Unusually authentic, and effectively scripted, for a filmed work from a written work. Some unusually good choices such as a handsome and charming Count which leads to other useful, relevant choices of desire vs terror.But... it is 1977 BBC. Video interiors, film exteriors. Hideous VFX. Strange musical cues, and long stretches with no audio. Oh the posterizing! It's horrible! Oh, and pretty poor sound quality, with no subs on the DVD I got, so often hard to tell what anyone is saying. If I didn't already know what was up, would be hard to watch.Would love to see this exact script remade by someone. In the current TV era, it seems like it would go awfully well. Stretch to 4 hours or so and make a week of it, or a streaming binging series.

It was good, don't get me wrong - in fact this is the most accurate adaption of Stoker's narrative that has ever been made - but honestly, I found it a bit campy and it was rather slow moving.When watching this film, I had to constantly remind myself that it was made in 1977 by the BBC, so the effects weren't going to be great; the sets were going to be made of rubber and cardboard and that sort of thing, but I found that I was easily pulled out of the movie and was constantly reminded that I was watching something fictitious.When I'm reading the novel, it's extremely easy for me to get sucked in and almost believe that what I'm reading is actually going on. When the book ends, so does the illusion, but while I'm reading the book, everything presented to me is done realistically.This film, however accurate it may be, doesn't do that for me. I honestly laughed out loud when I first saw Dracula bouncing down the side of his Castle because in the novel, he's described as going out in a "lizard-fashion" which would imply a sort of jerky, yet speedy crawling motion (see 'Chapter 3, May 12 Entry: Later' to read what I'm talking about). It's things like this that make it hard for me to give this a full 10 out of 10 stars.Overall, a good film, though if you're looking for something with a little more action and a little more bang, I'd recommend the Coppola version of the film, especially if you're not quite as concerned about the faithfulness to Stoker's original.

It is near perfection. The acting along with the eerie music make this a movie to remember as I have since a child. As I mentioned up top in the summary, the silly looking bat props are a serious flaw but otherwise there is nothing to fault. In fact, the effects that are used are quite good despite being simple(mist, negative film images, etc.) I just finished watching it a short while ago after 30 years. Without trying to sound cliché, it was like reliving a memory. Now that I have it on DVD I can go back again and again...at least until I get sick of it. I note there are other reviewers who also, as I do, can't figure out why this movie didn't have more staying power than it did.

The BBC's first attempt to make their own version of Bram Stoker's classic is not only the better one of the two (the second was made in 2006) but also one of the best adaptations of the book and also the most faithful one. Aside from few little changes, like making Mina and Lucy sisters and uniting characters of Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris to one named Quincey Holmwood, this TV film follows Stoker's book faithfully, having most of its dialog directly from the pages of the book. This is a relief to yours truly, for I am a big fan of Stoker and have been amazed how many versions base their plot on theater plays or simplify the story or set it in modern era or make Dracula fall in love with either Mina or Lucy.Showing that BBC already knew quality back in the 1970's, the team working on "Count Dracula" has put an effort to sets and costumes to create the feeling of the late 19'Th century Victorian era England, with its people living by high morals, yet being easily tempted by the arriving Prince of Darkness. The music is very peaceful, not having any dynamic shock effects in it, but reminding more of the old world's music. The only minus point of the film is really its special effects that are not only old but also cheap, considering the TV film budget.The actors are over all doing a great job, varying from decent to superb. Frank Finlay is the most closest to the Professor Abraham Van Helsing of Stoker's book. Finlay plays Van Helsing as the older, wise, brave and gentle professor, who deeply cares for the people around him and is not afraid to defy the vampire lord. Judi Bowker is the best Mina I've ever seen in any film version. She is young woman in love, yet mature enough to bravely understand what they're dealing with and what might be the worst outcome. She loves her fiancé and her family, but is also slightly tempted by Dracula. Instead of playing Renfield as yet another insane, giggling servant of Dracula, Jack Shepherd gives a marvelous performance as a desperate man who serves evil but finds courage in himself to defy it in the end. This film also goes against the usual tradition of casting a bad actor to play Jonathan Harker. Bosco Hogan is the only good Harker I've ever seen. He really makes the character believable, not just a stone faced man who speaks monotonously like so many others (David Manners, Keanu Reeves etc.). Mark Burns as Dr. Seward, Susan Penhaligon as Lucy and Richard Barnes as Quincey don't bring anything new to their roles, but are decent enough not to ruin the film with their presence.Ironically, the only performance not so faithful to Stoker, comes from Louis Jourdan as Dracula. This however is not a bad thing. Instead of copying Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, or playing Dracula more faithfully as a furious warlord (which Jack Palance had done few years earlier in another TV adaptation), Jourdan plays Dracula as calm, calculating demon who seduces his victims by offering them power and eternal life, but who is just coldly using them for his own advantages. In fact Jourdan portraits Dracula as a sort of Anti-Christ creature, who is looking for disciples and going against God. In one of the scenes Van Helsing raises his cross against Dracula and starts to enchant a prayer in Latin, only to receive an arrogant comment from the Count of how prayer always sounds more convincing in Latin. Jourdan may not be most faithful Dracula, but certainly one of the best, making Dracula seem far superior to humans.All in all, BBC's "Count Dracula" is the closest adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel to date, and to those who loved the book it is an enjoyment to watch. I should warn though that film is rather long, about three hours, for it was aired in two parts originally.