| Subcategories | Horror Condition (condition-type) |
|
|
|
|
Bram Stoker's Count Dracula [1973] | ![Bram Stoker's Count Dracula [1973]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513T145HWDL._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge | Director: Jess Franco
Actors: Christopher Lee, Herbert Lom, Klaus Kinski, Frederick Williams, Maria Rohm
Studio: 4 Front Video
Category: Video
List Price: £5.99
Buy Used: £3.74
You Save: £2.25 (38%)
Used (11) from £3.74
Rating:  7 reviews
Sales Rank: 11561
Format: Pal
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: Suitable for 12 years and over
Media: VHS Tape
Discs: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 96 Minutes
UPC: 044005648836
EAN: 0044005648836
ASIN: B00004R72Z
Theatrical Release Date: 1973
Release Date: June 8, 1998
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Condition: In excellent condition. Dispatched next working day by a UK based seller.
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 2 more reviews...
 A Missed opportunity! April 23, 2008
Coach Potato
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Christopher Lee had often expressed his displeasure at Hammer's treatment of the original Dracula and anounced he wanted to do a definitive version that was faithful to the book. In 1969 he found a willing partner in Jess Franco. The end result here on sale turned out to be a flop and Lee ended up back at Hammer doing more sequels. The first half is a pretty close adaption of the book retold in labourious fashion. The second half seems like it was shot in a panic as the director desperately tried to get it all in the can.
That isn't to say the film isn't without merit, it has some wonderful performances, Lee gives his all as the Count and is given much more to do than in his Hammer versions. Klaus Kinski steals the show as the throughly demented Renfield and Soledad Miranda as the ill-fated Lucy.
The pacing of the film is like a yo-yo, it goes from atmospheric to sluggish within the first hour with some memrorable moments sticking out. Give it a chance, to me its a flawed gem!
 I'm being generous here October 20, 2007
Edna Sweetlove (London)
1 out of 5 found this review helpful
This atrocious waste of time and effort really only deserves one star but, in Edna's book, is partially redeemed by the mesmerising stuffed animals scene!!
Contrary to film lore, there are no decent performances here, by the way - Lee, Kinski, Miranda and Lom are all as embarrassingly appalling as everyone else. So there.
Jess Franco's: Count Dracula (El Conde Dracula) 1970 October 7, 2007
Wayne Jefferies (UK)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Jess Franco's: Count Dracula (El Conde Dracula) 1970.
The year that Hammer gave us two Dracula films, Christopher Lee agreed to play Dracula again for a 3rd time, in Jess Franco's production of Count Dracula, on the condition that it was a faithful reconstruction of Bram Stoker's novel, & indeed the publicity at the time claimed that it was telling the story as Stoker wrote it. It was possibly the closest movie to Stoker's book up to then, even though there are still almost inevitably some differences.
In terms of portraying Dracula as written, Lee himself claims it's his best performance. Here, like the book, Dracula begins as an old man who gradually gets younger as he drinks more blood. In fact, i think Lee looks very striking as the older Dracula with white hair a thick white moustache. How different he seems to the Hammer productions!
With regard to the film as whole, i do have some mixed feelings about it. It has some good elements, but after the first half hour it does seem to get ponderously slow in places. The first notable scene comes about 10mins in, where Dracula, posing as the Count's coachman drives Harker to the castle amid the howling wolves & the swirling mist, & he gets off the coach & shoos the wolves away with a gesture, - his eyes blazing under the hat & scarf. Even though the 'wolves' are quite clearly alsatian dogs, i really like the whole sequence. It's very atmospheric, & remeniscent of the book. Dracula's first appearance 'proper', with the introductory scene at the castle uses well known lines from the book, & Lee plays it slightly differently to the introduction scene in the Hammer version. This Count Dracula is formally polite, but doesn't quite have the cordiality of his earlier version.
When Dracula shows Harker to his room, i was surprised to see a large mirror in the room, which obviously does not show Dracula's reflection. This goes against Dracula's dislike of mirrors, & i'm sure in the book that Harker notices Dracula's lack of reflection in a small shaving mirror of his own, but i might be thinking of one of the later films. I like the scene a few minutes later where Dracula is talking the history of the Draculas, & battling the turks etc.. etc... This scene is also from the novel, & later productions go even further, by tying the historical figure Vlad the Impaler directly into things. But although Stoker's narrative does speak of a lone Dracula finally returning alone from the field of battle, he never mentions the character specifically. Lee though is clearly relishing his chance to deliver this passage from the book, & the director makes that very obvious with the full close up of Lee as he does so. I like the zoom in on Dracula's mouth too, as he delivers the classic line 'Listen to them, Children of the night. What music they make'. You can just see the fangs! It's also interesting to note that the castle scenes look as though they are actually filmed in a real castle. The rooms are huge, & it all looks very cold & drafty compared to the sumptuous Hammer sets!
I like the next scene with the 3 'brides' as well. I think the transparent, ghostly look as they rise from their coffins works quite well. It's a pretty eerie effect. Although, i do think that Lee underplayed it just slightly in the bit where the Count arrives & dismisses them.
