Review of Count Dracula (1970) by Jeffrey M — 30 Jan 2009

Christopher Lee was not happy that Hammer stayed away from the book and when offered to do a true version of the calssic tale he jumped right at the chance. Spain served as the locations along with 2nd unit of the castle in France. This look alone makes it worth watching and the entire 1st Act in Transylvania is the most faithfl and best part of the film but once the story goes to England that's when slowly the film loses it's power and starts to change around Stoker's story. One of the main reasons is because the budget got slashed halfway thru filming and sadly it shows. The camerawork is usually one take with zoom ins for closeups in scenes and this does get on one's nerves for the fact it is constant once the story goes to England. Franco probably was not a good choice either, I respect the man but he did after all make alot of schlock exploitation films and his directing and blocking is not that great especially for a film about Dracula. However the film does have some saving graces. Kinski is great as Renfield, beautiful locations and costumes but really the main reason to watch it is for Christopher Lee. He is without a doubt one of the best actors to have played the count and plays the most faithful version from the book especially Dracula's appearance (which Lee wanted the way it is described in the book is that of a moustached, tall old man at the start who grows younger as he reaches England drinking on young blood).

Really watch it for Lee's performance, the 1st Act and the locations but shame the budget was slashed and that Franco was not that talanted.