Am I Missing Something?

it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

This is a great movie. This version of Dracula is the closed to the book. It is best on one of the best horror book ever. So it is one of the best horror movies ever. It is very scary. A r.o.m.a.n.i.n vampire movie to England to find new victims. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If you do not get scared of this movie. Then no movie will scary you. This is a classic. Louis J.o.u.r.d.a.n who play the part of Dracula also played a Bound villain. In O.c.t.o.p.u.s.s.y staring Roger More. He did a great job in this movie. B.o.s.c.o Hogan who play the part of Jonathan H.a.r.k.e.r was also great in this movie. B.o.s.c.o Hogan was also in King Arthur.

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.

I have a comment for Author: kriitikko from Kirkkonummi, Finland. I will first use his comments and then respond."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." You are exactly correct. In the novel, Van Helsing states that because Dracula has what he attributes to a be mere "child's mind", that he is "slow to make haste". He uses the Latin term: Festina Lente, which means Hasten slowly or as Van Helsing puts it, "slow to make haste".This however proves to be Dracula's ultimate downfall.Though Van Helsing also warned Jonathan that "if he (Dracula) dared to use his full array of his powers, he would have been long beyond our (meaning the vampire hunters) reach".Thus proving his point. And Dracula's arrogance about believing himself to be vastly superior to mere mortals. He thought himself to be so superior, that in the end they finally defeated him. Because he failed to prepare for the fact that humans in the late 19th Century were better able to combat him, than human contemporaries of his 15th Century.

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!