Considering this was made by Franco in 1970 right in the middle of a number of his movies with a lot of gore and full nudity this was like a Disney version of Dracula. Both of the main actresses worked with him in other movies and did full nudity. This was a very tame version of the story. Disappointing.
shareThere is no nudity nor gore in the book... so if you want to make an adaptation of Dracula, it can't be an horror movie at all...
shareI agree with omega_21, maybe you might like the version Coppola made in the 90's. That has nudity and gore. I noticed there are a lot of sexual scenes in that version too.
shareThere's hardly any sexual scenes in that film unless you count Keanu Reeves having his fake nipple licked by Dracula's wife as sexual.
shareThere's plenty of gore in the book including stakings, throat slashings, decapitatations and lest we forget a baby devored by three hungry women.
Read the book. Reading comprehension is a skill.
It's okay. Not as good as the Hammer or Universal Dracula films but still worthwhile just to see Christopher Lee play the character another time.
shareI'm with the OP, this is disappointing considering the director, period, and that he had actresses like Maria Rohm and Soledad Miranda involved. While it may be faithful to the novel in many respects, this kind of staid faithful adaption just isn't Jess Franco's forte. He is far more effective in taking elements of the classic Dracula story and creating the wild and erotic Vampyros Lesbos (1971) and Macumba Sexual (1983).
share