Christopher Lee stars in both, both based on the book? why another? "Horror" is great, is this worth the time to find?
shareI like them both and they both are a bit different in their own kind of way.
shareMain differences:
Horror of Dracula: Entertaining.
Count Dracula: Mind-numbingly boring.
Horror of Dracula: Lavish.
Count Dracula: Cheap-looking.
Horror of Dracula: Faithful to the spirit of the novel, if not the letter.
Count Dracula: A bit more faithful to the letter than average, a travesty of the spirit.
Horror of Dracula: Made by a good director.
Count Dracula: Made by the worst director in cinema history.
Horror of Dracula: Takes advantage of its good cast.
Count Dracula: Is one of the worst wastes of a good cast ever.
Non vos riades, que o conto é triste.
>Main differences:
Horror of Dracula: Entertaining.
Count Dracula: Mind-numbingly boring.
Horror of Dracula: Lavish.
Count Dracula: Cheap-looking.
Horror of Dracula: Faithful to the spirit of the novel, if not the letter.
Count Dracula: A bit more faithful to the letter than average, a travesty of the spirit.
Horror of Dracula: Made by a good director.
Count Dracula: Made by the worst director in cinema history.
Horror of Dracula: Takes advantage of its good cast.
Count Dracula: Is one of the worst wastes of a good cast ever<
I agree wholeheartedly, Jess franco's dracula was such a disappointment I don't think it's completely without merit but as a whole the bad direction just dragged the whole movie down, some real bad decisions were made too like using monkey noises for a bats squeak, shooting parts that were meant to be at night time in broad daylight and a smoke machine that made the forest look as though it was smouldering, stuffed animals coming to life. I thought from what I'd been told that I would love this movie and dislike the 1979 version of dracula with frank langella it turned out to be quite the opposite.
[deleted]
[deleted]
J F worst director than Ed Woods? Geez he must really be bad.
share@DwightFry
I totally agree with you this is one of the worst Movies i saw until now.
Brooding or boring? That's going to depend on an individual's taste. HORROR OF DRACULA is a more dynamic presentation, but this film was the first to show Dracula as an old man who grows younger and younger as he consumes blood. And, overall, it does try to stay true to the book. Christopher Lee, himself, remains very fond of this film. One thing that worked against this was that not all the cast were available at the same time. Herbert Lom, who plays Van Helsing, was never actually on the set the same day as Christopher Lee, which hampered some potential confrontations between them. As a result, a scene where Dracula and Van Helsing meet in the study had to be pieced together in the editing room after each actor's performance had been shot.
shareThis movie just isn't very good. I liked Christopher Lee and his going from older to younger and the baby in a bag was a chilling bit from the novel but the rest was bad. The bouncing boulder, the stiff bat, the menacing stuffed ostrich! The best part of the DVD is the interview with Franco.
shareThe whole bit with the stuffed animals was sort of a WTF moment. (The Taxidermy Terrors?) Not all of the original-to-the-film bits were quite like this. I did like the scene where Van Helsing uses a poker from the fireplace to burn a cross into the floor to drive the vampire away.
share"The whole bit with the stuffed animals was sort of a WTF moment. (The Taxidermy Terrors?) Not all of the original-to-the-film bits were quite like this. I did like the scene where Van Helsing uses a poker from the fireplace to burn a cross into the floor to drive the vampire away"
I didn't hate the film, but I must admit to be disappointed after reading how it was one of the few films that stayed true to the book. While adding a few more small details from the book, it deviated FAR MORE than staying true...a factor I wasn't prepared for. On it's own merits, the film was pretty good overall, but as a good depiction of Stoker's novel, it falls short like so many others.
Yes, the whole taxidermy thing was leaving me and my friend looking at one another, wondering what the hell this was supposed to be. I'll admit that it was creepy in a bizarre sort of way, but as you say, WTF??
Christopher Lee was the one thing that made the film worth seeing. I really liked his portrayal of Dracula.
