A kurkuri and a Bowie Knife to be exact

But you are right, that movie, while closer to the book than many movies, was still far from a faithful following. Honestly, having read Dracula many times, I don't think it would translate well into a movie. It is rather a rambling and, to be honest, dull book in many places.

It is, however, one of my favourite books. I am very lucky to have an annotated copy which, to me, adds greatly to the enjoyment

http://i51.tinypic.com/a09h7k.gif


This dead orchestra
Plays on instruments
Strung with the fibers
of my mind

And skeletons dance
they have no voice
and no complaints

But I am still flesh
and will not serve you vampire fools
bringing you life
by invoking the dead

I'm tired of telling stories
with this ghost voice of mine
so you can say you don't
Believe in ghosts

I told you it's been awhile. Thanks for the details. :sunny:

I enjoyed this version, which, if memory serves, was rambling and dull in some places, but I still remembering enjoying it very much.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075882/

[edit] Oh! It occured to me to look, and it's available and cheap. Now I'll find out if it's really as good as I remember.
http://www.amazon.com/Count-Dracula-...4489652&sr=1-1

Bringing back the dead (pun most certainly intended) thread. I ordered the BBC version but waited until today to watch it. I was wrong. It's not boring or dull at all! In fact it's every bit as good as I remembered!

The Bad: It's a British-made production from the mid-'70s, so of course it's kind of stagey-looking, made half with film and half with videotape (which didn't stop me from loving Six Wives of Henry VIII, Elizabeth R and I, Claudius. They changed a couple of things, most noticably in this version Mina and Lucy are sisters, not best friends. The Arthur Holmwood character is dropped and combined with Quincey Morris. At the end they don't use the knives, but Van Helsing kills big D with the traditional (but wrong) wooden stake. Also, while Louis Jourdan is very effective in the title role, he never changes. Dracula becoming younger as the story progresses is one of the few things I liked about the 1992 Francis Ford Coppola film. Well, actually I liked most of that movie, right up to the plot twist that made Dracula the tragic hero.

The Good: I haven't read the book in a very long time, but as I recall it this version is indeed very faithful, aside from the aforementioned details. It's also very moody, very atmospheric and very terrifying. And very well acted. Frank Finlay is brilliant as Van Helsing, Judy Bowker is Mina and Susan Penhaligon is Lucy, a pair of talented (and yummy) actresses from the period. Jack Shepherd is amazing as Renfield, playing out a true madness rather than the gibbering idiot I'm used to (or maybe misremembering). He has my favorite line of the entire film, though it is slightly comedic it's still subtle.

Renfield: "If fifty birds eat fifty spiders each, and they eat fifty flies each, how many lives are lost?"

Dr. Seward (entering the room): "Mr. Renfield, how's the experiment going?"

R: "Quite well, thank you. The birds are a nice addition."

S: "How did you catch them?"

R: "I didn't. They were given to me."

S: "By whom?"

R: "I'm...not at liberty to say. May I have a kitten?"




So yeah, I'll cheerfully recommend it to anyone who loves Gothic Horror, which I don't, or who loves vampire stories, which I don't, or likes Bram Stoker's book, which I do. It captures the feeling of people who can't quite fathom the evil they're up against and aren't sure how to stop it, or if it even can be stopped. A couple of scenes are truly shocking, especially for a television production from that time, and the acting is, well, believable is all I can say.

It's a good'un, especially for that price.