Jess Franco's version of the Bram Stoker classic has Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) as an old man who grows younger whenever he dines on the blood of young maidens.
I recently watched the Dan Curtis version of Dracula and found that to be a very faithful adaptation, possibly the best up to that point (being later eclipsed by Francis Ford Coppola). But there is something to be said about this one, too. While some aspects are played down -- the boat ride from Transylvania to London is never shown -- others are played up. Curtis did not much focus on Renfield, while Franco makes him (played expertly by Klaus Kinski) front and center, even having him eat insects.
Some of what is shown is cheesy, especially the bat outside the window -- clearly a rubber bat on a string ,as it never flaps its wings. I love that although the effect is terrible, they use it probably ten times. And why not? When you have this level of talent (Lee, Kinski, Herbert Lom) and such beautiful sets, who needs effects?
I recently watched the Dan Curtis version of Dracula and found that to be a very faithful adaptation, possibly the best up to that point (being later eclipsed by Francis Ford Coppola). But there is something to be said about this one, too. While some aspects are played down -- the boat ride from Transylvania to London is never shown -- others are played up. Curtis did not much focus on Renfield, while Franco makes him (played expertly by Klaus Kinski) front and center, even having him eat insects.
Some of what is shown is cheesy, especially the bat outside the window -- clearly a rubber bat on a string ,as it never flaps its wings. I love that although the effect is terrible, they use it probably ten times. And why not? When you have this level of talent (Lee, Kinski, Herbert Lom) and such beautiful sets, who needs effects?