CountVladDracula I honestly don't know why this version of Dracula is so popular. People have tried to tell me that it is the most faithful version to Stoker's novel. It's not. It's really not. First Arthur and Quincey are combined as one character, Lucy and Mina are turned into sisters and this is the most dispassionate, dull portrayal of Dracula ever. It's dull. It's drawn out. Being dry and academic does not automatically make it "more faithful".The Gary Oldman version of Dracula, that is to say the movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola in 1992 IS the most faithful version of Dracula to date. It adds a love story but it does not take away from the original story the way this one does. Dracula is full of passionate emotions from range and menace to longing and even grief. Yes, that version added a love story but in doing so it added reason and motivation for the character. And other than what is added it is still the most faithful version, nothing is taken away.This version of Dracula is over-rated. I can't understand why so many people like it. I think it's one of those instances where you are told you should like something and so you do. But I don't. My mind won't work that way. This version is dull and the Dracula is about as passionate as Mr. Spock from Star Trek. That's not true to the novel at all. The character was very emotion driven even when the emotion was just rage. This was dull and dispassionate. Stick with the 1992 movie starring Gary Oldman.

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.

artisticengineer This movie predates the Frank Langella and Gary Oldman interpretation of the fabled Count. Though those interpretations are very good; there are not quite as good, IMHO, as this gem. There are no (or at least very few) histrionics here; the soundtrack is very quiet with only an occasional threatening overtone that lets one know that "the threat" is quite close by. The brides of Dracula keep their clothes on; pretty much as one would expect in the 1890s. The overall plot stays quite faithful to the Bram Stoker book and for this and the matters alluded to previously I feel that THIS is how Bram Stoker envisioned this story. This is The Standard, or at least the original, that the other portrayals should be judged.The Coppola version tries to stay faithful to the book, but nonetheless a "reincarnation" subplot managed to crawl into the story. One does not find that in the book or in this Dracula. There is no need to add in reincarnation; the Count is simply trying some new hunting grounds for fresh blood. Lucy and Mina simply happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; hence their encounters with Dracula. Of interest in this film is the exploration of Renfield; the mental patient whom Dracula contacts. He is shown progressing in a sympathetic way, and is actually a sort of hero-much like Stoker envisioned. After a time looking at this movie one notices some other very subtle nuances that add enormously to the plot; and which are not normally seen in the other portrayals of this story.POSSIBLE SPOILER: The heroine in Coppola's version is "baptized" with the vampire's blood, and upon realizing this she experienced some grief and tears. A good scene of doubt and remorse that Winona Ryder's portrayed reasonably well. Yet, it pales enormously with Susan Penhaligon's portrayal where she (a very diminutive woman) shows the heroine as totally and utterly bloodied, broken and shamed. Considering that Penhaligon is even smaller (and at least seems more innocent) than Winona Ryder the effect of total psychological devastation upon a helpless human being is enhanced even further. This is when one realizes this shows just how mean and cruel Dracula really is. Polished, suave, urbane, and totally ruthless is how Louis Jourdan portrayed Dracula and one has to wonder if he portrayed Dracula from his knowledge of the real life monsters (Nazis) that he encountered as a teenager when living in occupied France.

JoeKarlosi I finally saw this for the first time, and I agree with the general opinion that it is probably the most faithful rendering of Stoker's book. I thought Frank Finlay gave the best performance, as Van Helsing... but as for Louis Jourdan, he disappointed me somewhat as The Count. He played the King of Vampires as calm and charming, and not nearly savage or evil enough when the need arose (such as when he is supposed to turn with rage against his brides, for instance). He still manages to be villainous, though, and thankfully not a romantic hero. But I just wish he could have been more hateful or emotional when the situation called for it. It's still unfathomable to me that NO VERSION of this story has ever got it all accurate.. and in this case, the biggest thorn in my side with the BBC rendition is that Dracula doesn't appear as an older man who gradually gets younger as he drinks blood.I did enjoy this presentation quite a bit overall despite some complaints, though. Oh - another quibble was that surrealistic "Andy Warhol" stuff that went on with characters' faces now and then. Just silly. Very good staking sequence, though. Another thing I am starting to feel more than ever, is that Dracula probably should be told as a rather slow-paced and calculated tale. From the Bram Stoker book, to the Lugosi version, to the Palance film, to this BBC adaptation... it's a deliberately lightly-paced story that builds slowly and gradually. After I saw the Jourdan movie I again sketched my head wondering how so many people can still think the wild westernly-paced HORROR OF Dracula -- which is possibly the LEAST Stoker-ish film of them all to date -- can be considered "THE Best Dracula Telling" ! While full of action and dynamic lunging about and bombastic music soundtrack, it's very unlike the Stoker classic. *** out of ****