Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

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.

GusF Known in English simply as "Count Dracula", this is a very uninspired and rather badly made film. After the 1931 Bela Lugosi version, the 1958 Hammer version and the 1979 Frank Langella version, this is the fourth adaptation of the 1897 Bram Stoker novel that I have seen in the last ten months, notwithstanding the numerous sequels to the first two. Of those four, I understand that this is the most faithful to the novel - which I have never actually read - but it's also by far the weakest of them.The film's version of Dracula is not terribly intimidating. While Christopher Lee is good as the eponymous count, his performances in the Hammer series were far more entertaining. Herbert Lom made for a very good Van Helsing and he deserved to appear in a much better adaptation than this, though I preferred Peter Cushing and Laurence Olivier's takes on the character. None of the other actors made much impression one way or the other. I'm not entirely sure but I get the impression that most of them were dubbed. The film is rather low budget but that wouldn't have been a big problem if Jesus Franco had directed it with any sort of flair, art or imagination - all three of which were lacking in the extreme - rather than making every other shot a zoom shot. I assume that he had made a bet to see how many he could fit into the film. It's a bog standard version of "Dracula", I'm afraid. When it comes to great horror directors, he's no Terence Fisher, who directed the aforementioned 1958 film and most of the other top tier Hammer films.Overall, the film is deathly dull and mostly forgettable except for two things that I've already mentioned. It's always a pleasure to see either Lee or Lom in a film but it would have been a far greater pleasure to see them in a good film.

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.

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki 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.