SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Rainey Dawn Louis Jourdan as Dracula is fine to me, I have no problem with him as the Count. I really don't have a problem with most all of the other actors either - pretty much everyone was fine in the film.What I dislike about it is that it's rather drab and dry - it has no pizazz to it. The only pizazz we have is a psychedelic red and orange film with some black & white footage when something happens and I don't think that Bram Stoker would have liked or approved of the psychedelic parts of the film nor do I believe that is what he had in mind. What were they thinking? And the rest of the film is very dull.My childhood memories of this film were "it's quite good" until I saw it again recently and now I've changed my mind. I guess just seeing Dracula and the psychedelic colors were enough for me as a kid but not anymore.3/10

can_i_give_up_now 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.

eugene1001us 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.

MerryMarvelManiac After waiting years to see this, I was expecting something incredible with all the rave reviews here on IMDb. I suspect that anyone giving this 1977 film more than average compliments must be remembering it from their childhood, or have very poor taste in film. There are so many flaws, it is hard to list them all, but one should start with the Count himself. As Dracula, Louis Jourdan exhibits little to no personality. He brings absolutely nothing to the role, and appears to simply be reading his lines from a teleprompter, which brings us to the second problem. Exterior shots are filmed, while interiors are shot with video cameras. The lack of consistency here really is distracting. The weird special effects are also very intrusive. The film repeatedly shifts from color to black and white, and then to some bizarre Andy Warholesque effects in bright red, orange and blue. The rest of the cast do an admirable job, but nothing to write home about. Overall very disappointing. If you want to see a GOOD Dracula film from the 1970's, I recommend the 1979 version with Frank Langella.