User reviews

This BBC produced adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel is one of the most faithful ever filmed, aswell as being one of the most atmospheric and spookiest. At two and a half hours long it's certainly ambitious, but Louis Jourdan gives the performance of his life as Dracula. Handsome, elegant, and charmingly polite, he is also a sociopath who knows how to gaslight those who are under his control. Frank Finley is brilliant as Van Helsing, he actually looks like a Dutchman (which the character was), and plays the role as if it was Shakespeare. Jack Shepherd comes close to stealing the show though, in a gleefully manic turn as the fly eating Renfield, a disciple of the count incarcerated in a lunatic asylum. A highlight is Dracula's crawl down the castle wall, witnessed by Jonathan Harker from his window. Hammer films did this sequence in Scars of Dracula (1970), but it wasn't half as good as it is here. Kudos too for this adaptation featuring the English seaside town of Whitby. An integral part of Stoker's novel ( and which to this day attracts Dracula devotees from around the world to it's annual goth weekend), it is pretty much ignored in practically every other version that has been filmed. Philip Seville's film however features great location filming, including making use of the towns atmospheric abbey ruins. This is one TV movie you can really get your teeth into.

Like most people on here I also thought this BBC version was the most faithful adaptation of Stoker's original novel. Granted, they have changed a few details; for example, Mina and Lucy are sisters, the characters of Quincy and Arthur have been amalgamated and Jonathan visits the Count at his castle in Bohemia rather than Transylvania, but these minor deviations aside, I think even Stoker himself would have said this version was fairly close to what he had in mind while writing his famous novel.

Being from the UK I have grown up with the BBC and the programmes it produced in the 1970's. Watching 'Count Dracula' as an adult on DVD was, in many ways, a very pleasant nostalgic journey back to my childhood. Yes, I agree the budget did impose certain restrictions on the production...fake bats and obvious stage sets instantly spring to mind.....along with the mix of video and film but, to me, instead of being negative points these so called 'flaws' all added to its charm. That said, it also had some genuinely outstanding points; it is truly creepy, fantastically acted, perfectly cast and and had excellent script. The undoubted highlight for me has to be the location filming in Whitby cemetery; the scenes of Lucy being attacked in the graveyard were actually filmed in the very graveyard that inspired Stoker when he was writing the novel back in the 1890's. Cut to Francis Ford Copploa's 1992 version....which also makes a claim to being a faithful adaptation of the novel... and it doesn't even mention Whitby at all.

As for Louis Joudan, in my opinion, he is simply the best ever Dracula; understated, sophisticated, menacing and arrogant. Both Lugosi and Oldman were good but they were a bit too camp and shouted their evil from the rooftops. Jourdan, on the other hand, whispered in your ear and chilled the very depths your soul without you even really knowing why. In a word, genius. Another role worth noting is Jack Shepherd as Renfield. Again, not a typical over the top portrayal of a madman in an asylum but rather a somewhat more complex character; a normal man tortured by very specific moments of madness. The scene when he begs Dr. Seward to release him is truly, truly magnificent.

I'll not hide the fact that I am a Dracula fan. I love Stoker's original novel and I love the Victorian Gothic ambiance that it contains. While the BBC's version doesn't quite match Coppola's film for atmosphere and special effects, it certainly makes up for it with its script, the quality of the acting and its faithfulness to the original novel. It has to be, without doubt, my single favourite version of the Dracula story.

