El conde Drácula

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.

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.

"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.

Everyone looking for the usual Jess Franco sex horror will be , and has been, let down by this movie. I myself have been kind of meh about it over the years. But a recent late night rewatch put it in a new light. Sure it's slow and a bit static but Franco captures a sense of dread that most Dracula movies can't manage. No wonder Lee said this was his favorite portrayal of the count. Plus that Nicolai music is incredible. Not perfect but it has something strong going for it.