Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht

"El Conde Dracula" is Spanish director Jess Franco's faithful yet flawed take on the Bram Stoker novel, with Christopher Lee taking a break from his British Hammer series to play the infamous vampire. Lee had high hopes for the film because Franco intended to adhere closely to the book. I think there are things to admire about this version, beginning with Lee's accurate portrayal of an old Dracula who grows steadily younger as he drinks more blood. Many of the Gothic locations are impressive as well, and it's a plus to have Klaus Kinski as Renfield and Herbert Lom as Van Helsing. The problem is that this movie, much like the 1931 Lugosi film, starts out very well and has its best moments in the beginning (say the first half hour) before growing tedious. It's a shame too, because this could have turned out to be the most faithful Dracula adaptation ever done, had Franco tried a little harder. His overbearing need to zoom in to characters' faces becomes so repetitious that you begin to anticipate it after awhile, along with the same ongoing musical cues. It also has a disappointing climax.

It's certainly a Dracula movie worth seeing for fans of the genre, but it is hypnotically draggy at times (then again, so was the book!). It should be mentioned that the print used for the newly released Dark Sky DVD is missing a really effective sequence where a crying woman outside Dracula's castle pleads desperately for the Count to return her little baby to her. **1/2 out of ****

It is sad that this film is so often overlooked...it's really a gem. Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula here is probably his best ever (at least in terms of following Stoker's book) as an aging vampire who progressively gets younger (20 years before Coppola's version). In addition, Klaus Kinski is brilliant as the insane Renfield. Lee's Dracula is given more of a human side that is missing in the Hammer films, where he usually barely speaks at all. There are some weak spots, but overall quite good, and a must for Lee fans really gives a different perspective of the Hammer legend.

A really good Dracula adaptation indeed! I liked it even better than Francis Ford Coppola´s multi million Dollar version of Bram Stroker´s classic novel! Unimaginable what Franco had done if he would have had a higher budget... However, it doesn´t seem to need much money to create a gothic atmosphere, which is so creepy that you can feel a cold breeze in your neck. Once more horror legend Christoper Lee is giving the demonic vampire lord and he´s as perfect as usual in the role, but the most impressive part has Herbert Lom as Dr. Van Helsing, what even makes Hollywood superstar Sir Anthony Hopkins looking like an old fogey! But Franco, who directed such mini classics like "Vampyros Lesbos" as well as awful turkeys, wouldn´t be the same of there wasn´t a bundled load of camp: Especially, I liked the plastic bats where you can clearly see the strings they were fixed on. Another problem is the part of acting genius Klaus Kinski: it´s a total riddle to me why Franco hadn´t stretched his brilliance more, because Kinski´s sitting the whole time in a rubber room, eats flys and has no text to say... A real waste of talent!! Nevertheless an underrated horror gem!! Really worth to be seen, even if you hate Franco..!

This isn't a great movie, but probably the single most faithful screen adaptation of Bram Stoker's great story I've ever seen. It doesn't embellish or introduce a whole bunch of characters. It keeps the idea of Dracula being in an old man when we first meet him in Romania and getting younger as he drinks blood. I remember seeing it not too long after I had finished reading the book (the excellent annotated Dracula by Leonard Wolf (no relation)) and was hooked from start to finish. This is kind of an art house Dracula, faithful to story and spirit, short on special effect and expensive lighting. Kind of like Passolini's Gospel According to Matthew.

Some of the best things about this version: Basically all the actors, Bruno Nicolai's score, and the fact that this Dracula appeared as Stoker describes him, which is a first.

Unfortunately, what I've heard about the production is that they changed producers in mid-shooting and he cut the budget back, so what could've been a fairly faithful rendition of the book now looks cheap and like the low-budget film it eventually became. This is no reflection of Jess Franco.