Jonathan Harker is sent to Transylvania to go over the finer details of a property purchase by one Carpathian, Count Dracula. On his journey he finds the locals making strange gestures in his direction, he asks a fellow coach passenger, the significance of this, he is told it is a sign that they wish you good luck. Harker questions why he was singled out for such a gesture, the passenger asks where is his journey taking him. Harkers reply that he is going to the Borgo Pass and then on to the home of Count Dracula on business, strikes fear into his fellow passengers, they urge the coach driver on through the grim forest, to make the pass before nightfall, where Harker is abruptly left. Out of the darkness he sees what seems to be two yellow eyes, but on closer inspection it is a coach to bring him up the hill to Dracula's castle. There he is met by the Count ( Louis Jourdan), a handsome man of some refine, together they exchange pleasantries and despite the late hour get down to business. Harker is asked to respect the history of the castle and not stray into certain rooms and under no circumstance fall asleep in the library. Harker naturally agrees to his hosts demands. The following evening, after some discussions, the count asks Harker to stay on for a month or so, Harker questions the need, but is convinced by Dracula to stay, but he soon regrets his decision and he realises just what his host is and that he is his prisoner. After the Count leaves for England with his vast shipment of ancient soil, Harker makes ready his escape without haste to stop the Count.

For a TV adaptation, the production values and attention to detail are evident from the start, the build up to our first meeting with the Count is beautifully crafted with tension and apprehension of what lurks in the dark mountainous forests of Transylvania, through Harker, we see the terrified eyes of superstitious locals, their fear of this as yet unseen man is palpable and thus we await our first glimpse, what shape of form will this evil take? Harker's journey takes him to the imposing castle doors, there we meet the evil one, its none other than Louis Jourdan. There have been many great cinematic Dracula's, Lugosi perhaps being the most famous, Lee didn't speak much, but to a certain generation there is no other, Oldman camped it up nicely, Langella was a more romantic Count, so to many the choice of Jourdan as Dracula might come as a surprise and not a good one either. The viewers fears are instantly laid to rest as Harker and Dracula get down to business in the dimly lit library, immediately we see he is no monster, he is just a man, he talks like a normal man, but he is also handsome, debonair and exudes an aristocratic class. Together their conversations are literary and at times rather profound. I enjoyed these scenes immensely, never having read the original novel, it gave me an impression of it, that I haven't found in other more famous adaptations. The first hour is taken up with the dealings in Dracula's castle before we move to England as Dracula makes his moves on Mina and Lucy, Harker someway behind in pursuit of the Count. Once there we are introduced to the dealings of the Westenra family and the local asylum where one Renfield seems to be telepathically in touch with the Count. He is a different Renfield to be sure, perhaps a more realistic portrayal of a mentally disturbed man. Soon after a heavy storm, Lucy begins sleep walking and remains for some time quite ill, in a desperate attempt to save her life, her former love, Dr Seward employs the assistance of his mentor Abraham Van Helsing (Frank Finlay), a specialist in rare diseases, once he arrives his methods instantly bring an air of calm. Van Helsing instantly deduces the problem and makes plans to protect Lucy from this unseen terror. Finlay for his part is a wonderful Van Helsing, he brings the right blend of knowledge, calmness and forthrightness under pressure that the role requires, strangely in his looks, he reminded me of an older Al Pacino. Getting back to the production, they are of a very high standard indeed, the majority of the sfx are pretty good for the time, some though it must be said are rather iffy, director Saville even resorting to a swirling animated entry to a room by the Count, there's also some very very rubbery bats. Still though these can be put down to budgetary restraints and Saville certainly does seem to have a visual eye and there are a number of memorable flourishes, like the invisible Lucy in the mirror trick and the reflection of a crucifix on the face of Dracula and also a raging plume of smoke from a coffin. The cast is way above average for such a production, there's even a nice score, but for me Jourdan and Finlay make the film, at 150 mins though it might be a little long or drawn out for some, I found it riveting, I felt like I was watching a really great stage play, the dialogue is always interesting and as such this is a great success.

One of my favorite horror movies of all time. I saw this movie on PBS when it first premiered back in '77 or '78. I recorded it a couple of years later and have watched it almost every Halloween since. My kids have grown up with this as a tradition. Sometimes we skip a year or two but always come back to this classic.

