MovieChat Forums > Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht (1973) Discussion > Could have been much more, but still wor...

Could have been much more, but still worth a watch


Count Dracula (1970)

Directed by Jess Franco, this Spanish/West German/Italian/UK co-production (filmed in Spain and Italy) was the first attempt to film a truly faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. As such it attracted a good cast; Christopher Lee plays Dracula, Herbert Lom plays Van Helsing, and Klaus Kinski plays Renfield. Lee - who by this point had already played Dracula three times for Hammer - jumped at the chance to play a version of the character as Stoker wrote him; he sports a moustache throughout, and begins the film as an elderly man, only becoming more youthful as the film progresses and he feeds on more victims. He's also given the chance to speak more dialogue taken from the novel. It takes a bit of getting used to seeing Lee's Dracula like this (no cape really jars!), but he's clearly enjoying the opportunity and plays it well. Herbert Lom is a solid Van Helsing, albeit closer to Edward Van Sloan than Peter Cushing. Klaus Kinski makes for a good 'lunatic' (although for some reason he has no dialogue whatsoever). In the supporting cast Maria Rohm as Mina, and the ill-fated Soledad Miranda as Lucy (Miranda was killed in an automobile accident later that year, four months after Count Dracula premiered) are very good.

Franco is admirably restrained; there's zero nudity, and apart from Kinski the performances are kept pretty subtle (even Lee - although that's not to say he isn't menacing when he needs to be). The cinematography is beautiful, and the sets and locations look fantastic. Looking at interviews from Lee and Franco it's clear that intentions were good and hearts were in the right place.

Unfortunately - despite the diverse funding - budget became an issue. A lot of money went on Lee, and as long as he was on-set no expense was spared for the production. What no-one (including Lee) realised was that once he was done and had departed for England the money was slashed to a pittance, whole scenes were removed, first-takes were used, regardless of errors (such as crew/equipment being visible), and effects became pitiable. The runtime was also shortened (all this came from producer Harry Towers, not from Jess Franco). What's left is a shining example of 'what might have been'. It almost seems that for 'every good part there's an equal and opposite bad one' (apologies to Sir Isaac Newton). It's such a shame. Nevertheless, the film still manages to create a strong sense of atmosphere, and the scenes dispatching the vampirised Lucy and Dracula's brides - always essential set-pieces - don't disappoint. All in all I'll still give it 7/10.

reply

I just watched this last night. I had seen it a few years ago, but after seeing the new Nosferatu, have been revising some of the older Dracula movies. It's okay, but my style of Franco film. I think it's too restrained, and feels like one of the Hammer films before they began spicing things up. Some locations look great. Herbert Lom was a pretty good Van Helsing. And I liked the sequence with Lucy at the park beckoning the child who she later kills. But then there's that (stuffed) animal attack sequence, which is pretty funny. There's a lavish pretty new 4k edition from Severin that I'm sure is definitive, but I just don't enjoy this one enough to buy it. Thankfully Tubi let me refresh my memory.

reply

I had no idea Kinski played Renfield in a movie. So Dracula (Nosferatu) and Renflield. Interesting!

reply

How could you not know that

reply

I know right? Common knowledge. It's like not knowing Tom Cruise was in Top Gun.

reply

Tom Cruise was in Top Gun?

reply