Count Dracula (1973)

Apparently this is the most faithful screen adaptation of Dracula made so far. I haven't read the book in ages so i'd have to re-read to confirm that (which i just might do). At any rate, besides that I've got to say that I was a bit disappointed- last time I watched this film I gave it a 10 out of 10 rating. I think I may have been struck by the appearances of both Christopher Lee and Klaus Kinski, both great actors and both in adaptations of Dracula that I had seen in the past. Unfortunately, like many of Franco's other films, the pacing is a bit languid. As many others have written, I did expect a sleazier film, however I rather enjoyed that it wasn't. I had already seen Vampyros Lesbos and that's all we need from this man in that field. There may be no psychedelia but the giallo visuals are amazing. To truly have one of the great stories, like Dracula, filmed as a giallo piece is probably a wet dream of mine and so i'll chalk my high rating up to that as well. (And no, Argento's Dracula 3D does not count) This time around I'm gonna have to deduct half a point because it wasn't quite as revolutionary as I thought, but it's still one of the best Dracula adaptations i've ever seen, barring Nosferatu 1979 of course. I've got to say I like it more than Hammer's Dracula, which I'd never been the biggest fan of.

This movie is terribly underrated. Up to its time, Count Dracula by Jesus Franco is definitely the most faithful and the most convincing adaptation of Bram Stoker. Story wasn't identical, but it was the closest thing to original novel they made so far. Scenery, sound, directing, complete approach is strange and different than what we were used to see in this genre. Instead of fairytale-like, fantasy atmosphere typical for horrors those days, here we have illusion of real life. Cast is particularly striking. Count Dracula is played by legendary Christopher Lee, actor who appeared in about three hundred movies and who's played Dracula more times than anyone else. In 1970. he played Dracula four times and this is the only movie that shows Dracula with facial hair. Also, this is the first Dracula movie in which Dracula starts as old man and gets younger by drinking blood. Klaus Kinski, father of Nastassja Kinski and actor who left us around 150 movies (Marquis de Sade in Marquis de Sade's Justine, hunchback in For a Few Dollars More), nailed role of Reinfield although he has no lines at all. He entered the role of madman so deep that in scenes where Reinfield eats insects he ate real flies instead of fake ones. Some time after Reinfield becomes Dracula in 1979. Nosferatu the Vampyre. Role of Van Helsing was meant for Vincent Price, but it ended up with Herbert Lom (Chief Insp. Charles Dreyfus from Pink Panter series). And in the role of Lucy we have tragically deceased Soledad Miranda, beautiful member of "Club 27". Although very unusual for its genre, or maybe exactly because of it, this movie left strong impression on me.8/10

This is a great movie. A r.o.m.a.i.a.n vampire moves to England in search for new victims. This is a great horror movie. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. This movie is a must see. Based on one of the best horror books ever. This is one of the best horror movies ever. See this movie. It is a great movie. In is very intense. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say. Great movie great movie great movie great movie great movie. If you like scary movie then you need to see this movie. This is one of the best remakes ever. This movie is a true horror classic.

Known in English simply as "Count Dracula", this is a very uninspired and rather badly made film. After the 1931 Bela Lugosi version, the 1958 Hammer version and the 1979 Frank Langella version, this is the fourth adaptation of the 1897 Bram Stoker novel that I have seen in the last ten months, notwithstanding the numerous sequels to the first two. Of those four, I understand that this is the most faithful to the novel - which I have never actually read - but it's also by far the weakest of them.The film's version of Dracula is not terribly intimidating. While Christopher Lee is good as the eponymous count, his performances in the Hammer series were far more entertaining. Herbert Lom made for a very good Van Helsing and he deserved to appear in a much better adaptation than this, though I preferred Peter Cushing and Laurence Olivier's takes on the character. None of the other actors made much impression one way or the other. I'm not entirely sure but I get the impression that most of them were dubbed. The film is rather low budget but that wouldn't have been a big problem if Jesus Franco had directed it with any sort of flair, art or imagination - all three of which were lacking in the extreme - rather than making every other shot a zoom shot. I assume that he had made a bet to see how many he could fit into the film. It's a bog standard version of "Dracula", I'm afraid. When it comes to great horror directors, he's no Terence Fisher, who directed the aforementioned 1958 film and most of the other top tier Hammer films.Overall, the film is deathly dull and mostly forgettable except for two things that I've already mentioned. It's always a pleasure to see either Lee or Lom in a film but it would have been a far greater pleasure to see them in a good film.