Customer Reviews:
Lacks horror, lacks thrills, lacks blood, lacks special effects, but does contain a completely miscast Count Dracula........2008-02-08
When I ordered this DVD I was looking forward to see a dramatisation that closely resembled the story of the book. However it must be said that this BBC-version of the familiar tale, does no justice to the thrills of Bram Stokers original work. This film is - compared both with the high drama of the book, and also with other Dracula film-adaptions - extremely boring. It is very slow-paced, and the focus of the film/mini-series is misplaced at times. Example: the horror scenes are tedious and undramatic, the same vampire-attack, or this or that, being filmed for so long that surprise and shock are competely lost. I can plainly say that I was bored, and found myself sitting in the sofa and waiting for some horror scene to get finished. All in all, I had to view the film in four portions, and it was hard-going getting started.
For those that do not know the plot and the franchise: Its about a Vampire lord (Count Dracula) of the medieval kind, that tries to invade London in order to occupy the women of Victorian England, while their men tries to protect them. The book is brilliant in all aspects; by far the best Gothic horror-novel I have read, and also the best Vampire-Novel/story I know of.
This series however is already spoiled by the miscast and misdirected Louis Jordan as the Vampire-villain. Where is the wolfish, batlike, medieval warrior-vampire of the book??? What we get is a laughable don-Juan-wanna-be, looking like he`s escaped from a 70-ties cold-war-spy film. Louis Jordan don`t behave fiendish, he`s not scary; frankly I can`t think of a single reason why they should pick him to portray the Roumanian Count. Also miscast is Van Helsings role. Without strenght, and the intense energy of the Van Helsing of the book, he`s here being reduced to merely-kind-old-man, and tha acting lacks willpower and intensity. The two heroin-characters are however well-acted, and resembles Mina Murray/Harker and Lucy Westenra of the book, but in the film they are made sisters.
The film is in sum, boring and undramatic, lacking pace and thrills. Film music is reduced to a minimum, special effects are dull (some of them had been better left out), and make up are almost nonexistent. Bram Stoker himself loved operatic music, and was a man of theater, and it is strange to think why they`ve done so little in the way making the mini-series more dark, intense and horrible, taken this into account.
If you study Dracula film-adaptions, you should probably see this not to have missed it. However, if you look for entertainment, you would do better to leave it all toghether. My opinion is that it is well-meant, but boring. Try the book instead. If you don`t like to read, get it on audio book.
And so, by 2008, there is not a single movie or television-adaption of the book, that is faithful to the story of the book. and also manages to capture the intensity, the weirdness, the moral, the drama and the thrilling high adventure of the book.
Are we to wait forever???
The Closes Adaption so Far !.......2007-12-27
This is definitely the closes film version to the book. Unfortunately I have no idea why the makers decided to drop one of the key characters, Arthur Holmwood ? Instead the American character Quincey Morris becomes him in this version which explains Quincey Holmwood ? (Or does it ?)Still a great telling of the story & a fantastic Dracula in the guise of Louis (Gigi) Jourdan. But you can't help chuckling at Susan Penhaligan playing dead while Frank Finlay is stuffing her mouth with garlic before he decapitates her. A definite must for all Dracula Fan's.
Count Kamal Khan.......2007-10-27
The BBC's 1977 adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel is probably the most faithful version of Dracula in all of TV or film. Genuinely scary in places and benefiting from some great location shooting (that done in Whitby, a major setting of the book, is particularly effective), this two-parter hasn't been seen on British TV in many years, and has therefore slipped into obscurity (though according to the IMDb it's a Halloween TV perennial in the US). It follows the book's structure almost exactly, and benefits from fine performances by Louis Jourdan (as a debonair Count), Frank Finlay (whose Dr Van Helsing is pitched halfway between Peter Cushing's steely action man and Anthony Hopkins' grey-haired eccentric), and Jack Shepherd (the only actor I've seen who doesn't slice some prime ham as Renfield).
Though its faithfulness to the book is (rightly) championed by many, it has to be noted that a couple of changes to the story have been made; Arthur Holmwood and Quincy P. Morris have morphed into one character (`Quincy P. Holmwood'), whilst Lucy and Mina are here sisters, as opposed to the book, in which they are simply friends. Still, these changes don't affect the drama one bit. Far superior to the dire John Badham effort of two years later, the 1992 Francis Coppola version, and even the 1931 classic with Bela Lugosi, this 156 minute TV movie is second only to Terence Fisher's 1958 film Horror of Dracula as the best adaptation yet produced.
Count Dracula (BBCTV 1977).......2007-10-07
Count Dracula (BBCTV 1977)
Billed as a 'gothic romance' written by Gerald Savoury, based on Bram Stoker's Dracula, this is clearly (albeit with some differences) the most faithful representation of Stoker's work, on this thread so far. The BBC have always done period dramas very well, & this has all the typically authentic hallmarks of such a production. As a 2 part tv adaptation of just under 3hrs long, this is the longest version of Dracula on the thread, & the attention to detail is evident throughout.
