Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

alexanderdavies-99382 This version of Dracula should never have been advertised as being based upon the original book. For one thing, Jess Franco takes far too many liberties with the source material by changing and altering many elements. Ultimately though, it is the lack of a proper budget which defeats the movie. The production values are amongst some of the worst I've ever seen. None of the sets resemble Hungary or Romania in the slightest. From the opening scene, it becomes painfully obvious that Italy was frequently used for location filming. Regarding the cast, most of them are terrible. They appear to be just going through the motions and give new meaning to the expression "sleep-walking." However, Christopher Lee, Klaus Kinski and Herbert Lom do their very best with such substandard material. Their performances are the ones to see. Christopher Lee manages to convey some depth into his familiar character and does well. Cast against type, Klaus Kinski makes for an effective Renfield. For once, he is a bit more sympathetic than most of his on-screen characters. Herbert Lom delivers a tough and steely determined Van Helsing. This co-production might be worth a look for the sake of curiosity but don't expect a classic.

classicsoncall I was taken aback when I heard the Count (Christopher Lee) greet Jonathan Harker (Fred Williams) with the words "Children of the night, what music they make" upon hearing wolves howling in the distance beyond Castle Dracula. It took me back to the 1931, Bela Lugosi version of "Dracula", probably my favorite telling of the story, although this one followed the Bram Stoker novel a bit more faithfully. The picture has some great atmospherics but the filming is almost always too dark, which might explain the director's getting away with German Shepherds impersonating wolves in the Transylvania countryside.Klaus Kinski was a great choice for Renfield, whiling away the hours in his padded room and nibbling away at flies and other insects. It made me wonder why I haven't seen him in more horror flicks instead of Westerns. I guess I'll just have to keep a good eye out for more of his horror film work.And I guess I'm too used to seeing Christopher Lee in roles where he's older with white hair and beard because his black hair and youthful appearance wound up being a distraction, even though that was the point of Dracula's nightly excursions for fresh blood. The concept of Dracula's ability to transform into any type of animal also got a pretty good workout here, although in response to a character's statement that 'the bats were real', I have some news - no they weren't.But overall a generally acceptable picture in the Dracula canon. The Count puts the bite on a handful of characters including Harker, which leads one to consider one of the plot holes in the story. Harker finishes out the picture with no ill effects that otherwise would have made him a candidate for a stake through the heart.

stones78 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.

dworldeater Jess Franco's Count Dracula, starring Chrisopher Lee is one of my favorite film adaptations of Dracula. While I love the Hammer Dracula pictures (which Christopher Lee played Dracula for Hammer 7 times),this is a lot different and more true to the source material. Director/producer Jess Franco did not have an enormous Hollywood budget for this production, but took the material seriously and made the best of the resources he did have. Christopher Lee is exceptional in this with his brooding screen presence and tremendous acting ability. The rest of the cast is impressive as well with Herbert Lom to play Van Helsing, Klaus Kinski as Renfield and (the lovely and tragically departed the same year as this production) Soledad Miranda as Lucy. Like I stated before, Franco's Dracula is much more true to the novel and has a different tone and energy than the Hammer films. Darker, more ominous and very atmospheric with an excellent mood created by Bruno Nicolai's excellent and diabolical score. The film was shot in Spain and the sets have a 14th century Gothic look. Overall, Count Dracula is an excellent and memorable adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel.