Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht

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..!

Jess Franco's version of the Bram Stoker classic has Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) as an old man who grows younger whenever he dines on the blood of young maidens.

I recently watched the Dan Curtis version of Dracula and found that to be a very faithful adaptation, possibly the best up to that point (being later eclipsed by Francis Ford Coppola). But there is something to be said about this one, too. While some aspects are played down -- the boat ride from Transylvania to London is never shown -- others are played up. Curtis did not much focus on Renfield, while Franco makes him (played expertly by Klaus Kinski) front and center, even having him eat insects.

Some of what is shown is cheesy, especially the bat outside the window -- clearly a rubber bat on a string ,as it never flaps its wings. I love that although the effect is terrible, they use it probably ten times. And why not? When you have this level of talent (Lee, Kinski, Herbert Lom) and such beautiful sets, who needs effects?

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.

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.

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.