Count Dracula

One of my favorite horror movies of all time. I saw this movie on PBS when it first premiered back in '77 or '78. I recorded it a couple of years later and have watched it almost every Halloween since. My kids have grown up with this as a tradition. Sometimes we skip a year or two but always come back to this classic.

For me the movie captures the essence of the book. Several of my favorite scenes are not necessarily the most important. In the opening while Jonathan is riding in the carriage and they pass the woman praying at the roadside shrine. Waiting all alone at the pass in the dead of night. The arrival of the Count's carriage. The late dinner with gold table service. The great scene of Jonathan shaving and the Count's sudden appearance unreflected in the mirror and his comment "The problem with mirrors is they don't show enough" as he nonchalantly drops the mirror out the window. Jonathan's growing horror as he begins to realize he's trapped. His escape to the decrepit chapel were he finds the blood stained vampires entranced in their coffins. The dreamy waltz like nightmares of Lucy's seduction. The rose pedals falling. Professor Van Helsling's scene where he's making cocoa; handing the first cup to his guest, joined by another he hands his next cup to him and then again until he's eventually made cocoa for everyone. The scene in the woods with Van Helsling, Mina and the three brides of Dracula (especially the terrorized horses bolting). The return to castle Dracula in the light of day.

Dracula is portrayed as both supernatural and human (never melodramatic or campy), very European, very Old World and of course, very tragic. He even is Biblical in his comments that "I make this world my domain" like Satan going to and fro, to and fro in the world.

For me great stories always have a feeling as if they were going on before we arrived and will continue after we leave. This story is like that. I feel as if the story does indeed go way back. And though it has a logical ending it seems as if it will go on. Truly a classic.

The BBC's 1977 production of "Count Dracula" arguably represents for many Dracula aficionados the finest screen version of Stoker's novel ever likely to be made.

"Count Dracula" probably stands alone by virtue of its very faithful adherence to Stoker's plot, as well as the uniformly stunning quality of the acting performances (who, for instance, could forget Jack Shepherd's "Renfield"?).

But for me, the most outstanding feature of the production is the conscious, studied, Gothic restraint of the female cast, echoing much of what was best about the early Hammer vampire movies before the regrettable advent of the "tits and fangs" genre.

Without the exposure of a single breast, the trio of female vampires at Castle Dracula succeed in conveying an astonishing level of sexual allurement as they coquettishly tease Jonathan Harker with his letter to Mina.

In similar vein, when the (by now un-dead) Lucy Westenra is confronted in the cemetery by the group of vampire slayers, she transforms herself almost instantaneously from a blood-stained Fury from Hell into a virginal Lady of Shalot, and then back again.

How sad that this near-perfect cinematic achievement appears to have been very largely eclipsed by "Dracula" of 1978, as well as Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula"!

Faithful to the novel, magnificently performed in every way. This mini-series showed how well a classic novel should be adapted. Coming only 2 years before Langella's performance, Louis Jordan showed how sexy a middle aged man can be in this role.

Thirty-five years after I first saw it, most of it sticks in my memory as the greatest adaptation of Bram Stoker's timeless novel. From the opening scenes as Jonathan Harker makes his way through the Carpathian Mountains to the final scenes as the heroes converge on the Count, this took the approach of being presented in a mini-series format to tell the long story that Bram Stoker conceived.

Lucy's slow transformation from dying waif to lusting vampire is the most memorable scene and may actually be too intense for some viewers.

Far better than Francis Ford Coppola's version of the early 90's. Definitely worth watching annually on Halloween.

Like most people on here I also thought this BBC version was the most faithful adaptation of Stoker's original novel. Granted, they have changed a few details; for example, Mina and Lucy are sisters, the characters of Quincy and Arthur have been amalgamated and Jonathan visits the Count at his castle in Bohemia rather than Transylvania, but these minor deviations aside, I think even Stoker himself would have said this version was fairly close to what he had in mind while writing his famous novel.

Being from the UK I have grown up with the BBC and the programmes it produced in the 1970's. Watching 'Count Dracula' as an adult on DVD was, in many ways, a very pleasant nostalgic journey back to my childhood. Yes, I agree the budget did impose certain restrictions on the production...fake bats and obvious stage sets instantly spring to mind.....along with the mix of video and film but, to me, instead of being negative points these so called 'flaws' all added to its charm. That said, it also had some genuinely outstanding points; it is truly creepy, fantastically acted, perfectly cast and and had excellent script. The undoubted highlight for me has to be the location filming in Whitby cemetery; the scenes of Lucy being attacked in the graveyard were actually filmed in the very graveyard that inspired Stoker when he was writing the novel back in the 1890's. Cut to Francis Ford Copploa's 1992 version....which also makes a claim to being a faithful adaptation of the novel... and it doesn't even mention Whitby at all.

As for Louis Joudan, in my opinion, he is simply the best ever Dracula; understated, sophisticated, menacing and arrogant. Both Lugosi and Oldman were good but they were a bit too camp and shouted their evil from the rooftops. Jourdan, on the other hand, whispered in your ear and chilled the very depths your soul without you even really knowing why. In a word, genius. Another role worth noting is Jack Shepherd as Renfield. Again, not a typical over the top portrayal of a madman in an asylum but rather a somewhat more complex character; a normal man tortured by very specific moments of madness. The scene when he begs Dr. Seward to release him is truly, truly magnificent.

I'll not hide the fact that I am a Dracula fan. I love Stoker's original novel and I love the Victorian Gothic ambiance that it contains. While the BBC's version doesn't quite match Coppola's film for atmosphere and special effects, it certainly makes up for it with its script, the quality of the acting and its faithfulness to the original novel. It has to be, without doubt, my single favourite version of the Dracula story.

Other than Louis Jordan's appearance,apart from his 'hairy palms',this is perhaps the most faithful adaption of Bram Stoker's novel. The acting is firstrate by all with a splendid turn by Frank Finlay as Van Hesling.The BBC's practice of filming exteriors and videotaping interiors is a bit disconcerting,but it's a minor annoyance. Infinitely superior to Coppola's MTV version