For me the movie captures the essence of the book. Several of my favorite scenes are not necessarily the most important. In the opening while Jonathan is riding in the carriage and they pass the woman praying at the roadside shrine. Waiting all alone at the pass in the dead of night. The arrival of the Count's carriage. The late dinner with gold table service. The great scene of Jonathan shaving and the Count's sudden appearance unreflected in the mirror and his comment "The problem with mirrors is they don't show enough" as he nonchalantly drops the mirror out the window. Jonathan's growing horror as he begins to realize he's trapped. His escape to the decrepit chapel were he finds the blood stained vampires entranced in their coffins. The dreamy waltz like nightmares of Lucy's seduction. The rose pedals falling. Professor Van Helsling's scene where he's making cocoa; handing the first cup to his guest, joined by another he hands his next cup to him and then again until he's eventually made cocoa for everyone. The scene in the woods with Van Helsling, Mina and the three brides of Dracula (especially the terrorized horses bolting). The return to castle Dracula in the light of day.

Dracula is portrayed as both supernatural and human (never melodramatic or campy), very European, very Old World and of course, very tragic. He even is Biblical in his comments that "I make this world my domain" like Satan going to and fro, to and fro in the world.

For me great stories always have a feeling as if they were going on before we arrived and will continue after we leave. This story is like that. I feel as if the story does indeed go way back. And though it has a logical ending it seems as if it will go on. Truly a classic.

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.

I finally saw this for the first time, and I agree with the general opinion that it is probably the most faithful rendering of Stoker's book. I thought Frank Finlay gave the best performance, as Van Helsing... but as for Louis Jourdan, he disappointed me somewhat as The Count. He played the King of Vampires as calm and charming, and not nearly savage or evil enough when the need arose (such as when he is supposed to turn with rage against his brides, for instance). He still manages to be villainous, though, and thankfully not a romantic hero. But I just wish he could have been more hateful or emotional when the situation called for it. It's still unfathomable to me that NO VERSION of this story has ever got it all accurate.. and in this case, the biggest thorn in my side with the BBC rendition is that Dracula doesn't appear as an older man who gradually gets younger as he drinks blood.

I did enjoy this presentation quite a bit overall despite some complaints, though. Oh - another quibble was that surrealistic "Andy Warhol" stuff that went on with characters' faces now and then. Just silly. Very good staking sequence, though. Another thing I am starting to feel more than ever, is that Dracula probably should be told as a rather slow-paced and calculated tale. From the Bram Stoker book, to the Lugosi version, to the Palance film, to this BBC adaptation... it's a deliberately lightly-paced story that builds slowly and gradually. After I saw the Jourdan movie I again sketched my head wondering how so many people can still think the wild westernly-paced HORROR OF Dracula -- which is possibly the LEAST Stoker-ish film of them all to date -- can be considered "THE Best Dracula Telling" ! While full of action and dynamic lunging about and bombastic music soundtrack, it's very unlike the Stoker classic. *** out of ****

Faithful to the novel, magnificently performed in every way. This mini-series showed how well a classic novel should be adapted. Coming only 2 years before Langella's performance, Louis Jordan showed how sexy a middle aged man can be in this role.

Thirty-five years after I first saw it, most of it sticks in my memory as the greatest adaptation of Bram Stoker's timeless novel. From the opening scenes as Jonathan Harker makes his way through the Carpathian Mountains to the final scenes as the heroes converge on the Count, this took the approach of being presented in a mini-series format to tell the long story that Bram Stoker conceived.

Lucy's slow transformation from dying waif to lusting vampire is the most memorable scene and may actually be too intense for some viewers.

Far better than Francis Ford Coppola's version of the early 90's. Definitely worth watching annually on Halloween.

Unusually authentic, and effectively scripted, for a filmed work from a written work. Some unusually good choices such as a handsome and charming Count which leads to other useful, relevant choices of desire vs terror.

But... it is 1977 BBC. Video interiors, film exteriors. Hideous VFX. Strange musical cues, and long stretches with no audio. Oh the posterizing! It's horrible!

Oh, and pretty poor sound quality, with no subs on the DVD I got, so often hard to tell what anyone is saying. If I didn't already know what was up, would be hard to watch.

Would love to see this exact script remade by someone. In the current TV era, it seems like it would go awfully well. Stretch to 4 hours or so and make a week of it, or a streaming binging series.

