IMDb user comments for
Count Dracula (1977) (TV)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

42 comments in total

---

16 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Best, and Most Faithful, Version of the Story Ever Filmed!, 10 January 2004

Author: TorontoJediMaster from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

This is, without a doubt, the best and most faithful version of Bram Stoker's novel ever filmed.

Anyone who went to see the 1992 Coppola version and was disappointed at it's failure to live up to its billing as a faithful rendition of the novel, then they should check out this superlative effort by the BBC.

The cast is uniformly excellent. Louis Jourdan gives a tremendous performance as the Count. He brings a subtle menace to the role that few actors have ever been able to do. He has none of Gary Oldman's over-the-top theatrics or bizarre appearance. When Jourdan's Dracula answers the door, he appears as a normal looking man, dressed in black. The signs of something amiss are subtle; not in your face. When Dracula insists on helping Harker with his heavy trunk (which Harker had been forced to drag, due to the weight) he effortlessly picks it up and carries it in and up the stairs. He projects charm and menace in the role. This is also the first version that has his descending down the outside wall of his castle like an insect.

Frank Finlay is also wonderful as Professor Van Helsing. He makes the character a kindly, likeable man, but with an unbreakable determination. He is determined to stop Dracula, but also is genuinely concerned about the welfare of companions in the crusade; as well as any potential victims -i.e.his genuine horror at discovering the vampiric Lucy has attacked a small child. (Compare that to Anthony Hopkins overacting every scene he's in). Bosco Hogan is probably the best actor to play Jonathan Harker. And, Judi Bowker is the perfect Mina. She projects innocence, intelligence and is more than able to handle herself in a rough situation. (She saves Jonathan by shooting one of the Count's bodyguards off his back). Susan Penhaligon is fine as the doomed Lucy. Mark Burns, Jack Shepard and Richard Barnes give very good work as -respectively- Seward, Renfield and Quincy.

The sets are marvellous. The castle looks creepy and authentic (both interiors and exteriors). The homes look like people actually live in them. As an added bonus, there are actually scenes filmed in Whitby.

There are some deviations from the novel (Mina and Lucy are sisters. The character of Arthur and Quincy are merged into one -Quincy Holmwood). However, compared to other adaptions these are very minor. (None of the Mina being a reincarnation of his lost love...None of the whole story being turned into a parlour mystery that never leaves Dr. Seward's living room...etc)

I cannot recommend this film highly enough. If anyone enjoys Dracula films, go check it out. The DVD picture and sound quality are amazing. They also restore a scene cut from TV viewings where Dracula's brides feast on a baby.

This version was shut up in BBC vaults for over 25 years. Now that it's been released I sincerely hope that more people can see it, and it can be accorded it's deserving title as the most faithful and well done version of the novel, ever.

---

10 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting take on Bram Stoker's classic..., 24 February 2003

Author: David H. Schleicher from New Jersey, USA

Directed "Masterpiece Theater" style and featuring a mondo bizarre performance from Louis Jordan as the Count (check out those eyes!) that is so bad it's good and often just plain creepy, this is the lost "classic" of the myriad of Dracula film/TV adaptations. This isn't high art (for high art see both versions of "Nosferatu"), but as a literary adaptation, this is near perfection. With it's reserved Victorian settings and sufficiently Gothic scenes of fog, castles, manors and moors, you get the feeling that these are the types of scenes Bram Stoker envisioned when writing his vampire tale. Although I am big fan of Coppola's 1992 version of the tale, this version is probably the most faithful to the book and to Stoker's vision. Kudos to the BBC.

---

11 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
A Halloween tradition for 25 years, 14 November 2004
Author: Am3bi from usa

One of my favorite horror movies of all time. I saw this movie on PBS when it first premiered back in '77 or '78. I recorded it a couple of years later and have watched it almost every Halloween since. My kids have grown up with this as a tradition. Sometimes we skip a year or two but always come back to this classic.

For me the movie captures the essence of the book. Several of my favorite scenes are not necessarily the most important. In the opening while Jonathan is riding in the carriage and they pass the woman praying at the roadside shrine. Waiting all alone at the pass in the dead of night. The arrival of the Count's carriage. The late dinner with gold table service. The great scene of Jonathan shaving and the Count's sudden appearance unreflected in the mirror and his comment "The problem with mirrors is they don't show enough" as he nonchalantly drops the mirror out the window. Jonathan's growing horror as he begins to realize he's trapped. His escape to the decrepit chapel were he finds the blood stained vampires entranced in their coffins. The dreamy waltz like nightmares of Lucy's seduction. The rose pedals falling. Professor Van Helsling's scene where he's making cocoa; handing the first cup to his guest, joined by another he hands his next cup to him and then again until he's eventually made cocoa for everyone. The scene in the woods with Van Helsling, Mina and the three brides of Dracula (especially the terrorized horses bolting). The return to castle Dracula in the light of day.

Dracula is portrayed as both supernatural and human (never melodramatic or campy), very European, very Old World and of course, very tragic. He even is Biblical in his comments that "I make this world my domain" like Satan going to and fro, to and fro in the world.

