Count Dracula (1973)

One of my all time favorites.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Apparently this is the most faithful screen adaptation of Dracula made so far. I haven't read the book in ages so i'd have to re-read to confirm that (which i just might do). At any rate, besides that I've got to say that I was a bit disappointed- last time I watched this film I gave it a 10 out of 10 rating. I think I may have been struck by the appearances of both Christopher Lee and Klaus Kinski, both great actors and both in adaptations of Dracula that I had seen in the past. Unfortunately, like many of Franco's other films, the pacing is a bit languid. As many others have written, I did expect a sleazier film, however I rather enjoyed that it wasn't. I had already seen Vampyros Lesbos and that's all we need from this man in that field. There may be no psychedelia but the giallo visuals are amazing. To truly have one of the great stories, like Dracula, filmed as a giallo piece is probably a wet dream of mine and so i'll chalk my high rating up to that as well. (And no, Argento's Dracula 3D does not count) This time around I'm gonna have to deduct half a point because it wasn't quite as revolutionary as I thought, but it's still one of the best Dracula adaptations i've ever seen, barring Nosferatu 1979 of course. I've got to say I like it more than Hammer's Dracula, which I'd never been the biggest fan of.

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.

I made the mistake of thinking this was a "Hammer" film, because I assumed that any vampire film with Christopher Lee must be one of those, but it is not. That's not to say this is a bad film by any means, because it's a rather decent film, but not great. The other stars include Herbert Lom, who was very good, Klaus Kinski, who was underused, Paul Muller, Maria Rohm, Soledad Miranda, Fred Williams, and Jack Taylor. A sad note is that Miranda(Lucy)was killed in a car accident in late 1970, only a few months after this film came out. Some of the good: grainy atmosphere, creepy music, and Lom's portrayal of Van Helsing. Some of the bad: the Count whispering "Lucy" too many times, no genuine scares, and the weak death of Dracula. I would recommend this film if you're really into the genre, but not if you're looking for real vampire chills. Let me add that I still consider this a decent enough film that had good moments that probably outweighed the bad, and I caught this film completely by chance.

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.