Like the Hammer version, this film also completely omits all the stuff on the ship as Dracula voyages to England. After Harker dicovers the bloody lipped Count at rest in his tomb, he escapes from the Castle in fear, & all of a sudden he wakes up at the sanitorium in England! (Although, it's so obviously modern Spain rather than Victorian England). We're now just over half hour into the film, & this is where i feel it really begins to slow down. IMO, Herbert Lom's portrayal of Van Helsing doesn't help matters. Whereas i felt that Lee undeplayed it slightly earlier on, he's postively OTT compared to Lom's positively complacent version of Van Helsing. It's completely the opposite to Cushing's portrayal, with no sense of urgency whatsoever! Most of the scenes at the sanitorium are pretty dull to be honest. Only the scenes involving Renfield, played by Klaus Kinski, who comes across as suitably disturbed, breathe any life into things at this point in the film.
Things pick up a bit during the scenes where Dracula feeds from Lucy. This is presented in a very different different way to the Hammer style, which included a hint of sexuality right back their first 1958 film. Here it's much more basic, & it actually reminds me more of the way it's done in 'Nosferatu'. The vampire is feeding, & the victim is in a completely trance like state, with barely any awareness, & although Dracula looks nothing like as monstrous as Count Orlok, i think it comes across as very animalistic.
It's unfortunate that large sections of the narrative are really rather dull & dreary for the last hour of the film, but there are some good bits mixed in. There's a momentary highlight when Mina catches Dracula in the act of feeding from Lucy. Lee delivers a good old fashioned snarl, & we see the blood dripping down the Count's face. Also, the bit where the vampirised Lucy lures a child as her first victim, is a brief but suitably sinister scene. Although i think her later staking by Van Helsing & his comrades could've been made a bit more dramatic.
One of the film's most striking scenes comes about 15/20mins from the end, where all the stuffed animals come back to life & attack Harker & Quincy is very effective. As is the scene where the now younger looking Dracula exerts a strong hypnotic control over Renfield, forcing him to try to strangle Mina.
Dracula plans his escape back to Transylvania, but not before killing Renfield, & attacking Mina, whilst confronting Van Helsing, who is now in a wheelchair for no apparent reason that i can discern! But Van Helsing sees him off by drawing a flaming cross in the floor with a red hot poker. The film ends with Dracula escaping back to the castle, but Harker & Quincy have already gone ahead to sanctify the vampires' resting place. In a finale which again isn't as dramatic as it could've been, they stake the 3 brides, & set fire to Dracula whilst in his makeshift coffin, & we see the Count age to death in the flames. The poor special effects for Dracula's aging doesn't help the ending, which seems a bit of an anti-climax after the sheer drama of the way Cushing destroys Dracula in the 1958 Hammer film. And if i hear that organ motif one more time!...... Which reminds me that i forgot to mention the incidental music. It's quite good in places, but there's one bit that gets repeated for what seems like about 50 times!
So all in all, it's a bit of a mixed bag this one. On the one hand, it's fairly faithful to the book, particularly with regard to Dracula's characterization, which Christopher Lee does a very good job of. But it lacks the drama of the Hammer Dracula, & unfortunately Lee's good performance is 'alter-equalled' by Herbert Lom's somewhat sleepy performance. Klaus Kinski is notable, but the other actors are just 'ok', & whilst i do like the first half hour of the film a lot, the rest of it, aside from a sprinkling of good moments, just feels a bit too lacklustre.
All this makes it very difficult to rate, but taking everything into account, i think i'll settle on 6/10.
 Good effort March 14, 2007
Mr. M. L. Marshall (UK)
10 out of 10 found this review helpful
In this movie, Franco set out to make the first truly faithful adaptation of Stoker's work. The early castle scenes do just that. It's a treat to get Christopher Lee delivering great chunks of Stoker's original dialogue, word for word, while dressed and made up much more in line with Stoker's description than previous films had attempted. Sadly, halfway through the movie Franco obviously realised that at this rate the movie would be about 4 hours long, and would cost a fortune, so he had to botch together a hastily-compiled second half that departs from Stoker's text. Nevertheless, it's not terrible, thanks to Herbert Lom and Klaus Kinski's excellent turn as Renfield. Ultimately, this movie is an example of what could have been. All I can do is wish that Franco had had Coppola's budget, then we might genuinely have seen Bram Stoker's Dracula. But still well worth watching.
noble but flawed attempt. May 25, 2006
Mr. A. E. Ward Davies (Canterbury , England)
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
a wasted opportunity in more ways than one. despite what is stated at the beginning before the credits start, this is not an official adaptation of the novel. as far as i'm aware, that has never been done.
the main problem is the budget; the lack of money really shows on occassion during the film. surely the production could have been halted until more money had been invested?
also, the setting is completely wrong. the sets and places used for the location footage are more that of a western rather than a gothic horror film. a letdown.
still, a couple of performances are a slight compensation. christopher lee plays dracula better than i thought; his approach to the character is much more in relation to the novel. a freshing change. the brilliant klaus kinski is limited but very effective as renfield. a shame that he didn't share a few scenes with christopher lee, as the two characters did in the novel.
only see this film for the sake of curiosity.
|
|
|
www.pcprotech.co.uk | |
