Sadly Over-hyped

I wanted to but couldn't!

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Like most people on here I also thought this BBC version was the most faithful adaptation of Stoker's original novel. Granted, they have changed a few details; for example, Mina and Lucy are sisters, the characters of Quincy and Arthur have been amalgamated and Jonathan visits the Count at his castle in Bohemia rather than Transylvania, but these minor deviations aside, I think even Stoker himself would have said this version was fairly close to what he had in mind while writing his famous novel. Being from the UK I have grown up with the BBC and the programmes it produced in the 1970's. Watching 'Count Dracula' as an adult on DVD was, in many ways, a very pleasant nostalgic journey back to my childhood. Yes, I agree the budget did impose certain restrictions on the production...fake bats and obvious stage sets instantly spring to mind.....along with the mix of video and film but, to me, instead of being negative points these so called 'flaws' all added to its charm. That said, it also had some genuinely outstanding points; it is truly creepy, fantastically acted, perfectly cast and and had excellent script. The undoubted highlight for me has to be the location filming in Whitby cemetery; the scenes of Lucy being attacked in the graveyard were actually filmed in the very graveyard that inspired Stoker when he was writing the novel back in the 1890's. Cut to Francis Ford Copploa's 1992 version....which also makes a claim to being a faithful adaptation of the novel... and it doesn't even mention Whitby at all. As for Louis Joudan, in my opinion, he is simply the best ever Dracula; understated, sophisticated, menacing and arrogant. Both Lugosi and Oldman were good but they were a bit too camp and shouted their evil from the rooftops. Jourdan, on the other hand, whispered in your ear and chilled the very depths your soul without you even really knowing why. In a word, genius. Another role worth noting is Jack Shepherd as Renfield. Again, not a typical over the top portrayal of a madman in an asylum but rather a somewhat more complex character; a normal man tortured by very specific moments of madness. The scene when he begs Dr. Seward to release him is truly, truly magnificent. I'll not hide the fact that I am a Dracula fan. I love Stoker's original novel and I love the Victorian Gothic ambiance that it contains. While the BBC's version doesn't quite match Coppola's film for atmosphere and special effects, it certainly makes up for it with its script, the quality of the acting and its faithfulness to the original novel. It has to be, without doubt, my single favourite version of the Dracula story.

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.

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 1977 BBC version of Count Dracula is without a doubt the very best version filmed so far. Many Dracula fans may say that the hammer version of the story is better. But for me this is the one. I first viewed it when it was broadcast in 1977 in two parts and I have seen it many time's since. I didn't know it back then, not having read the book as I was only 6 years old ,but it was and still is the most faithful version of the story. Most of the actors look like the have stepped from the pages of the Bram Stoker novel with the possible exception of Louis Jordan's Count, who is suave and elegant until his blood lust is aroused. This is also the first version to show some of the more horrifying moments from the novel, such as the brides and the baby. Plus many of the actual locations that appear in the novel are actually used. There are a few minor draw backs in the BBC version but they are mainly to do with the budget restraints. For example some scenes' are filmed in video and some in film giving it an uneven feel and some of the special optical effects are very dated. But if your like me you can forgive these. To finish off all I can say is that I wish Frances ford Coppola had watched this version before he started filming his rather disjointed , overblown 1992 version. The 1977 BBC version of Count Dracula is a master class in how to bring slow burning Victorian terror to the screen.