Il conte Dracula

Filmed in Spain and Germany, Jess Franco's version of the Bram Stoker classic has Count Dracula as an old man who grows younger whenever he dines on the blood of young maidens. This movie is quite faithful to the novel, unlike so many other Dracula films of the period. Starring screen legend Christopher Lee as Count Dracula, it also features Franco regulars Soledad Miranda, Fred Williams, Maria Rohm, Jack Taylor, Klaus Kinski, and Paul Müller. Franco appears in the film (as he does in many of his movies) as a servant to Professor Van Helsing. Franco contributes great direction and a perfectly eerie atmosphere to this low-budget film, which was one of Soledad's most prominent international roles. The talented cast and direction, as well as a fantastic score by Bruno Nicolai, make this one of the best filmed versions of the Dracula story and a great companion to Francis Ford Coppola's version made decades later.

Despite some relatively poor production values, this film has the requisite quality of "creepiness" that any good Dracula film really should have. Kinski is fine. This is also Christopher Lee's most accurate performance as the Count. Too bad the editing is so jumpy. It's almost like watching a documentary, or an antique silent film (but with sound). If they had just invested a little more money, this could have become "the" authentic film adaptation of the novel. As it stands, it is only for real devotees of the genre.

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?

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.