Cineanalyst This cheap international production of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" is poorly conceived and poorly made in most ways, but it does have the draw of featuring two actors who played the titular role in other, better films, and is, thus, interesting for comparison. Christopher Lee had already played Dracula in the 1958 Hammer production and would continue to appear in the role in the studio's sequels. He again plays the Count here. Klaus Kinski would later play Dracula in Werner Herzog's remake of "Nosferatu" in 1979, and here he plays Renfield.Although championed as faithful to the book, as an adaptation, this "Dracula" features some bad deviations from Stoker's tale and in other ways is a poor imitation of prior "Dracula" films—especially the 1958 Hammer one. Although it adopts the gore and blood splatter from Hammer, it's, overall, a tamer version, and there's very little sex appeal here as opposed to some of the Hammer productions. This film also steals from the 1958 film the part where the Count lures Mina away, but adopts from the 1931 Universal picture the scenes of Dracula prowling the streets and entering a theatre. This stuff is absent from Stoker's original. Also absent from the book is Van Helsing's weird stroke, which in this film leaves him wheelchair bound and stuck at home with Mina while Quincy and Jonathan go to Transylvania. Also, in the final scenes, a fire motif is invented, with Van Helsing making a makeshift, fiery cross to ward off Dracula, and the Count is climactically burned to death in his coffin.There's a laughable scene involving taxidermic animals supposedly coming to life to threaten our heroes, some obvious dummy boulders in the climax, and the film makes the head-scratching mistake of trying to pass off docile German Shepherds as wolves. The fake bat gimmickry is far more tolerable by comparison. Overall, the main stylistic theme of director Franco's movie is an abundant reliance on zoom-ins.Lee and Kinski can't save this dull and ill-advised mess, but their characterizations are of some interest. Kinski as Renfield seems too true to art imitating life, as the actor really had been committed to a psychiatric hospital in years past, and his continued abnormal behavior was evidenced in his frequent-director Herzog's documentary "My Best Fiend" (1999). Unlike other portrayals of Renfield, Kinski plays him comatose, with occasional screaming and violent outbursts, including jumping out a window and choking Mina. Kinski's later stilted Nosferatu isn't that far removed from his Renfield, really, except his Dracula talks more and breaths heavier. Meanwhile, Lee got the opportunity to play a Count that is a somewhat closer approximation of Stoker's characterization than his Hammer iterations, although he still manages to play him mostly mute after his castle scenes. His mustached appearance and white-to- black hair transformation is closer to Stoker's description, too, than his wild-eyed sex beast in the '58 shocker.The final embarrassment is that the filmmakers of a documentary, "Cuadecuc vampire" (1971), of the making of this film, made a better movie.The next year, Franco made a looser, Sapphic Dracula adaptation, appropriately titled "Vampyros Lesbos" (1971).(Mirror Note: Contrary to the novel, Dracula has a wall mirror in his castle, which, for further inexplicable reasons, he points to in a scene with Jonathan—revealing to him his lack of a reflection. Although also contrary to the novel, a shadow disappearance shot is handled better later in the film.)

mrbill18 I have the DVD of this Spanish film production from circa '70 with the great Chris Lee and Herbert Lom. Yes, it is online with what Bram Stoker wrote back in the 19th century, yet I have never been overly impressed with Jess Franco's slow and ponderous style of film-making. I am a fan of horror / thriller, so I can deal with and accept the moments of slowness and the various scenes that drag, etc. I heard that Chris Lee was most happy with this production of Dracula. Well, I hope he was paid well to travel to Spain for the film shoot. If it wasn't for his supporting cast of Herbert Lom and Soledad Miranda, I feel this film would've been no better than a stink-bomb. I do not blame the setting or the cast, but rather the lousy direction from Jess Franco. In all reality, Jess Franco is no Terence Fisher. I mean, not even close.

Leofwine_draca 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.

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.