* * * *
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
OK. He's not as bad as Ed Wood. At least Franco had directed films BEFORE Ed even picked up a script much less a camera. But Franco cut his teath (pardon the pun...intended. Of course). On soft-core pornographic features.
So he did learn a trick. Or two. Or three.
No he didn't, he cut his teeth working with the likes of Orson Welles amongst others, which you can find out by...er...looking at IMDb. Both Roman Polanski and Quentin Tarantino cite him as an influence. The 'porn' came way after this film.
shareI found this film by chance, in a videostore, about 12 years ago. It was a VHS edition. Being the the huge fan of Christopher Lee's Dracula that I am, I snached the film from the stand, bought it without thinking twice and went home antecipating a great night of gothic horror.
I can't tell enough how disapointed I was after watching the film! I mean, Lee's Dracula was perfect as usual, and for the first time he played the character as it was described in the book: an old man all dressed in black, with white hair and bushy white moustache, in the begining, getting younger as the story progressess and he feeds on the blood of his young victims. But the rest of the film was pure rubbish! The direction was bad, to say the least, the production values miserable, the cast - with the exception of Lee and Lom, who were excelent (Kinkski was a great actor, but his Renfield looked like he was on an acid trip the whole time, I hated it) - was less than competent, and the screenplay (contrary to what was advertised in the films cover) was everything but faithfull to the novel. Like someone already said, when the stuffed animals scene came up, I was like: WTF?!!
Anyway, I still have that copy of the film and it's one of my most prized possessions, but only because I'm such a Dracula fan and collector, and this item is a rare one to find. So, all in all, I would say that this film is a mandatory collectors item to any Dracula buff, like me, but if what you're looking for is a good Dracula film, then don't waste your money or time with this one. If what you want is a faithfull version of the novel, then get a copy of the BBC's 1977 mini-series with Loius Jourdan as Dracula - personaly, it's my favourite film version of the character and the closest to the novel's spirit.
I agree that "Count Dracula/Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht" can be a little underwhelming on first viewing, but IMHO it has a great spooky atmosphere that slowly grows on you. Lee's portrayal of the Count is certainly the most authentic to the novel to date, and aria Rohm and Soledad Miranda are appropriately gorgeous prey for the King Vampire.
I also agree that the 1977 BBC "Count Dracula" is the best version of Drac for anyone wanting a god adaptation of Stoker. But i'll always have a sneaking fondness for this one, even over the Hammer (Horror of) "Dracula". Sacrelige, perhaps, but there it is. And i certainly would rather watch this than the sleep-inducing staginess of the 1931 Lugosi version.
As for worst version: that would have to be the '79 Badham / Langella debacle. Appalling. Makes this Franco effort look like cinematic genius in comparison.
The version with Frank Langella wasn't bad, infact I would rate it better than most of the more modern adaptations. The version by Franco - who is a better director than he gets credit. With better material and budget he could have made the films he always wanted to make rather than the cheapo-''fleshy'' films they had him make - is actually quite good and it is, along with the BBC version, the most faithful version filmed and it is especially great if Christopher Lee has always been your favourite Dracula. I love 'Dracula' by Terence Fisher, it is my favourite version, but I like to see parts of the book more or less accurately portrayed with Christopher Lee too; and Mr. Lee does an audio version too.
"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"
The BBC version is availible via netflix as is this one -
shareAgreed on Langella / Badham. A very entertaining Dracula picture that is no less faithful than so many other adaptations.
shareThe first half an hour or so of this film is fairly faithful to the novel. After that, it deviates into its own work which is sort of like a lesser quality version of Horror of Dracula. The story does remain relatively faithful, however, in terms of character roles. Horror of Dracula killed off Jonathan, gave his role as Mina's lover to Arthur Holmwood, and made Van Helsing the protagonist. Here, the greatest deviation is that Dr. Seward is not one of Lucy's suitors and that he works for Van Helsing. Also, Renfield is present whereas he was conspicuous in his absence in Horror of Dracula.
