Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Apparently this is the most faithful screen adaptation of Dracula made so far. I haven't read the book in ages so i'd have to re-read to confirm that (which i just might do). At any rate, besides that I've got to say that I was a bit disappointed- last time I watched this film I gave it a 10 out of 10 rating. I think I may have been struck by the appearances of both Christopher Lee and Klaus Kinski, both great actors and both in adaptations of Dracula that I had seen in the past. Unfortunately, like many of Franco's other films, the pacing is a bit languid. As many others have written, I did expect a sleazier film, however I rather enjoyed that it wasn't. I had already seen Vampyros Lesbos and that's all we need from this man in that field. There may be no psychedelia but the giallo visuals are amazing. To truly have one of the great stories, like Dracula, filmed as a giallo piece is probably a wet dream of mine and so i'll chalk my high rating up to that as well. (And no, Argento's Dracula 3D does not count) This time around I'm gonna have to deduct half a point because it wasn't quite as revolutionary as I thought, but it's still one of the best Dracula adaptations i've ever seen, barring Nosferatu 1979 of course. I've got to say I like it more than Hammer's Dracula, which I'd never been the biggest fan of.

This movie would've been a great if:(1) Dracula had worn a cape (2) Peter Cushing had played Van Helsing (3) the music were more appropriate. Without a cape, Count Dracula just isn't Count Dracula. The man who played Van Helsing is too robotic. The voice is emotionless and unappealing. Where was Peter Cushing??And that music is more appropriate for a Kung Fu movie. I know it was 1970 when the sitar was popular but it just ruined this movie.Everything else is grand. I would never watch it again though.

No one, it seems, wants to give up on a really good bad guy.Dracula, the main character in one of the two best all-time classic horror novels, has been in countless movies from numerous nations. He seems out to prove you just can't keep a bad man down.These movies used to keep me in chills as a kid. Now that I'm a little older, I'm beginning to worry that the full breadth of the character is never going to be captured in one movie.Bela Lugosi certainly captured Dracula's sinister elegance, but director Todd Browning, working with a severely slashed budget, had to stick to adapting the stage play and abandon plans to realize the novel; it's very slow-moving, especially the second half.Christopher Lee's Hammer films capture the brute force of Dracula in ways Browning and Lugosi could not in their era. But the Hammer films largely do away with Dracula's intelligence and scheming. They also get progressively worse as the series continued, finally getting to where you're bored silly every minute Dracula isn't on screen, leaving him without much in the way of adversaries.Francis Ford Coppola did not give us a Dracula for the ages, largely due to making him look like someone's wig-wearing grandma from the Victorian era, and then the thug you hope your daughter never brings home to meet you.With a talented star like Lee, and a director like Franco, it's a shame this isn't better than it is. But it does give some creepy atmospheric chills.Franco shows talent in some scenes; other developments he handles pretty tritely, or seems in too much in of a hurry. I couldn't help but wonder if this was a product of his previous experience of low-budget exploitation. Clearly he was a man on the move - he's credited with some 160 movies. This movie could have stood a director who put a little more thought into things. I also wondered if the budget had something to do with us winding up with too much of Renfield (Klaus Kinski) in his padded cell; the part of the story where Dracula comes via ship is totally eliminated, also not to the good of this.The music is good, Herbert Lom is believable as Van Helsing, Soledad Miranda is pretty mesmerizing as Lucy.Just wish it would have been better. The ending - Dracula's demise - will be especially disappointing to anyone over age 5. The budget's special effects just did not support what the script called for. For whatever reason, Franco didn't take time to think of an alternative way to show this.Nevertheless, Dracula will be back, we can be certain.

This is a great movie. A r.o.m.a.i.a.n vampire moves to England in search for new victims. This is a great horror movie. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. This movie is a must see. Based on one of the best horror books ever. This is one of the best horror movies ever. See this movie. It is a great movie. In is very intense. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say. Great movie great movie great movie great movie great movie. If you like scary movie then you need to see this movie. This is one of the best remakes ever. This movie is a true horror classic.