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.

CountVladDracula I honestly don't know why this version of Dracula is so popular. People have tried to tell me that it is the most faithful version to Stoker's novel. It's not. It's really not. First Arthur and Quincey are combined as one character, Lucy and Mina are turned into sisters and this is the most dispassionate, dull portrayal of Dracula ever. It's dull. It's drawn out. Being dry and academic does not automatically make it "more faithful".The Gary Oldman version of Dracula, that is to say the movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola in 1992 IS the most faithful version of Dracula to date. It adds a love story but it does not take away from the original story the way this one does. Dracula is full of passionate emotions from range and menace to longing and even grief. Yes, that version added a love story but in doing so it added reason and motivation for the character. And other than what is added it is still the most faithful version, nothing is taken away.This version of Dracula is over-rated. I can't understand why so many people like it. I think it's one of those instances where you are told you should like something and so you do. But I don't. My mind won't work that way. This version is dull and the Dracula is about as passionate as Mr. Spock from Star Trek. That's not true to the novel at all. The character was very emotion driven even when the emotion was just rage. This was dull and dispassionate. Stick with the 1992 movie starring Gary Oldman.

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.

artisticengineer This movie predates the Frank Langella and Gary Oldman interpretation of the fabled Count. Though those interpretations are very good; there are not quite as good, IMHO, as this gem. There are no (or at least very few) histrionics here; the soundtrack is very quiet with only an occasional threatening overtone that lets one know that "the threat" is quite close by. The brides of Dracula keep their clothes on; pretty much as one would expect in the 1890s. The overall plot stays quite faithful to the Bram Stoker book and for this and the matters alluded to previously I feel that THIS is how Bram Stoker envisioned this story. This is The Standard, or at least the original, that the other portrayals should be judged.The Coppola version tries to stay faithful to the book, but nonetheless a "reincarnation" subplot managed to crawl into the story. One does not find that in the book or in this Dracula. There is no need to add in reincarnation; the Count is simply trying some new hunting grounds for fresh blood. Lucy and Mina simply happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; hence their encounters with Dracula. Of interest in this film is the exploration of Renfield; the mental patient whom Dracula contacts. He is shown progressing in a sympathetic way, and is actually a sort of hero-much like Stoker envisioned. After a time looking at this movie one notices some other very subtle nuances that add enormously to the plot; and which are not normally seen in the other portrayals of this story.POSSIBLE SPOILER: The heroine in Coppola's version is "baptized" with the vampire's blood, and upon realizing this she experienced some grief and tears. A good scene of doubt and remorse that Winona Ryder's portrayed reasonably well. Yet, it pales enormously with Susan Penhaligon's portrayal where she (a very diminutive woman) shows the heroine as totally and utterly bloodied, broken and shamed. Considering that Penhaligon is even smaller (and at least seems more innocent) than Winona Ryder the effect of total psychological devastation upon a helpless human being is enhanced even further. This is when one realizes this shows just how mean and cruel Dracula really is. Polished, suave, urbane, and totally ruthless is how Louis Jourdan portrayed Dracula and one has to wonder if he portrayed Dracula from his knowledge of the real life monsters (Nazis) that he encountered as a teenager when living in occupied France.