The BBC's 1977 production of "Count Dracula" arguably represents for many Dracula aficionados the finest screen version of Stoker's novel ever likely to be made.

"Count Dracula" probably stands alone by virtue of its very faithful adherence to Stoker's plot, as well as the uniformly stunning quality of the acting performances (who, for instance, could forget Jack Shepherd's "Renfield"?).

But for me, the most outstanding feature of the production is the conscious, studied, Gothic restraint of the female cast, echoing much of what was best about the early Hammer vampire movies before the regrettable advent of the "tits and fangs" genre.

Without the exposure of a single breast, the trio of female vampires at Castle Dracula succeed in conveying an astonishing level of sexual allurement as they coquettishly tease Jonathan Harker with his letter to Mina.

In similar vein, when the (by now un-dead) Lucy Westenra is confronted in the cemetery by the group of vampire slayers, she transforms herself almost instantaneously from a blood-stained Fury from Hell into a virginal Lady of Shalot, and then back again.

How sad that this near-perfect cinematic achievement appears to have been very largely eclipsed by "Dracula" of 1978, as well as Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula"!

This version of Dracula has been cited as one of the most faithful film adaptations of the novel. That's always nice, because there are so many movies that take too many liberties from the original stories they are based on. But as a stand-alone movie I don't think this is the best Dracula movie. It lacks a charismatic Dracula actor like Bela Lugosi, Max Schreck, or Christopher Lee. Also the other actors are quite basic. They do the job but nothing spectacular. Well, it's a British tv production. Maybe some viewers like that it's more low-key and not as cheesy as some Hollywood versions. But I like my classic horror movies to be a little bit over-dramatic. This movie just tells the story but it doesn't do much else. A lot of the scenes have a little bit stage play feel. There are some outdoor scenes with graveyards, and some nice bloody scenes. But overall it doesn't go to my top Dracula films. But worth checking out.

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.

I must agree with all those who say that this is the best adaptation of Stoker's masterpiece. Although I enjoyed F.F. Coppola's film, I still feel that this little gem captured the eerieness and forboding of the novel much better. The production does have its flaws. Occasional poor editing and the switching from film to tape which are too obvious. Dark Shadows like special effects.

I disagree with those who feel Louis Jourdan is miscast. I think he has just the right menace and dark sensuality to portray the Count.

Why on Earth hasn't anyone put this on the video cassette market? It's beyond me. But more importantly, why hasn't anyone figured out that this is the definitive Dracula and done a bigger budget remake. I guess Hollywood today simply doesn't have the kind of resources the BBC had in the late 70s.

I saw this on PBS Great Performances in 1978, then watched the rerun the following year. I raved about it then to anyone who would listen. But, I hadn't seen the whole thing since then. How lucky I am to have gotten ahold of a copy of the full-length version on DVD. While the project may have benefitted from a larger budget, overall they did great work with what they had.

The cast is quite good with Louis Jourdan giving us an urbane, seductive yet menacing Count, and Finlay as a solid Van Helsing. The story has been told so many times but rarely with this much loyalty to the source material. While there are minor revisions to the story, they seem to serve the purpose of moving the story along (such as combining the Holmwood & Morrison characters). Meanwhile, the director manages to squeeze in more of Jonathan's experiences in Dracula's castle, such as his "gift" to the three brides or his departure down the side wall. That last one always struck me as so cinematic in the book, I was surprised that it had never been used in any of the films before.

Some day there may be an even better adaptation of Stoker's novel, with a better budget but, until that day, this will remain my preferred version of the story.

Forget Coppola. This is as good as it gets. Although the budget looks meagre, and -- because of length -- some characters and events get cut or shortchanged, this is still the best "Dracula" out there. Jourdan is at once understated and menacing, the perfect Dracula. Judi Bowker is the best Mina ever. If you can find this movie, add it to your collection. Until someone makes a two-night miniseries with a decent budget and sound actorsand follows Stoker to the letter, this is the best "Dracula" you'll ever see.

