Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a great movie. This version of Dracula is the closed to the book. It is best on one of the best horror book ever. So it is one of the best horror movies ever. It is very scary. A r.o.m.a.n.i.n vampire movie to England to find new victims. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If you do not get scared of this movie. Then no movie will scary you. This is a classic. Louis J.o.u.r.d.a.n who play the part of Dracula also played a Bound villain. In O.c.t.o.p.u.s.s.y staring Roger More. He did a great job in this movie. B.o.s.c.o Hogan who play the part of Jonathan H.a.r.k.e.r was also great in this movie. B.o.s.c.o Hogan was also in King Arthur.

MartinHafer This British version of Dracula was shown on American TV back around 1977 and I saw it when it was first shown--and it was in two parts. I remember liking it but wasn't exactly sure why. So, all these years later I decided to give it another look. Now, after seeing it again I found there was a lot to like and a lot to dislike--making for a very mixed bag.As far as the story goes, it's pretty familiar and most of the differences between this and other Dracula tales are pretty minor. However, the style is often quite different. I was surprised how bloody and sensual this film was. The blood-sucking parts were rather orgiastic in style--making this a bit more adult than the norm! The women really wanted Dracula....really, really badly and their cries of delight were a bit embarrassing if you watch this with the wrong person (like your mother-in-law). Having Drac played by a more erudite and good-looking guy (the Frenchman, Louis Jourdan) helped in this regard. I also loved the red eyes and (yuck) scene with the vampiresses attacking a baby--shocking but very effective. And, although not entirely effective, the wall-climbing bit by Jourdan was certainly novel. However, there are some goofy aspects of the film--in particular the insane decision to do those weird images of Drac's eyes and fangs--all done with a negative sort of image with neon!! It looked almost as if the vampires were doing acid!! It was embarrassingly dumb, actually. Also, while British audiences wouldn't have noticed, as an American I had to laugh at the terrible Texas accent of one of the guys in the film. It sounded like a Brit trying hard (and unsuccessfully) to sound American. Finally, a lot of the film was over-stylized and a much more direct and less adorned look would have worked much better. So, overall it's a real mixed bag. Interesting but it really wasn't as good as I'd remembered.

tertoolian When this PBS version of Dracula first was shown on TV it contained a scene in Dracula's castle where the "brides" were about to attack Jonathan Harker and Dracula walked in and stopped them. In place of Harker he offered them an infant to feast upon. At this point Jordan, as the Count, opened up a sack and withdrew a real, live infant, which he held up over his head and offered to the vampire brides to feed upon. All subsequent showings of Count Dracula had this scene edited out. This was part of Stoker's novel but, I suppose, censorship dictated that the scene should be omitted. I don't know if there is a full,uncut version of this PBS version, but, regardless, if you want to know what the original Stoker's Dracula was all about, attempt to get a copy of this PBS version.

MerryMarvelManiac After waiting years to see this, I was expecting something incredible with all the rave reviews here on IMDb. I suspect that anyone giving this 1977 film more than average compliments must be remembering it from their childhood, or have very poor taste in film. There are so many flaws, it is hard to list them all, but one should start with the Count himself. As Dracula, Louis Jourdan exhibits little to no personality. He brings absolutely nothing to the role, and appears to simply be reading his lines from a teleprompter, which brings us to the second problem. Exterior shots are filmed, while interiors are shot with video cameras. The lack of consistency here really is distracting. The weird special effects are also very intrusive. The film repeatedly shifts from color to black and white, and then to some bizarre Andy Warholesque effects in bright red, orange and blue. The rest of the cast do an admirable job, but nothing to write home about. Overall very disappointing. If you want to see a GOOD Dracula film from the 1970's, I recommend the 1979 version with Frank Langella.