Although it begins right from Harker's departure from England, paying some attention to the long coach journey to Transylvania, it's not too long before Harker arrives at the suitably atmospheric location of Dracula's castle. I have to confess to having some mixed feelings about Louis Jordan's Dracula from his first appearance. His first scenes are very accurate to Stoker's novel, which is careful not to present the Count too obviously as the 'evil monster', & gives Dracula a certain ambiguous quality that i've touched on before, & to emphasize this the words are softly spoken, & the Count's welcome is as courteous as described in Stoker's novel. But these aspects are covered equally well in Christopher Lee's Dracula, & even Jack Palance's Dracula, but unlike them, Louis Jourdan, obviously fairly small of stature & with the good looks of a matinee idol, IMO he just doesn't look the part, & he lacks the imposing, commanding presence that such previous actors have brought to the role. His almost flat delivery of his lines during the early scenes in the castle, as exemplified by the 'Children of the Night' line conveys little of the fascination projected by previous incarnations, & my interest in the character is piqued by creative aspects brought to the production, such as seeing Dracula's pointed fingernails, & hairy palms.
This is reinforced in the Harker's shaving scene at the castle. I like the way that Dracula is unseen in the mirror, & even takes it from Harker, his unreflected hand tapping the glass before throwing it out of the window. But again, Jourdan's delivery & interpretation just seems far too laid back. His whole approach to the character doesn't have the undercurrent of menace that is normally present, albeit in a subtle way, even in these early scenes. Again, it's the visual pointers that have more effect for me than Jourdan himself, like the reaction to Harker's shaving cut. Whilst Jourdan matter of factly states: 'You've cut yourself', it's left to the visual effects department to remind the viewer that Dracula is no normal man, & i think Jourdan's Dracula needs as much help as he can get from the BBC's production team!
It's certainly nice to see the inclusion of Dracula scaling his bat-like way down the castle walls. Full marks to the BBC for that bit, which looks really good. I have yet further issues i'm afraid with the 'Brides' scene. It's not so much the Brides themselves, so much as the way Dracula deals with the situation. I like the surreal way in which the scene is presented, (it's all very 1970's) - the dreamlike quality is very effective, but i was disappointed with Dracula's restrained reaction, which i felt could've been done with more dramatic impact. Although i did think that seeing the baby brought for the brides to feast on, was a good bit. I thought the blood red eyes & blood on their lips & faces was very effective. However, despite my reservations about Jourdan, i think this version comes up trumps elsewhere, & i must commend Bosco Hogan for an excellent portrayal of Harker during the first 45 minutes of this production. I thought his confrontational scene with Dracula was particularly good, & i really like the scene where he discovers Dracula & the 3 brides in the vaults of the castle, & makes a futile attempt to kill the Count. Very eerie! I really like those blood red eyes.
Elsewhere, the production does well, too. Back in England, Susan Penhaligon & Judi Bowker are both good as Lucy & Mina. Like the previous version, the 'ship of death' is seen only upon it's 'arrival' during the thunderstorm, but the scene works well, as does the use of a real bat, perched at the head of Lucy's bed. The scenes where Lucy falls under the vampire's spell are good. I like the way Lucy walks as if she's literally being magnetically pulled somehow by the Count, & the scene where Mina discovers Dracula noisily grunting & slurping as he feeds from Lucy lend an effective animalistic touch, & visually the whole thing looks suitably spooky. The further feeding scenes are similarly effective, & i like the contrast between almost sexual like ecstacy that Lucy displays during the vampire's feeding, & the rather disconcerting gasping exhaustion of the aftermath.
In terms of pacing, i've previously watched this version in one go & had no problem with it, but after watching it for a second time with Part 1 & Part 2 over two nights, i found it even more beneficial. In Part 2, we meet Van Helsing, who comes to tend to Lucy in her plight. A veteran of much tv & film, i think Frank Finlay plays the part well, although i've yet to find a performance that i enjoy quite as much as Cushing's portrayal. Jack Shepherd's outing as Renfield is also noteable. Pysically, he's slightly remenicent of David Tennant, & he turns out the most memorable performance of Renfield so far, i think. Although with a lengthy production like this, there's more time to actually put into representing the character, & it does this version good justice. Other characters such as Quincy, with his obviously fake American accent, don't fare quite so well!
In Lucy's weakened condition, we see the physical effects of the Dracula's visitations, as she examines her own slightly more pointed teeth after Van Helsing's first visit. After Dracula's final visit, in which he first appears as a wolf rather than a bat, Van Helsing notices that she has no reflection in the mirror, & Susan Penhaligon does a nice job of Lucy's startling pre-death vampiristic outburst, which is followed by a much more animalistic appearance as a fully fledged vampire, who's already attacked a young child, & tries to work her deadly charm on Quincy, before she is thwarted by Van Helsing, & finally staked in a bloody end, before being decapitated.
