This British version of Dracula was shown on American TV back around 1977 and I saw it when it was first shown--and it was in two parts. I remember liking it but wasn't exactly sure why. So, all these years later I decided to give it another look. Now, after seeing it again I found there was a lot to like and a lot to dislike--making for a very mixed bag.As far as the story goes, it's pretty familiar and most of the differences between this and other Dracula tales are pretty minor. However, the style is often quite different. I was surprised how bloody and sensual this film was. The blood-sucking parts were rather orgiastic in style--making this a bit more adult than the norm! The women really wanted Dracula....really, really badly and their cries of delight were a bit embarrassing if you watch this with the wrong person (like your mother-in-law). Having Drac played by a more erudite and good-looking guy (the Frenchman, Louis Jourdan) helped in this regard. I also loved the red eyes and (yuck) scene with the vampiresses attacking a baby--shocking but very effective. And, although not entirely effective, the wall-climbing bit by Jourdan was certainly novel. However, there are some goofy aspects of the film--in particular the insane decision to do those weird images of Drac's eyes and fangs--all done with a negative sort of image with neon!! It looked almost as if the vampires were doing acid!! It was embarrassingly dumb, actually. Also, while British audiences wouldn't have noticed, as an American I had to laugh at the terrible Texas accent of one of the guys in the film. It sounded like a Brit trying hard (and unsuccessfully) to sound American. Finally, a lot of the film was over-stylized and a much more direct and less adorned look would have worked much better. So, overall it's a real mixed bag. Interesting but it really wasn't as good as I'd remembered.

This movie predates the Frank Langella and Gary Oldman interpretation of the fabled Count. Though those interpretations are very good; there are not quite as good, IMHO, as this gem. There are no (or at least very few) histrionics here; the soundtrack is very quiet with only an occasional threatening overtone that lets one know that "the threat" is quite close by. The brides of Dracula keep their clothes on; pretty much as one would expect in the 1890s. The overall plot stays quite faithful to the Bram Stoker book and for this and the matters alluded to previously I feel that THIS is how Bram Stoker envisioned this story. This is The Standard, or at least the original, that the other portrayals should be judged.The Coppola version tries to stay faithful to the book, but nonetheless a "reincarnation" subplot managed to crawl into the story. One does not find that in the book or in this Dracula. There is no need to add in reincarnation; the Count is simply trying some new hunting grounds for fresh blood. Lucy and Mina simply happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; hence their encounters with Dracula. Of interest in this film is the exploration of Renfield; the mental patient whom Dracula contacts. He is shown progressing in a sympathetic way, and is actually a sort of hero-much like Stoker envisioned. After a time looking at this movie one notices some other very subtle nuances that add enormously to the plot; and which are not normally seen in the other portrayals of this story.POSSIBLE SPOILER: The heroine in Coppola's version is "baptized" with the vampire's blood, and upon realizing this she experienced some grief and tears. A good scene of doubt and remorse that Winona Ryder's portrayed reasonably well. Yet, it pales enormously with Susan Penhaligon's portrayal where she (a very diminutive woman) shows the heroine as totally and utterly bloodied, broken and shamed. Considering that Penhaligon is even smaller (and at least seems more innocent) than Winona Ryder the effect of total psychological devastation upon a helpless human being is enhanced even further. This is when one realizes this shows just how mean and cruel Dracula really is. Polished, suave, urbane, and totally ruthless is how Louis Jourdan portrayed Dracula and one has to wonder if he portrayed Dracula from his knowledge of the real life monsters (Nazis) that he encountered as a teenager when living in occupied France.

I finally saw this for the first time, and I agree with the general opinion that it is probably the most faithful rendering of Stoker's book. I thought Frank Finlay gave the best performance, as Van Helsing... but as for Louis Jourdan, he disappointed me somewhat as The Count. He played the King of Vampires as calm and charming, and not nearly savage or evil enough when the need arose (such as when he is supposed to turn with rage against his brides, for instance). He still manages to be villainous, though, and thankfully not a romantic hero. But I just wish he could have been more hateful or emotional when the situation called for it. It's still unfathomable to me that NO VERSION of this story has ever got it all accurate.. and in this case, the biggest thorn in my side with the BBC rendition is that Dracula doesn't appear as an older man who gradually gets younger as he drinks blood.I did enjoy this presentation quite a bit overall despite some complaints, though. Oh - another quibble was that surrealistic "Andy Warhol" stuff that went on with characters' faces now and then. Just silly. Very good staking sequence, though. Another thing I am starting to feel more than ever, is that Dracula probably should be told as a rather slow-paced and calculated tale. From the Bram Stoker book, to the Lugosi version, to the Palance film, to this BBC adaptation... it's a deliberately lightly-paced story that builds slowly and gradually. After I saw the Jourdan movie I again sketched my head wondering how so many people can still think the wild westernly-paced HORROR OF Dracula -- which is possibly the LEAST Stoker-ish film of them all to date -- can be considered "THE Best Dracula Telling" ! While full of action and dynamic lunging about and bombastic music soundtrack, it's very unlike the Stoker classic. *** out of ****

The last time I had seen this was on TV back in the early 90's. That was to my knowledge the last time the BBC aired this classic. I recently ordered this from Amazon and it arrived this morning and I refrained from viewing it till nightfall. I started it about 10:55pm and it finished around 1:28am as I paused it for a snack break but only for a few moments. Anyway, all the memories came flooding back like it was just yesterday I had viewed this, not the early 90's.The atmosphere in this is amazing so it is. The music is perfect for every situation, it is creepy and tense, and works wonders for the movie. The set pieces for every location are exceptional too (the graveyards and castle and forest thick countryside). They really do stand out and grab hold of you and don't let go as you are pulled into the storyline through the exceptional music and surroundings. Night time for example when Jonathan was stranded at the pass waiting on Dracula turning up for him, the storm in that scene was VERY atmospheric. The thing is it probably helped that I was watching it when it was raining outside and the wind was blowing strong, that and with it being night made it all the more enjoyable to view.At this moment in time I am listening to the "Nox Arcana" Gothic ambient album called "Transylvania" and it is giving me goose bumps as the movie is still fresh in my mind, this is because it is not long finished (about 10 minutes ago). I highly recommend this album to those into the creatures of the night and their activities. A nice atmospheric piece listening to it in the dark (like I am at the moment).The cast in this production is flawless. Louis Jordan as Count Dracula worked really well. He brought a sort of stern not to be messed with look to the Count in his performance, and yet still managed to be seductive to the ladies as well. Frank Finley is on top form as Professor Van Helsing (but when is Frank never a joy to watch). Judi Bowker as Wilhelmina 'Mina' Westenra is eye candy for me. She is a honey so she is. Her performance is not flawed in anyway what so ever. I think everyone else I have not mentioned gave 100% to their roles. The cast was very well chosen indeed, well done!.In my opinion this is THE BEST version of the book to movie by far. The BBC are damn good at making atmospheric shows (Survivors, Count Dracula). It is this sort of movie (TV movie in this case) starring Louis Jordan that makes me support British horror over everything else when up against other countries in the same genre. And in saying that this Louis Jordan Dracula production, along side Hammer Films, cannot be beaten for exceptional set pieces and atmosphere. It's things like Hammer movies and Count Dracula (1977) that make me proud to support the British movie and TV industry when gems like this turn up. I'd like to see Danny Boyle and Neil Marshall do something along this line of movie, they would be good at it. Danny Boyle and Neil Marshall are the new Terence Fisher's of British horror.