For me great stories always have a feeling as if they were going on before we arrived and will continue after we leave. This story is like that. I feel as if the story does indeed go way back. And though it has a logical ending it seems as if it will go on. Truly a classic.

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Best "Dracula" Ever, 7 June 2003

Author: Mark from New Mexico

Faithful the novel, magnificently performed in every way. This mini-series showed how well a classic novel should be adapted. Coming only 2 years before Langella's performance, Louis Jordan showed how sexy a middle aged man can be in this role.

Twenty-five years after I first saw it, most of it stick in my memory as the greatest adaptation of Bram Stoker's timeless novel.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Memorable seventies BBC version, 10 September 2000
Author: Gary

I read a book about the inspiration behind Dracula which described the bloody real life reign of Carpathian ruler Vlad the Impaler which tells of a meeting between himself and two monks he had brought before him whom had witnessed one of his cruel massacres. One saved his own skin by obsequiously condoning the Lord's right to enforce the law in his own kingdom in any way he saw fit. The other monk dared to question Vlad's actions and condemned his slaughter of women and children as an abomination before God. Enraged, Vlad beat him to death with his bare hands and then empailed his horse on a stake for good measure. The other monk walked free. Unfortunately, the man who made this extraordinary act of bravery, integrity and martyrdom has not been honoured by memory, we don't even know his name, while the villian of the piece, albeit by proxy; has been exalted to legendary status over the years. What that says about society I dread to think but this outstanding adaption of the Dracula myth goes someway to restoring the balance over that sacrifice made. It puts the Christian theme much more to the fore in many scenes, making the whole production much more penetrating and uplifting, even if the scene in which Dracula asks his pursuers to explain the difference between their hunting animals for food and his vampiric needs is answered with something of a non-sequitur: "The difference between good and evil".

Liouse Jordan is miscast but his performance is solid. Judy Bowker has an amazing face and delivers a performance of deep compassion. Jack Shepherd, a renowned stage actor, duly pulls out all the stops as Renfield and the scene in which he begs the mental hospital doctor to release him is one of the most harrowing and memorable.

The production grandly calls itself 'a gothic romance' and many others have done treatise on victorian sexual repression, the connection between the erotic and the spiritual and the significance of 'the kiss' which I have to confess I'm out of my depth with, but those interested in such matters will find themselves richly served here, but with subtlety and avoidance of vulgarity. It's original showing was in the full three hours, the eventual repeats then shown nightly for some reason. I think this is a mistake as it is most rewarding seen in one sitting as it takes you on a journey that engrosses you totally, the pacing being pretty masterful throughout. I suppose one shouldn't talk up that which is basically silliness, but if this production had been shot in wide screen for the cinema, it would have been seen as a classic today. As a tv production it has still stood the test of time. Recommended.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Best "Dracula" I ever saw, 9 June 2001
Author: suessis

This English version of the classic Stoker novel played on PBS in the late '70's and was one of the better shows that I remember watching on public television at that time. It has a quality that gave it more substance than other versions that I have ever seen. Even the Copella "Dracula", which is centerpieced by a fabulous performance by Gary Oldman, does not have quite the depth that this one did. Like many "Dracula" versions, they have changed the story a bit, but have kept the essential feel of piece

It might be said that Louis Jourdan is miscast here, but I would only say that from the standpoint of age (Jourdan was nearly 60). The man has an aura and appeal that draw women in. Even in his 60's when he played the villain in "Octopussy", he was still sexy in a continental playboy sort of way. If he had been maybe ten or 20 years younger he would have been better.

Susan Penhaligon and Judy Bowker will probably be familiar due to the fact that at one point in time they were the English babes of the moment. While Penhaligon is a reasonable actress she wasn't able to rise above it like Jane Seymour. In this show, both give interesting performances. Bowker has a few great moments where her character struggles with the pull she feels for Dracula and her love for her husband.

The great, but underrated Frank Finlay does a fabulous job as Van Helsing.

PBS needs to bring this production back on video or DVD. It would be interesting to see it again. While the production is filmed in as the average BBC studio style, it still has appeal.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Wonderful Adaptation, 3 January 2001
Author: rmont-2 from Charlottesville, Virginia

I must agree with all those who say that this is the best adaptation of Stoker's masterpiece. Although I enjoyed F.F. Coppola's film, I still feel that this little gem captured the eerieness and forboding of the novel much better. The production does have its flaws. Occasional poor editing and the switching from film to tape which are too obvious. Dark Shadows like special effects.

I disagree with those who feel Louis Jourdan is miscast. I think he has just the right menace and dark sensuality to portray the Count.

