Friday Favorites: Count Dracula

by in Friday Favorites

Count Dracula came to life in 1897, with the publication of Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula. As horror fans, we know not only are there count…less (pardon the pun) film adaptations of this novel, it would be a never-ending and never-winning argument to even try and say which is the most faithful, mainly because those silly opinions get in the way! But it is those opinions as to why we are here.

For this Friday topic, I would like to hear YOUR favorite adaptation of Dracula. It doesn’t have to be accurate, or even close, as long as the character of the good Count is in there. But let’s try to bite a little deeper than just which version is your favorite, but why is it your favorite? Is it because it was the first version you remember seeing? Was it that the actor playing the most famous vampire in history just put you under a trance? Whatever the reason, lets here it.

Let the bloodletting begin…

13 thoughts on “Friday Favorites: Count Dracula”

  1. I’m going to cheat just a bit. I can’t say it’s my “favorite” depiction of Dracula, but I had a friend recently ask me about the Dan Curtis TV-movie with Jack Palance. He was hesitant to watch because… well… Jack Palance. I told him that was exactly the reason to watch! You wouldn’t think he’d pull it off, but Palance is a terrific Dracula. He emphasizes the savage part of the character and is really scary. The movie itself is directed by Dan Curtis, so watch for little bits of the Dark Shadows mythos woven into his version of the story. Recommend!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • Your my pal now! I’ve never met anyone who has even seen the 1979 version, nevermind loved it, but it’s a truly radical take on the novel, junking the first 100 pages or so, and adding in some really chilling scenes!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Cheers to that! Yes, fans of the film are rare, but it seems like that has begun to change in recent years. It’s a great movie that has been well deserving of much higher accord.
        I’ll leave it for the man to add his own comment, but I know of at least one other who is a big fan of the film as well! 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I grew up with Lugosi and Langella, the 79 film being my second favorite Dracula. I stumbled across Lee in what turned out to be a happy accident, when my vcr recorded Dracula Has Risen From the Grave. I had set my vcr to record a different movie (The title of which I don’t remember! Lol!) but the network ended up showing the Lee film instead. All are great and definitely deserving to be in the conversation!
    But it will come as no surprise to you, Jon, when I say that it’s Oldman, and Coppola’s film as whole, that takes the top spot for me! As with everything that Gary does, he completely disappears into the character creating such a powerfully deep and nuanced performance. He carries himself with a delicious cold air of refined and understated malevolence when Harker first meets him. I could feel the sorrow and torment in his eyes pierce right down to my very core during his encounters with Mina. I was left awestruck by the unbridled rage and fury that blasts out of him with the savage power of a dying star when the beast is unleashed! It’s a tour de force that has yet to be matched by anyone else who’s taken on the role.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • I enjoyed Coppola’s Count Dracula as well. Gary Oldman’s performance was stellar on the big screen. I also really enjoyed Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing and Sadie Frost as Lucy. The only weak spots for me in the film (and the main reason I have not rated this in my top two Dracula films) were the casting choices of Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. I don’t personally dislike either of these actors, just feel that they were poorly cast and did not deliver strong performances.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • I’ll concede that Reeves was not a good choice to play Harker, but I disagree about Ryder. Frost is fantastic and does outshine Ryder, but I still liked her as Mina. Perhaps I’m a bit more forgiving of her as she was an adolescent crush. Lol!
        I do enjoy Hopkins as an actor, but I’ve always felt that he went a tad bit overboard as Van Helsing in the film. He needed to dial it back just a little and then it would’ve been perfect! With regard to the Van Helsing character, Cushing will likely always be my favorite.
        The film is definitely not without its flaws but, for me, the good far outweighs the not as good overall. Because, let’s be honest, any Dracula film lives and dies solely on the strength of the actor who plays the Count. And Oldman’s performance is so strong, that he more than makes up for rest of the film’s shortcomings.

        Liked by 1 person

    • For my two cents, there are a few things I had issues with Coppola’s version. Yes, Reeves was just terrible. I don’t think Ryder was as bad, but not great. And yes, Hopkins definitely took the character over the top. And it always did bother me in the promoting of the movie Coppola and screenwriter Hart kept pointing out that nobody had never done a true adaptation…and neither did they. Though, other than the way he looked, I think the BBC version with Louis Jourdan is pretty faithful, from what I remember.

      BUT….

      I think Oldman is probably my favorite portrayal of the character. He shows the tiredness of the character, the evil and the love he holds, and is a very powerful screen presence, which is what you want.

      Aside from the acting, it is one of the most visually stunning films, definitely in this category. As well as the old style trick photography that Coppola and crew used.

      Lee is great in the first Hammer entry, but since they…. bled the character dry by the sequels, its not really fair to Lee or to criticize those films. They are what they are.

      As for Langella, next to Oldman, I would put him next. He also is able to command the attention anytime he comes in frame. He can give you a look that will chill you to the bones or make you fall in love with them. He also shows the power of the character and his heritage.

      Like

      Reply

  4. I can’t answer this question. I really have only seen 5-6 actor’s depictions of dracula that I can remember. For the most part Lugosi, Lee & Oldman all stand out with a distinct spin on the character. Lugosi had the “evil hidden behind the mask of a civil, welcoming aristocrat” form of terror down. Lee seemed to have a bestial side hidden beneath a brooding silence, just waiting to spring out and Goldman (in the old count look) was creepy and disturbing (I always remember him licking the blood off the razor at the castle).

    So as I said these 3 all had an aspect of the character that I loved. If we could somehow combine them it would be the perfect Dracula for me.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. Another great topic for Friday Favorites! After having watched nearly all the Dracula films and television portrayals over the years, my favorites would have to be Horror of Dracula (1958) with Christopher Lee and the BBC Television version of Count Dracula (1977) with Louis Jourdan.

    Horror of Dracula, even though not completely true to Stoker’s original novel, has some great performances, a cohesive story, outstanding music score, and of course, dripping with excellent gothic atmosphere. BBC’s Count Dracula is very faithful to the Stoker text, also has some good atmosphere throughout, and very good performances. My only criticism is that Jourdan’s portrayal as the Count is a bit on the weak side. He is a very good actor, but his role as the count could have been more powerful and dynamic.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • I do think the Jourdan one gets overlooked. I do think he is miss-cast, only going by his look described in the book, but besides that, he does a fantastic job. And honestly…how could anybody not love those old BBC movies!?!?

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to Chris Dyer Cancel reply