The last time I had seen this was on TV back in the early 90's. That was to my knowledge the last time the BBC aired this classic. I recently ordered this from Amazon and it arrived this morning and I refrained from viewing it till nightfall. I started it about 10:55pm and it finished around 1:28am as I paused it for a snack break but only for a few moments. Anyway, all the memories came flooding back like it was just yesterday I had viewed this, not the early 90's.

The atmosphere in this is amazing so it is. The music is perfect for every situation, it is creepy and tense, and works wonders for the movie. The set pieces for every location are exceptional too (the graveyards and castle and forest thick countryside). They really do stand out and grab hold of you and don't let go as you are pulled into the storyline through the exceptional music and surroundings. Night time for example when Jonathan was stranded at the pass waiting on Dracula turning up for him, the storm in that scene was VERY atmospheric. The thing is it probably helped that I was watching it when it was raining outside and the wind was blowing strong, that and with it being night made it all the more enjoyable to view.

At this moment in time I am listening to the "Nox Arcana" Gothic ambient album called "Transylvania" and it is giving me goose bumps as the movie is still fresh in my mind, this is because it is not long finished (about 10 minutes ago). I highly recommend this album to those into the creatures of the night and their activities. A nice atmospheric piece listening to it in the dark (like I am at the moment).

The cast in this production is flawless. Louis Jordan as Count Dracula worked really well. He brought a sort of stern not to be messed with look to the Count in his performance, and yet still managed to be seductive to the ladies as well. Frank Finley is on top form as Professor Van Helsing (but when is Frank never a joy to watch). Judi Bowker as Wilhelmina 'Mina' Westenra is eye candy for me. She is a honey so she is. Her performance is not flawed in anyway what so ever. I think everyone else I have not mentioned gave 100% to their roles. The cast was very well chosen indeed, well done!.

In my opinion this is THE BEST version of the book to movie by far. The BBC are damn good at making atmospheric shows (Survivors, Count Dracula). It is this sort of movie (TV movie in this case) starring Louis Jordan that makes me support British horror over everything else when up against other countries in the same genre.

And in saying that this Louis Jordan Dracula production, along side Hammer Films, cannot be beaten for exceptional set pieces and atmosphere. It's things like Hammer movies and Count Dracula (1977) that make me proud to support the British movie and TV industry when gems like this turn up. I'd like to see Danny Boyle and Neil Marshall do something along this line of movie, they would be good at it. Danny Boyle and Neil Marshall are the new Terence Fisher's of British horror.

Directed "Masterpiece Theater" style and featuring a mondo bizarre performance from Louis Jordan as the Count (check out those eyes!) that is so bad it's good and often just plain creepy, this is the lost "classic" of the myriad of Dracula film/TV adaptations. This isn't high art (for high art see both versions of "Nosferatu"), but as a literary adaptation, this is near perfection. With it's reserved Victorian settings and sufficiently Gothic scenes of fog, castles, manors and moors, you get the feeling that these are the types of scenes Bram Stoker envisioned when writing his vampire tale. Although I am big fan of Coppola's 1992 version of the tale, this version is probably the most faithful to the book and to Stoker's vision. Kudos to the BBC.

LOUIS JOURDAN, for all his charm and elegance as an actor, does nothing to increase his acting reputation with his lackluster portrait of the evil vampire count. Moreoever, despite the attempt to tell "all" of the Bram Stoker tale, the end result is bound to disappoint any fan of Dracula expecting real Gothic horror or suspense.

The production has the sort of trimmings you'd expect from a BBC made-for-TV movie produced in the late '70s, but it plays more like a stuffy Victorian melodrama without a sharp focus on the heart of the tale, the count himself. Instead, it treats all of the subsidiary characters to a close inspection (including Renfield), and gives us a Dr. Van Helsing who is unabashedly overplayed by FANK FINLAY in the worst sort of "watch my acting" way. Not since Paul Muni hammed up the role of Chopin's tutor in A SONG TO REMEMBER ('45) have I seen the camera hogged by such a big slice of ham. Furthermore, JACK SHEPHERD plays Renfield with wild-eyed histrionics that defy any sort of reality the weird and unsettling character should have, possibly a fault of director Philip Saville. By contrast, Jourdan's Count Dracula is a study in subtlety.