The main different, in my opinion anyway, is in how Dracula is depicted. Dracula in the Hammer film was a silent and physical figure. He was also caped and clean shaven. In this film, Dracula's appearance and dialogue are taken directly from the book and he speaks at great length. However, he does not engage in any physical altercations like in the Hammer film. Essentially, the two depictions are polar opposites. I still greatly prefer Horror of Dracula to this one though.
I agree with you for the most part, but I have to disagree when it comes to the 1931 Lugosi version and the 1979 Langella version, the latter being a direct remake of the former. They're both very entertaining, each in it's own way.
Lugosi's version is more theatrical and slow paced, granted, but sleep inducing? I'm sorry, my friend, but I couldn't disagree more. It lacks some of the genius of James Whale's Frankenstein, but it's still a brilliant film, highly atmosferic and with an absolute and deliciously evil Dracula portrayed by an inspired Lugosi. By the way, have you ever seen the Spanish language version of this film? It was directed by George Melford and filmed during the night on the same sets that were being used for the Lugosi version (in the early days of sound, it was common for Hollywood studios to produce foreign-language versions of their films - usually in French, Spanish, Italian and German - using the same sets and costumes; most of these versions no longer survive, however the Spanish version of Dracula is one of the exceptions). It starred Carlos Villarias (billed as Carlos Villar) as Count Dracula, and it's included as a bonus feature on the Classic Monster Collection DVD from 1999, the Legacy Collection DVD set from 2004 and the 75th Anniversary Edition DVD set from 2006. And it's awsome! With a runtime of 104 minutes, it runs nearly a half-hour longer than the English-language version with Lugosi, and some say that it tops it - and I agree. Melford certainly took a lot more risks than Browning in his direction, exploring more daring camera angles, and the longer duration allowed him to better develop the plot in spite of the shortened shooting time and smaller budget, creating a much more artistically effective film. The only weekness is Carlos Villarias - he's very effective as Dracula, but he's no Lugosi. Still, if what you want is a more fast paced version of this classic, check out this one, you wont be sorry.
As for the 1979 version with Frank Langella, it's no masterpiece, far from it, but it follows the template of the 1931 version very closely while managing to update it rather effectively. Certainly not the most faithfull version of the novel, but that was never the objective to begin with. Badham could have followed Melford's example and be more daring with his camera angles and editing, but still his direction is steady and reliable, and he manages to obtain good performances from the whole cast, specially from Lawrence Olivier and Frank Langella. The latter portrays a rather good Dracula, thoroughly evil and corrupted, but also charged with a high sexual appeal. Also, the production values are very high and the special effects - although a bit dated by today's standards - still hold very well after 34 years. So all in all, this is a good and rather enjoyable film, and to compare it to this fiasco by Franco is hardly fair, to say the least.
Well, one of them is great, and the other was made by Jess Franco.
shareThis film is awful, awful, awful! I was so hopeful that this version would be THE ONE, as it's advertised as being faithful to Bram Stoker's novel. In my a$$! WTF was with the "mist" that looked like someone was burning the bloody forest down? The German shepherd dogs as wolves? All those mangy stuffed animals? And where the hell was Lord Arthur, Lucy's real fiancé??
I guess I'll continue my search for the best Dracula film, THE ONE! There are still some existing films I've not yet seen, but so far, the best IMHO, are Frank Langella's whack at The Count, and, despite Keanu Reeves, the absolutely ridiculous wardrobe, and Dracula's silly hair-do, 'Bram Stoker's Dracula.'
I have no doubt that SOMENE can do much better!
*sorry, SOMEONE!
shareI agree that it has many flaws, but still, it's one of my afvorite adaptations of the book. Why? Because, in spite of the differnces, it is one of the most faithfu cinematic versions, and is much more faithful than any of the previous versions. Dracula is exactly the same way Stoker described him. Plus, it's Christopher Lee's favorite adaptation, he liked it more than any of the Hammer films he starred in. Renfield being mute was cool. My only major complaint about it is the way they kill Dracula at the end.
shareThe big difference between the 2 films is Dracula has a moustache in this one
share