louis Jourdan as Dracula. This however is not a bad thing. Instead of copying Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, or playing Dracula more faithfully as a furious warlord (which Jack Palance had done few years earlier in another TV adaptation), Jourdan plays Dracula as calm, calculating demon who seduces his victims by offering them power and eternal life, but who is just coldly using them for his own advantages. In fact Jourdan portraits Dracula as a sort of Anti-Christ creature, who is looking for disciples and going against God. In one of the scenes Van Helsing raises his cross against Dracula and starts to enchant a prayer in Latin, only to receive an arrogant comment from the Count of how prayer always sounds more convincing in Latin. Jourdan may not be most faithful Dracula, but certainly one of the best, making Dracula seem far superior to humans.All in all, BBC's "Count Dracula" is the closest adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel to date, and to those who loved the book it is an enjoyment to watch. I should warn though that film is rather long, about three hours, for it was aired in two parts originally.