This is supposedly Christopher Lee's favourite version of Dracula, although it's hard to believe he could possibly prefer this over, say, Terrence Fisher's HORROR OF DRACULA or DRACULA, PRINCE OF DARKNESS. But you never know with the enigmatic, opinionated Lee.
Jesus Franco's direction is oddly restrained, as if he was too intimidated by either Lee or the famous subject matter or both to indulge in his usual flourishes (which is really a good thing). Unfortunately, apart from Lee, who as always gives it his all, most of the cast is equally bland. Even the great Herbert Lom can't muster up much interest as Van Helsing, and Klaus Kinski appears to be either very tired or very bored.
Like George Melford's 1931 Spanish Dracula, Franco's film is a curiousity and a must see for Lee and Dracula fans, but overall not that great a film.
This movie is a mixture of good and bad here, something which basically sums up Franco's career. Franco set out to make the definitive adaptation of Stoker's novel, and the first part of the movie, with Harker in the castle, is extremely faithful to the original text. This alone makes the movie worth seeing, as one gets the chance to hear Christopher Lee deliver large chunks of dialogue direct from Stoker's text. However, realising it had taken a third of his movie to manage 50 pages of the book, from then on the film becomes just another Dracula movie. The plot largely departs from the book, but is still largely saved by Kinski's Renfield who increasingly becomes the focal point of the movie. Herbert Lom plays a rather intimidating Van Helsing, and the music, so much subtler and more eerie than the crashing brass of Hammer's productions.
Not Franco's best in my own subjective opinion but I could be wrong, it could be his greatest. The narrative was all over the place and there were a lot of striking, funky shots, looking into camera and the roles just suited fine for each character, like Christopher Lee in particular. Very different from the other Dracula movies by Herzog, Murnau and Coppola, which is good since they all differ too.
I tell you something, this was a lot better than the crap horror films that are around today. Christopher Lee is brilliant in this, and while I still prefer the Gary Oldman version, I thought this one was pretty decent.
This is more like a comedy than a horror! Peter Cushing's acting is robotic and everything about this is so melodramatic! Christoper Lee is a memorable Dracula, but purely because he looks the part. The female acting is Ok, and this film was probably acceptable when it was released, but to a modern audience it appears to be a laugh out loud spoof. Hilarious for all the wrong reasons.
the very first vampire movie I ever saw as a kid...on film no less one night at camp. Scared me a lil... but I found myself rooting for dracula ever since and I always will. Dated now, but a classic to me! Vampires rule!
Franco's adaptation of the classic novel has the best cast ever aassembled for a Dracula film but it's not nearly as innovative as what Hammer did with their first Dracula film. Plus, the actual text of Stoker's book is really unsuited to Franco's style. Dracula as a story doesn't really lend itself to lesbianism, extensive use of the zoom lens or long stretches of idilic landscape shots that have nothing to do with the story (all of which are among Franco's strengths.) Still, it's a good movie with some great performances, so it's not a total loss and, I have to say, I do kind of like it despite all this.
Franco's film attempts to be more faithful to Stoker's novel, but is hampered by a low budget. Chris Lee is great as always, and the rest of the cast does its best. The camera effects are annoying at times, as if the camera operators and/or film editors got into a bad stash
MCT:July 13, 2008
MCT:March 22, 2008
MCT:February 24, 2008
MCT:February 6, 2008
MCT:March 29, 2007
MCT:January 12, 2007
