Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

John austin This version of Dracula gave Christopher Lee an opportunity to play the role he had already played several times, but this time with the intent of following Bram Stoker's original story as closely as possible. On that point, Count Dracula is fairly successful. It stays mostly on track with the original tale, right down to Dracula's mustache which, while present in the book, usually doesn't show up on screen. It's not a Hammer production, so it looks and feels a little different than what you may be used to. Lee gets more screen time and more lines than he usually got in this part, and there are some good supporting actors with Herbert Lom as Dr. Van Helsing and Klaus Kinski doing his usual kooky thing as Renfield.Unfortunately, if you watch it from beginning to end, you'll find that the whole thing is pretty dull. By the time this movie was made in 1970, the idea had really been wrung out, and there's nothing new or interesting here. This movie is rarely seen today and really only rates a footnote in the history of vampire lore. Postcript: However, with that being said, I did recently pick up an old book that discussed this movie. It was apparently very popular in Europe at the time, especially in France where it was billed as Les Nuits de Dracula (The Nights of Dracula).

poe-48833 Jesus FRANCO'S Dracula could very easily be confused with most any of the Hammer versions of the same story; in fact, it looks and sounds so much like a Hammer film that it's hard to believe that it's NOT... It's an OFT-told tale, to be sure, but it's not the most faithful (as advertised): THAT distinction would probably have to go to the Dan Curtis telefilm, which starred Jack Palance and was scripted (most faithfully) by Richard Matheson. (Another contender for "best Dracula" would have to be Charles McCauley in BLACULA. He's easily the most VICIOUS incarnation, and gets to deliver some truly shocking dialogue which gets closer to the Black Heart of the character than that in any of the more "classic" versions.) (I've just read RICHARD MATHESON'S I AM LEGEND CENSORED AND UNPRODUCED and it's must-reading for any true Vampire fan: it's Matheson's own script for a Hammer film that never got made, retitled THE NIGHT CREATURES. No Matheson fan should be without it.)

Rfischer8655 Oh how dated this film looks. Some movies outlast their era and still look fresh. Not this one. The acting is way overdone, and almost comical. Actors look self-conscious as if always aware of the camera. But what makes this almost unwatchable is the cinematography. I got dizzy with the constant zooming in and out on faces, objects, and scenery. The lens also seems to move back and forth in rooms always looking for subject matter. My gosh, leave the camera on the tripod and let the story do the telling.Finally, for a 1970 movie, the narrow aspect ratio and film quality is awful. Colors are blaring without any subtlety of in-between shades. That may be the fault of poor lighting technique. Sound was was often unsynchronized with the speaker. It almost looks like it was shot on someone's home 35mm camera.The story is fair, and seems to follow the original literature. But I was so distracted by the half-hearted production values, I lost interest. The best version for me is with Louis Jourdan in PBS's version only a few years later.

archie_stanton I don't know. I'm a big Jess Franco fan, but this has to be seriously one of his weakest movies, despite being one of the most widely distributed.I honestly don't know WHY it doesn't work. It has all the makings of what should have been a GREAT film. Jess Franco, Christopher Lee, Herbert Lom, Klaus Kinski, Soledad Miranda, and Jack Taylor - all doing a movie based on Bram Stoker's Dracula?! I think it misses in that it could have stood to be more graphic. It's also slow. Too slow. I'm also not the biggest fan of Franco's movies he partnered with producer Harry Allan Towers for, of which this is one. The cinematography is great, the sets look nice, but all and all there is just inspiration missing here.For a good Dracula movie that is close to the book, for my money I'd stick with Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula".