Louis Jourdan as Dracula is fine to me, I have no problem with him as the Count. I really don't have a problem with most all of the other actors either - pretty much everyone was fine in the film.What I dislike about it is that it's rather drab and dry - it has no pizazz to it. The only pizazz we have is a psychedelic red and orange film with some black & white footage when something happens and I don't think that Bram Stoker would have liked or approved of the psychedelic parts of the film nor do I believe that is what he had in mind. What were they thinking? And the rest of the film is very dull.My childhood memories of this film were "it's quite good" until I saw it again recently and now I've changed my mind. I guess just seeing Dracula and the psychedelic colors were enough for me as a kid but not anymore.3/10

LOUIS JOURDAN, for all his charm and elegance as an actor, does nothing to increase his acting reputation with his lackluster portrait of the evil vampire count. Moreoever, despite the attempt to tell "all" of the Bram Stoker tale, the end result is bound to disappoint any fan of Dracula expecting real Gothic horror or suspense.The production has the sort of trimmings you'd expect from a BBC made-for-TV movie produced in the late '70s, but it plays more like a stuffy Victorian melodrama without a sharp focus on the heart of the tale, the count himself. Instead, it treats all of the subsidiary characters to a close inspection (including Renfield), and gives us a Dr. Van Helsing who is unabashedly overplayed by FANK FINLAY in the worst sort of "watch my acting" way. Not since Paul Muni hammed up the role of Chopin's tutor in A SONG TO REMEMBER ('45) have I seen the camera hogged by such a big slice of ham. Furthermore, JACK SHEPHERD plays Renfield with wild-eyed histrionics that defy any sort of reality the weird and unsettling character should have, possibly a fault of director Philip Saville. By contrast, Jourdan's Count Dracula is a study in subtlety.The cast is merely adequate, going through their paces without much flair or style, and the result is a tepid, passionless thriller which is supposed to be fraught with Gothic chills. After a promising opening full of the proper atmosphere, this is a sleep-inducing version which wanders too far and wide from the main thrust of the tale with a talky narrative that never really comes to life the way vampires are expected to.

Story-wise, this is similar to the 1990's version with Gary Oldman in the title role.Production-wise, this is more or less what you'd expect from 1970's BBC.But there is no actual way that performance-wise, any of these actors could be considered the quintisential anybody, and that very much includes Louis Jourdan as Count Dracula himself. The entire production featured characters who were on roughly the same emotional level throughout the whole thing; for Jourdan, that level was rather dull. He was not creepy, charming, imposing, or anything else that Dracula should be.Very disappointing.

The 1970s were not the best decade for Count Dracula and vampires.(that distinction is still held by the 1960s). The horror movies of the time focused on the slasher sub genre and things were changing. But out of the dark, came the best version of Dracula ever made! The Dracula story is so well known that I will not go into it.Basically however, it is about a small group of people struggling against an epidemic of vampirism, propagated by the vampire lord known as 'Count Dracula' A vampire as you definitely know, is a dead human who has been brought back by the powers of darkness. In order to sustain this foul 'unlife' as it is called, they must regularly drink the blood of human beings. The victims then die and rise as vampires themselves. Vampires have many supernatural powers which aid them such as the ability to transform into a variety of animals and super strength. They can also control the minds of their victims.The Script features lines that work WITH Jourdan, and the rest of the dialog is well done as well, giving a perfect description of what a vampire is, and revealing that they exist in order to multiply the evils of the world. They make vampires with each victim they take, and they need victims so they can make more vampires etc. The direction is crisp, with most of the scenes presented flawlessly.The Music score deserves a special mention. The film is creepy in a subtle way and the music helps that. In particular, is an eerie flute piece which manages to build a feeling of anticipation.Four of the actors/actresses do extremely well in their roles. Louis Jourdan gives the best Count Dracula performance ever. Of all the Draculas I have seen, he behaves the most like a real person who became a vampire would act in my opinion. He is charismatic, and menacing in a very low key way. For example, in one scene, he is confronted with a cross wielded by Van Helsing saying a prayer in Latin and Jourdan says, ''It's always more convincing in Latin isn't it? You give an order to retreat, using a cross as your talisman.'' In another scene, when he doesn't reflect in mirrors, he calmly removes the mirror from another person and says, ''The trouble with mirrors, is that they don't reflect quite enough.'' He has suave sophistication and pulls the role off better than anyone else ever has or ever will.Another great performance here is Frank Finley as Van Helsing, the older vampire hunter. He does very well at capturing the essence of the role and will live on in the memories of many!Also, Jack Shepard does well as Renfield, Dracula's insane minion. He is gentlemanly, yet also eccentric at the same time and is prone to fits of rage and/or sorrow. Shepard really manages to nail the character!Last, but mentionable. Judy Bowker plays a good Mina. She is very concerned, yet she seems very wise in several scenes. She is also brave enough to take part in the final battle. As for the rest of the cast, they are adequate in their roles, but nothing special. Yet have no fear, the notorious 'Reeves brand' did not manage to get any of their wood products in here(HAHA!) What really makes this film unique however, is it's surrealistic quality. In some scenes, things are colored in unnatural ways. Other times, characters faces are superimposed over the screen in a psychedelic style. In one scene, the screen is a fuzzy black and white and everyone's voices are deep. Especially notable, is Draculas second attack on Lucy. Everything is colored red and black in a beautiful, otherworldly way. The surrealism adds a strange feel to the film that works with it to achieve near perfection......So if you are in the mood for a Dracula movie that is very well acted, yet strange and otherworldly, pick this one up! It is the best version ever made!