Watch Count Dracula For Free

Powerful

As Good As It Gets

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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.

Yet another adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic Gothic horror story, Dracula. What differentiates this one from the rest is the fact that a) it's Spanish b) it's closer to the plot of the book than some other adaptations I might care to mention. The director is none-other than the famed Jess Franco, a man with an extremely high output of work is only marred by the fact that a lot of his films are less than entertaining. Not in this case, though, as Franco gives us an atmospheric and at times frightening film. Also, released here on a 12 certificate in an uncut form, it proves that not all vampire films need blood and gore to be entertaining.There are many interesting things to look out for. Some are truly grand (such as the musical score, which is Gothic to the extreme and also scary, as well as movingly nostalgic, the kind of music you associate with old, creaky horror films) and other are plain comedic (such as the director's insistence of zooming in on people's faces and eyes, which is slightly overused and actually hilarious, considering that it's used to emote fear). There are also a high number of atmospheric scenes for a film of this type.The bit where the three vampire girls are being staked is done extremely well, better than the countless other versions I've seen, and all it takes is a splash of blood to shock you. Or the bit where the voice whispers "Lucy". There is also a comedic scene where the cast is menaced by some stuffed animals. It's so implausible when someone is shaking a stuffed fox at the camera you can't help but laugh. Even so these scenes come across as light relief, even if they were intended to be frightening, and they don't detract from the film in any way. The mood of the film and of the original story does come across extremely well.This is no doubt helped by the fine acting we have on display here. Christopher Lee looks even more impressive than his Hammer incarnation, and there is a great effect of him growing younger throughout the film. Just try to ignore his dodgy moustache. Solidad Miranda from VAMPYROS LESBOS also stars, bringing a certain charm to her minor role as Lucy, Dracula's first real victim. The part of Jonathan Harker is played by an unknown, but the fresh-faced man is pretty impressive in the role and evokes our sympathy, even if he is portrayed by a foreigner. Herbert Lom gives his usual understated performance and is convincing, if not very exciting. The best acting, however, comes from Klaus Kinski in a surprisingly non-speaking role as Renfield the madman. We really feel for him as he struggles to free himself from his cell in the asylum and he achieves this through his actions. He's simply brilliant, the best Renfield you are ever likely to see. In fact his performance would make the film worth watching on it's own, but you have all of these other factors too.The ending of this film has been widely criticised, as Dracula's burning coffin simply falls over the edge of a cliff. I was expecting the worst but I was pleasantly surprised, he even decays a la Hammer's Dracula. The special effects are underused, and therefore a welcome sight when they do appear (apart from a ridiculously cheesy rubber bat on offer). If you don't treat this film too harshly then you might just enjoy it, on a purely mechanical level though it has to be said it is pretty average. Nonetheless it's a lot of fun and all from an interesting perspective.

This film of Bram Stoker's legendary novel is more admirable for the director's ambition than for the final product. The goal at the time was to produce the first faithful adaptation of Dracula, with both the narrative and tone just as Stoker intended. This noble intent even convinced Christopher Lee to don the cape once again, even as he was growing increasingly frustrated at his association with the role. Franco nails the tone (no small feat considering his love of excessive sex and sadism), and reins his experimental tendencies in to produce a quieter, more disciplined atmosphere, but his goal of filming the novel as is was doomed from the start. The scenes in Dracula's castle are truly magical, featuring Christopher Lee's most thrilling performance in what is arguably his most iconic role, and here we can see some glimmer of what might have been. Once Lee's scenes were finished, however, some unprincipled producers absconded with the remaining budget, leaving Franco to foot the bill himself on the remaining sections of the story. Because of this the scenes outside of Transylvania are noticeably cheaper and more rushed, both from a narrative and a photographic standpoint. While Franco struggled to remain as faithful to Stoker's story as possible, the compressed running time and diminishing funds simply wouldn't allow it. If the final result is somewhat disappointing, the film is still a pleasure to watch thanks to its terrific cast and a phenomenal soundtrack by Bruno Nicolai. And while a well behaved Franco is generally less interesting than a maverick Franco (for instance, compare this to Franco's other vampire films), he and D.P. Manuel Merino still conjure up some genuinely eerie moments, with the definite highlight being Jonathan Harker's nightmarish imprisonment in Dracula's castle. If nothing else, I love one hilarious exchange that takes place between Van Helsing (a sadly unremarkable performance by Herbert Lom) and Harker. After Van Helsing describes all of Dracula's insane supernatural powers, an outraged Harker asks, "Why doesn't someone arrest him?!" Incidentally, Franco often claimed that Stuart Freeborn worked on this film, and that Freeborn based the design of Yoda on Franco himself. While the physical resemblance between Yoda and Jess Franco is undeniable, the lackluster effects work in Dracula makes his story very difficult to believe.

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.