ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

jacobjohntaylor1 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.

Neil Doyle 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.

minamurray 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.

ashley wetherall 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.