The scenes where Van Helsing & his accomplices begin the search of the Carfax estate are full of splendid gothic atmosphere, & the BBC sets looks really good. Meanwhile, Dracula transfers his attention toward Mina. The scenes where Mina later visits Renfield give Jack Shepherd a chance fullfill his role as Renfield to great effect. His meetings with Mina cause Renfield to turn against the Count, but he meets a grisly end....... Later when Dracula returns for Mina, there's some additional Stoker dialogue in the scene where under Dracula's influence, she drinks of his blood, that hasn't been used in previous versions, & there's also an interesting exchange between Dracula & Van Helsing/Harker, where the Count speaks of the nature of vampirism, making a comparison between: "The blood of a human for me, & a cooked bird for you". Although Jourdan's performance is still rather too understated for liking, he does at least manage to convey a slight arrogance during this confronation, & dismisses Van Helsing's religious slant of protecting human souls, with such dialogue as "Souls? - There is no blood to drink in souls!" Again, reinforcing the animalistic nature of the vampire condition, rather than the supernatural one.
The production continues to remain faithful to the novel as Van Helsing & Co go after Dracula. I really like the night time attack by the 3 brides who are trying to entice Mina, who is half linked to Dracula, away from Van Helsing's protection, But of course they fail, & are staked by Van Helsing during the daylight hours which follow. The race to the castle is conveyed well, & there's quite a bit of action along the way between the two parties, as the Count's gypsies try to protect their master. But eventually of course, Dracula's curse is once again lifted as Van Helsing finally the vampire in quite a dramatic finale!
So ends the first television adaptation by the BBC. I find this an enjoyable version, for it's authenticity, it's marevelous gothic atmosphere, & good production values, which include some intriguing visual effects, which although may date the production slightly, i think they enhance it as well, & give this version a certain originality. As mentioned before: I think the pacing is fine. Despite being the longest version so far, it didn't flag for me at all, anymore than a good Who 6 parter from the 70's.
I think most the performances were fine. Bosco Hogan, Jack Shephard, & Susan Penhaligon particularly stand up well IMO, whereas Frank Finlay's Van Helsing was solid, if a little less inspiring than some of rest of the cast, & of previous Van Helsings. (though not Herbert Lom) I would say the same thing of Louis Jourdan's interpretation of Dracula. I wouldn't say his performance was bad, but his portryal was far too restrained, to put it mildly, & even a bit dull in parts. He didn't really come alive on screen for me. I wish he could've swapped places with Christopher Lee in the Franco version! His lack of presence would've been far more suited. I stress again that he wasn't terrible or anything, but he just had no real impact, & for me personally loses points for this largely great BBC production, which excelled in most other departments.
With a Count Dracula that i enjoyed more, this version would've scored an 8.5/10, but as it stands, my final decision is 7.5/10. But it's still a very worthy version, & one that's well worth seeing.
A dracula adaptation that has bite.......2007-09-19
The BBC has always maintained a pretty solid reputation of providing great drama and adaptations of the classics and this 1977 version of stokers novel is a prime example.
"Count Dracula" is regarded by many as the most faithful working of the horror story to date and although lacking the menace of Christopher Lee's vampire, Louis Jourdan makes very good casting indeed.
But what really makes this adaptation so good? - well firstly the cast is a good one. Frank Finlay seems to be having a great time in the role as Van Helsing, while Judi Bowker and Susan Penhaligon make good vampire fodder. Also Jack Shepherd plays Renfield to perfection. But what i really love about this production are the outdoor locations. The shots of Mina and Lucy going up the huge flight of cliff steps at whitby and sitting on the clifftop bench overlooking the sea is just how you envisage stoker's novel- just as in the scene where Dracula first seduces a sleepwalking lucy in the clifftop churchyard in the dead of night. Also the confrontation between the vampire hunters and an undead Susan Penhaligon in londons Highgate cemetry is quite chilling, especially the scene where they drive a stake into her as it looks very convincing.
Lame special effects such as rubber bats and a dreadful mist effect coming though a bedroom window don't particularly help the production but one must think of the time this was made. All in all, a very good effort and this certainly ranks high above recent attempts at the dracula story.
UK DVD:
- Creep [2004]
- Creepshow 2
- Cursed [2005]
- Dark Water [2003]
- Dead End [2003]
- Doctor Who - Planet Of Evil [1975]
- Earth 2: The Complete Series [1995] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
- Embrace Of The Vampire [1994]
- Eureka: Season One (REGION 1) (NTSC)
- Freddy vs Jason [2003]
UK DVD List
UK DVD
![Count Dracula [1977]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21iXbp-8qfL.jpg)
All Television
|
Television
|
Categories
|
DVD
|
Video
![Dracula [1979]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000I2IZPC.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Dracula [1979]
![Brides Of Dracula [1960]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000W22234.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Brides Of Dracula [1960]
Casting The Runes
![From Beyond The Grave [1973]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000VEBGZI.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
From Beyond The Grave [1973]
![Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde [1981]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000MV8GX0.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde [1981]
![Count Dracula [1977]](http://www.bill88.com/buy.gif)
![Count Dracula [1977] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21zC3CVwABL.jpg)
![From Beyond the Grave [1973] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000TUDBGG.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![Horror Rises from the Tomb [1972] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000V5EYXI.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![The Loreley's Grasp [1973] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000V5EYX8.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![Count Yorga, Vampire/The Return of Count Yorga [1971] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0007R4T0S.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![Jess Franco's Count Dracula [1973] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000K7VL56.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)