Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Nigel P For some years, Christopher Lee had expressed a disenchantment with Hammer films' variations on the Dracula theme. In 1969, he explained to his fan club that he was shortly to embark on a film for Jess Franco which promised to be a most authentic version of Bram Stoker's novel. This is the result.For anyone familiar with Franco's films, this contains no real surprises. The storyline is laboriously told, but at least – thanks to Stoker – there is a storyline. Amidst the many zoom-ins (some of which work – for example, Renfield's delirium is communicated well by their inclusion – and some of them don't), much of the running time focuses on Dracula's possession of Lucy, who we never get to know before his involvement. Therefore, we are not sure whether her robotic manner is the result The Count's mental grip, whether she has always been that way, or Soledad Miranda – who looks stunning, of course - is delivering a performance so understated as to be somnambulistic.Alongside Lee, we have Klaus Kinski, who could have made a memorable Renfield, but is given little to do other than eat the flies he keeps in a box hidden in the latrine! Herbert Lom is a splendidly solemn Van Helsing, and Fred Williams is a fine Jonathan Harker. It is worth mentioning that Dracula, in the novel from which this is apparently closely adapted, had an abhorrence of mirrors and would not allow them in the castle. Here, Harker has barely walked through the impressive main door when he and The Count are confronted by a massive wall mirror revealing, of course, that the earnest host casts no reflection. It seems as if Dracula is advertising the curse of his vampirism.The locations and buildings are mostly suitably austere and impressive. There is a scene where the vampire hunters appear to be attacked/mesmerised by a menagerie of stuffed animals coming to life. This is either very effective (the camera swoops in close for us to see their glassy eyes and unmoving slavering jaws) or laughable if you make the mistake of presuming the director intends us to think the animals are real.Christopher Lee is not aided by the direction in the way he was by Hammer's crew, and without careful camera angles and lighting, is occasionally exposed as giving a hammy performance. That said, his strength of presence imposes nicely. His demise is fumbled – it serves to be both anti-climactic and poorly realised. Buried beneath flames, his despatch seems to be a direct influence to John-Forbes Robertson's final fate in 'Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires (1974).' It would be unfair of me to express the opinion that this lacks the polish of even Hammer's weakest Dracula outing ('Scars of Dracula', made this same year), because there is a deliberately different 'feel' to this. It meanders, parts are under-written and there is clearly very little budget. But it is pretty accurate to Bram Stoker's novel and is enjoyable on its own merits. A flawed but enjoyable, very worthy addition to the many Dracula adaptions.

lonchaney20 This film of Bram Stoker's legendary novel is more admirable for the director's ambition than for the final product. The goal at the time was to produce the first faithful adaptation of Dracula, with both the narrative and tone just as Stoker intended. This noble intent even convinced Christopher Lee to don the cape once again, even as he was growing increasingly frustrated at his association with the role. Franco nails the tone (no small feat considering his love of excessive sex and sadism), and reins his experimental tendencies in to produce a quieter, more disciplined atmosphere, but his goal of filming the novel as is was doomed from the start. The scenes in Dracula's castle are truly magical, featuring Christopher Lee's most thrilling performance in what is arguably his most iconic role, and here we can see some glimmer of what might have been. Once Lee's scenes were finished, however, some unprincipled producers absconded with the remaining budget, leaving Franco to foot the bill himself on the remaining sections of the story. Because of this the scenes outside of Transylvania are noticeably cheaper and more rushed, both from a narrative and a photographic standpoint. While Franco struggled to remain as faithful to Stoker's story as possible, the compressed running time and diminishing funds simply wouldn't allow it. If the final result is somewhat disappointing, the film is still a pleasure to watch thanks to its terrific cast and a phenomenal soundtrack by Bruno Nicolai. And while a well behaved Franco is generally less interesting than a maverick Franco (for instance, compare this to Franco's other vampire films), he and D.P. Manuel Merino still conjure up some genuinely eerie moments, with the definite highlight being Jonathan Harker's nightmarish imprisonment in Dracula's castle. If nothing else, I love one hilarious exchange that takes place between Van Helsing (a sadly unremarkable performance by Herbert Lom) and Harker. After Van Helsing describes all of Dracula's insane supernatural powers, an outraged Harker asks, "Why doesn't someone arrest him?!" Incidentally, Franco often claimed that Stuart Freeborn worked on this film, and that Freeborn based the design of Yoda on Franco himself. While the physical resemblance between Yoda and Jess Franco is undeniable, the lackluster effects work in Dracula makes his story very difficult to believe.

Red-Barracuda At the time of its release, this Jess Franco film was promoted as being the most faithful adaption of Bram Stoker's 19th century Gothic horror novel Dracula there had hitherto been. I think that may well have been true, as it features a mustachioed Dracula who gets visibly younger as the film progresses, as well as some other never before examined details from the book. However, it was still a very loose adaption in many other ways, with much omitted and even some bizarre inventions (those boulders at the end!). But maybe the biggest issue that hampered it achieving its lofty goal was a lack of budget. The sets are often threadbare and there are cheap props, such as rubber bats and such. But, interestingly, in many ways it is better than the later multi-million dollar Francis Ford Coppola version, which was also promoted as being the most faithful version. This newer film took far huger liberties with the story and characters and it also had a much less effective cast. For my money Franco had better-suited actors in virtually every role in his film, in particular with Christopher Lee in the title role, Klaus Kinski perfect as the insane Renfield, Herbert Lom provided nice gravitas as Van Helsing, the enigmatic beauty Soledad Miranda is wonderful as Lucy and Maria Rohm also very alluring in the role of Mina. Even the fairly unremarkable Fred Williams is still decidedly better than Keanu Reeves in the Jonathan Harker role! It's a very good cast that Franco had to work with.It does benefit from being shot using genuine Gothic European locations and consequently is quite atmospheric. It's also notable for being one of the decidedly less salacious Franco films from the period. There's no sleaze here and it really does feel like he was going for something a bit classier than he mainly went for. It's not among his best films for be fair – he seemed to do better work when he was working more from a sexploitation direction – yet it's certainly one of his most story-driven and coherent. For Dracula devotees, this is certainly a film to check out, in order to compare and contrast with others. Ultimately, its low budget does scupper its ambitions somewhat, yet it still has enough about it that's interesting and works.

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki Film has a few problems, but Christopher Lee and Klaus Kinski (basically in an extended cameo, he doesn't appear on-screen until a half an hour in, and he has no lines of dialogue) are both fun to watch, the set designs and décor are mostly well done; good rainy/foggy, blueish tinged scenes of the castle. Grainy photography worked well, or was that just my version of it? Opening train ride is well done, quite similar to sequence in original novel, as are several other sequences, primarily in film's first half. The screenplay eventually deviates a bit from the source material, but it is still a closer adaptation of it than others.6'4" Lee looks quite convincing as Dracula, in white hair and Fu Manchu moustache, similar to novel's early description of a frail Dracula - until he begins drinking other's blood, which causes him to become younger and healthier.Three-foot long candles covered in cobwebs seems a bit forced and clichéd, when everything else is clean. This effect looks a bit like a childish gimmick. The floors also looked out of place, like filmmakers had splurged on walls and furniture but then put them in empty warehouse.Lighting and colour composition are assets, but it looks a bit too much like a photographed stage-play or a TV-movie, bound to its impressive sets.But the good outweighs the bad here, and the movie is good fun to watch.