Waste of time

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Unusually authentic, and effectively scripted, for a filmed work from a written work. Some unusually good choices such as a handsome and charming Count which leads to other useful, relevant choices of desire vs terror.But... it is 1977 BBC. Video interiors, film exteriors. Hideous VFX. Strange musical cues, and long stretches with no audio. Oh the posterizing! It's horrible! Oh, and pretty poor sound quality, with no subs on the DVD I got, so often hard to tell what anyone is saying. If I didn't already know what was up, would be hard to watch.Would love to see this exact script remade by someone. In the current TV era, it seems like it would go awfully well. Stretch to 4 hours or so and make a week of it, or a streaming binging series.

Like most people on here I also thought this BBC version was the most faithful adaptation of Stoker's original novel. Granted, they have changed a few details; for example, Mina and Lucy are sisters, the characters of Quincy and Arthur have been amalgamated and Jonathan visits the Count at his castle in Bohemia rather than Transylvania, but these minor deviations aside, I think even Stoker himself would have said this version was fairly close to what he had in mind while writing his famous novel. Being from the UK I have grown up with the BBC and the programmes it produced in the 1970's. Watching 'Count Dracula' as an adult on DVD was, in many ways, a very pleasant nostalgic journey back to my childhood. Yes, I agree the budget did impose certain restrictions on the production...fake bats and obvious stage sets instantly spring to mind.....along with the mix of video and film but, to me, instead of being negative points these so called 'flaws' all added to its charm. That said, it also had some genuinely outstanding points; it is truly creepy, fantastically acted, perfectly cast and and had excellent script. The undoubted highlight for me has to be the location filming in Whitby cemetery; the scenes of Lucy being attacked in the graveyard were actually filmed in the very graveyard that inspired Stoker when he was writing the novel back in the 1890's. Cut to Francis Ford Copploa's 1992 version....which also makes a claim to being a faithful adaptation of the novel... and it doesn't even mention Whitby at all. As for Louis Joudan, in my opinion, he is simply the best ever Dracula; understated, sophisticated, menacing and arrogant. Both Lugosi and Oldman were good but they were a bit too camp and shouted their evil from the rooftops. Jourdan, on the other hand, whispered in your ear and chilled the very depths your soul without you even really knowing why. In a word, genius. Another role worth noting is Jack Shepherd as Renfield. Again, not a typical over the top portrayal of a madman in an asylum but rather a somewhat more complex character; a normal man tortured by very specific moments of madness. The scene when he begs Dr. Seward to release him is truly, truly magnificent. I'll not hide the fact that I am a Dracula fan. I love Stoker's original novel and I love the Victorian Gothic ambiance that it contains. While the BBC's version doesn't quite match Coppola's film for atmosphere and special effects, it certainly makes up for it with its script, the quality of the acting and its faithfulness to the original novel. It has to be, without doubt, my single favourite version of the Dracula story.

The BBC's first attempt to make their own version of Bram Stoker's classic is not only the better one of the two (the second was made in 2006) but also one of the best adaptations of the book and also the most faithful one. Aside from few little changes, like making Mina and Lucy sisters and uniting characters of Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris to one named Quincey Holmwood, this TV film follows Stoker's book faithfully, having most of its dialog directly from the pages of the book. This is a relief to yours truly, for I am a big fan of Stoker and have been amazed how many versions base their plot on theater plays or simplify the story or set it in modern era or make Dracula fall in love with either Mina or Lucy.Showing that BBC already knew quality back in the 1970's, the team working on "Count Dracula" has put an effort to sets and costumes to create the feeling of the late 19'Th century Victorian era England, with its people living by high morals, yet being easily tempted by the arriving Prince of Darkness. The music is very peaceful, not having any dynamic shock effects in it, but reminding more of the old world's music. The only minus point of the film is really its special effects that are not only old but also cheap, considering the TV film budget.The actors are over all doing a great job, varying from decent to superb. Frank Finlay is the most closest to the Professor Abraham Van Helsing of Stoker's book. Finlay plays Van Helsing as the older, wise, brave and gentle professor, who deeply cares for the people around him and is not afraid to defy the vampire lord. Judi Bowker is the best Mina I've ever seen in any film version. She is young woman in love, yet mature enough to bravely understand what they're dealing with and what might be the worst outcome. She loves her fiancé and her family, but is also slightly tempted by Dracula. Instead of playing Renfield as yet another insane, giggling servant of Dracula, Jack Shepherd gives a marvelous performance as a desperate man who serves evil but finds courage in himself to defy it in the end. This film also goes against the usual tradition of casting a bad actor to play Jonathan Harker. Bosco Hogan is the only good Harker I've ever seen. He really makes the character believable, not just a stone faced man who speaks monotonously like so many others (David Manners, Keanu Reeves etc.). Mark Burns as Dr. Seward, Susan Penhaligon as Lucy and Richard Barnes as Quincey don't bring anything new to their roles, but are decent enough not to ruin the film with their presence.Ironically, the only performance not so faithful to Stoker, comes from Louis Jourdan as Dracula. This however is not a bad thing. Instead of copying Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, or playing Dracula more faithfully as a furious warlord (which Jack Palance had done few years earlier in another TV adaptation), Jourdan plays Dracula as calm, calculating demon who seduces his victims by offering them power and eternal life, but who is just coldly using them for his own advantages. In fact Jourdan portraits Dracula as a sort of Anti-Christ creature, who is looking for disciples and going against God. In one of the scenes Van Helsing raises his cross against Dracula and starts to enchant a prayer in Latin, only to receive an arrogant comment from the Count of how prayer always sounds more convincing in Latin. Jourdan may not be most faithful Dracula, but certainly one of the best, making Dracula seem far superior to humans.All in all, BBC's "Count Dracula" is the closest adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel to date, and to those who loved the book it is an enjoyment to watch. I should warn though that film is rather long, about three hours, for it was aired in two parts originally.

The 1977 BBC version of Count Dracula is without a doubt the very best version filmed so far. Many Dracula fans may say that the hammer version of the story is better. But for me this is the one. I first viewed it when it was broadcast in 1977 in two parts and I have seen it many time's since. I didn't know it back then, not having read the book as I was only 6 years old ,but it was and still is the most faithful version of the story. Most of the actors look like the have stepped from the pages of the Bram Stoker novel with the possible exception of Louis Jordan's Count, who is suave and elegant until his blood lust is aroused. This is also the first version to show some of the more horrifying moments from the novel, such as the brides and the baby. Plus many of the actual locations that appear in the novel are actually used. There are a few minor draw backs in the BBC version but they are mainly to do with the budget restraints. For example some scenes' are filmed in video and some in film giving it an uneven feel and some of the special optical effects are very dated. But if your like me you can forgive these. To finish off all I can say is that I wish Frances ford Coppola had watched this version before he started filming his rather disjointed , overblown 1992 version. The 1977 BBC version of Count Dracula is a master class in how to bring slow burning Victorian terror to the screen.