Why on Earth hasn't anyone put this on the video cassette market? It's beyond me. But more importantly, why hasn't anyone figured out that this is the definitive Dracula and done a bigger budget remake. I guess Hollywood today simply doesn't have the kind of resources the BBC had in the late 70s.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
The Best, 21 October 1999

Author: Ephraim Gadsby from USA

Forget Coppola. This is as good as it gets. Although the budget looks meagre, and -- because of length -- some characters and events get cut or shortchanged, this is still the best "Dracula" out there. Jourdan is at once understated and menacing, the perfect Dracula. Judi Bowker is the best Mina ever. If you can find this movie, add it to your collection. Until someone makes a two-night miniseries with a decent budget and sound actorsand follows Stoker to the letter, this is the best "Dracula" you'll ever see.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Jourdan as the Evil Count, 3 February 2008

Author: theowinthrop from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I have a problem with the classic horror story "Dracula". It is, without a doubt, one of the best researched horror stories of all time - everything we generally know about vampires comes out of it's pages, because Abraham "Bram" Stoker spent years researching it before it was written and published in 1897. Stoker was actually a part-time novelist, and worked usually as theater manager for the great Sir Henry Irving and Ellen Terry. This explains the paucity of his number of total novels (roughly seven) in a thirty year career ending before his death in 1912. That said, my problem is that his strengths as a constructor of plots and of researching an arcane area of occult knowledge are not matched by a serious key to being a novelist: being readable. Of the major occult novelists, only the American Charles Brockden Brown can create such lugubrious prose (but to be fair, every now and then both Stoker and Brown let down their halting prose styles and relax enough to write something truly haunting in terms of dialog).

Because of his weakness I only half enjoyed Dracula the novel. I was thrilled by the circumstances he set up in his tale of the blood - driven Transylvanian Count, but I hated reading his dialog because his characters are so stiff. Therefore, when others are critical of what is cut out of some of the film transitions of his stories (such as the classic 1931 Bela Lugosi film, based on the play Lugosi starred in) I find that the cuts are welcome as enlivening the work for the screen.

Lugosi's performance has been called one of the great "operatic" performances captured on celluloid. That is Lugosi captured the grandeur of his twisted nobleman with that impeccable old pedigree - he made that cape of his seem as natural as the wind. It remains a great performance, even as we realize it is has become a source of jokes and spoofs (best seen in Mel Brooks/Leslie Nielson's "Dracula: Dead And Loving It").

But for my money, the best performance of the role was done in this 1977 British production (shown that year on Masterpiece Theater) that starred Louis Jourdan in the title part. For the first time the role was not just purposely making the Count sinister and grand but good looking as well. Jourdan, impeccably suave and handsome, looked like he could charm a woman into a fatal tryst with him. In a way this production mirrored the nearly contemporary Broadway revival of the old play that starred a young, good looking Frank Langella as a sexy Count.

The story was better told than the movie versions - they included the subplot about the American Quincy Morris (Richard Barnes) who is a rival of Jonathan Harker (Bosco Hogan) for Lucy Westenra (Susan Penheligon), and while Morris's character was combined with another minor figure it retained it's importance, as well as it's sad fate (at the conclusion Dracula is able to kill Morris before he is destroyed). On the other hand, the script writers got rid of one annoyance in the Stoker version: Morris is supposed to be an American from Texas - he sounds like he never was within two thousand miles of Texas.

Jourdan did some nice tricks with the aid of the director, including one thing that was not done in any of Lugosi's: he is seen at one point climbing the wall of his castle to come into the window of Renfield's (Jack Sheppard's) room. Done slowly (Jourdan is heard creeping before he appears on the wall) it was a genuinely unsettling moment, especially as Jourdan is shot from the head down. The beast-nature of the Count was never quite shown that way before.

As his opponent, Abraham Van Helsing, Frank Finlay gave a good account of that master skeptic - skeptical of dismissing "old wives tales" because there may be some truth to them. His handling of the unfortunately necessary destruction of Mina Westenra's (Judy Bowker's) Vampire infected corpse was far more realistic than the versions in Lugosi's film involving Edward Van Sloan in that same role. Mina is aware here of what Van Helsing is doing, and part of her senses it has to be done to free her soul.

It has not been seen for decades, and hopefully still exists to be viewed again. If I only give it a "9" it is due to my problems with that novel as a novel, not with this series.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
'One of the greatest vampire films ever made', 17 July 2001

Author: bryan315 from Birmingham,Alabama

This BBC production of Dracula was originally shown in the U.S. on PBS in a three part segment each 45 minutes in length.It is one of the more faithful retellings of the classic Bram Stoker novel starring Louis Jourdan as the suave count.Frank Finlay plays Van Helsing in one of his greatest roles ever and Susan Penhaligon and Judi Bowker turn in fine preformances as well.One of my favorite moments is when Van Helsing confronts Lucy in the graveyard (A chilling moment) and I also like the part where Mina discovers Dracula feasting on lucy after she follows her sleepwalking one night.Phillip Saville creates plenty of atmosphere in the direction and even comes up with some Hammer type vampire shocks. The switch from tape to film in the production has never really bothered me like it has others. It kind of gives it an eerie psychedelic feel at times. I recently found a good copy of the film with the uncut part of the vampire brides feasting on a baby intact. I was STOKED! It had been over 20 years since I had seen it!

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history