Excellent, Without a doubt!!

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

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.

This 1977 BBC miniseries, written by Gerald Savory and starring Lois Jourdan, is indeed most faithful version of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel. However, the excellent story is told with all the anemic dullness of BBC Jane Austen adaptation. Sets, costumes and photography are dull and despite small budget, this lacks even camp charm - just like Judi Bowker's pale Mina , everything is decent but lifeless. 1992 version told the story with sumptuous imagery of Victorian and Gothic and (no pun intended) full-blooded life, so did Hammer's 1958 masterpiece, 1979 version was stylish and fun, and both Universals 1931 classics, English and Spanish, had atmospheric beauty. This pales in comparison to all of them.

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.