Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

shoobe01-1 Unusually authentic, and effectively scripted, for a filmed work from a written work. Some unusually good choices such as a handsome and charming Count which leads to other useful, relevant choices of desire vs terror.But... it is 1977 BBC. Video interiors, film exteriors. Hideous VFX. Strange musical cues, and long stretches with no audio. Oh the posterizing! It's horrible! Oh, and pretty poor sound quality, with no subs on the DVD I got, so often hard to tell what anyone is saying. If I didn't already know what was up, would be hard to watch.Would love to see this exact script remade by someone. In the current TV era, it seems like it would go awfully well. Stretch to 4 hours or so and make a week of it, or a streaming binging series.

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.

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.

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.