The cast is merely adequate, going through their paces without much flair or style, and the result is a tepid, passionless thriller which is supposed to be fraught with Gothic chills.

After a promising opening full of the proper atmosphere, this is a sleep-inducing version which wanders too far and wide from the main thrust of the tale with a talky narrative that never really comes to life the way vampires are expected to.

I saw this once in about 1978 on public television in San Francisco. It was astounding because for once not just the horror, but also the senusality of the Dracula story was transferred to the screen without the (then) standard "monsters jumping out of the box" treatment. I got marvelous chills and tingles while watching. NOW, if those of us who remember this movie/tv show could just get a copy of it!

This BBC production of Dracula was originally shown in the U.S. on PBS in a three part segment each 45 minutes in length.It is one of the more faithful retellings of the classic Bram Stoker novel starring Louis Jourdan as the suave count.Frank Finlay plays Van Helsing in one of his greatest roles ever and Susan Penhaligon and Judi Bowker turn in fine preformances as well.One of my favorite moments is when Van Helsing confronts Lucy in the graveyard (A chilling moment) and I also like the part where Mina discovers Dracula feasting on lucy after she follows her sleepwalking one night.Phillip Saville creates plenty of atmosphere in the direction and even comes up with some Hammer type vampire shocks. The switch from tape to film in the production has never really bothered me like it has others. It kind of gives it an eerie psychedelic feel at times. I recently found a good copy of the film with the uncut part of the vampire brides feasting on a baby intact. I was STOKED! It had been over 20 years since I had seen it!

I remember seeing this as a young girl of about 12...To me was the "real" Dracula story and could there ever be a better Dracula than Jourdan?...the looks, the accent...WOW...Not only a must see its a must own...!!!!

The BBC 2's 1977 adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Count Dracula," at 150 minutes, may well be the most faithful of all versions to its literary source, casting French lothario Louis Jourdan as an effective, low key Count, ably opposed by Shakespearean Frank Finlay as Van Helsing (two years before his friend Laurence Olivier played the role against Frank Langella). Bosco Hogan as Jonathan Harker spends the first 45 minutes a prisoner of Dracula, who claims that he needs Harker to remain to help him with his English while espousing the history of Transylvania. The Count can appear as a bat, a wolf, or a cloud of mist, frequently leaving his private sanctuary by climbing down the castle wall like a spider, providing a newborn infant as sustenance for his three beautiful vampire brides. Back home in England, Harker is betrothed to Mina Westenra (Judi Bowker), whose sister Lucy (Susan Penhaligon) suddenly takes ill, discovered walking in her sleep during her first festive encounter with the thirsty Count. Lucy's American fiancee, Quincey Holmwood (Richard Barnes), willingly offers his own blood for a transfusion, too late to prevent her from dying right before his eyes. Van Helsing shares his knowledge of evil with Holmwood and Dr. John Seward (Mark Burns), a necessity when dealing with both the undead Lucy and her sister Mina, who is destined to become Dracula's bride in an unsettling yet erotic sequence in which she is compelled to drink his blood from a cut in his chest. The supreme confidence displayed by this Dracula makes him a most formidable foe, unperturbed by Van Helsing's weapons but still forced to retreat back to Transylvania after his adversaries uncover all his hidden boxes in England. Frank Finlay copes well with Van Helsing's accent and comes off as the finest since Peter Cushing, with one jarring note being the absurd Texas twang adopted by Richard Barnes for Holmwood. Jack Shepherd's sensitive Renfield is another genuine surprise, Jourdan's icy cool sensuality an intriguing counterpoint to Christopher Lee's feral and electrifying Count (believe it or not, he was actually one year older than Lee). He viewed his interpretation of Dracula as a 'fallen angel' who simply does what he must to survive, and by extending life to others offers the supreme act of love in both the giving and taking of blood (the 'loneliness of evil' embodied by Lee is equally conveyed here).