Next to Frankenstein, Dracula is one of the most adapted horror novels in history, spawning numerous stage plays, video games, comic books and of course a multitude of film and television adaptations. We’re all familiar with the high profile ones, of course. Bela Lugosi’s influential and defining portrayal in the 1931 Universal film; the long running series of Hammer Films featuring the commanding performance of Christopher Lee; the lavish Francis Ford Coppola version featuring an all star cast and stunning visuals; and the recent BBC/Netflix mini-series deconstructing the whole Dracula mythology.

But what of the others? What of those many films that didn’t quite get the same level of attention as their more widely seen counterparts? I’ve been well immersed in Dracula lore for the past several years, and would like to present to you 5 of my personal favorite screen adaptations that I’ve enjoyed over the course of that journey, and think you might enjoy as well if you’re looking for some fresh takes on the Count you may have missed in your travels.

Not wishing to play favorites, as I love them all for different reasons, I shall present these to you in straight chronological order…

Count Dracula (1970)

Directed by Jess Franco and starring Christopher Lee as Dracula.

“You have learned much. You can do nothing.”

Taking a break from his usual luridly erotic vampire tales, Franco managed to pry Lee away from Hammer for this outing which was boasted as being the most faithful adaptation of the book to the screen ever attempted. Lee, being a huge fan of the original novel, stated in interviews he knew that must have been the case as Dracula would be sporting a mustache for the first time in cinematic history; so he agreed to do it. Lee had been finding himself frustrated by how far the Hammer films had been straying from the source material and overall character of Dracula, so welcomed the opportunity to do the novel justice. You can really see in his performance how seriously he is taking things too, presenting the viewer with an intense, pure evil version of the Count that easily rivals his best Hammer outings. Lee himself has stated in interviews he personally considered this to be his best performance as Dracula, and it’s easy to see why.

As to how faithful it remains to the story from the book, the first 30 minutes are very close indeed as we see Johnathan Harker’s (Fred Williams) initial meeting with Dracula and the escalating horrors he is subjected to up to the point he makes his escape. From there things go in some different directions, presumably for brevity’s sake, but the main story beats from the novel remain more or less intact.

Of particular interest is Klaus Kinski’s portrayal of Renfield. After discussing the role with Franco, Kinski opted to play the character primarily mute (other than some offscreen outcries of terror and mental anguish). While most films opt for a more manic, often over the top portrayal of the character, Kinski’s take is surprisingly effective in its subtlety, relying solely on his mannerisms and facial expressions. Kinski would go on to play the Count himself 9 years later in Werner Herzog’s version of Nosferatu.

Herbert Lom, who many readers may know primarily as the long suffering Chief Inspector Dreyfus from the Pink Panther movies, plays an effective if straightforward version of Dr. Van Helsing. Here Van Helsing is in charge of the asylum in which Dr. Seward (Paul Muller) is looking after Renfield, rather than being an outsider called in to investigate the strange goings-on. Again, this seems to be a change for brevity’s sake and it works well enough.

Overall this is an entertaining take on the original story, and worth noting in that it truly was the first time a more faithful adaptation was attempted. As a side recommendation, I also suggest watching Pere Portabella’s surreal behind the scenes film, Vampir-Cuadecuc (1971). Largely silent, featuring beautiful black and white footage from the making of the film set to creepy experimental music, it is an art film unto itself as well as being a unique look at the production.

Dracula (1974)

Directed by Dan Curtis (“Dark Shadows”) and starring Jack Palance as Dracula.

“Now, I go to England. And you…go to hell!”

Another adaptation that stays true to the book for about the first 30 minutes or so, then goes off in its own direction. Notably, this is the film where the idea of Dracula as a romantic figure began. Dan Curtis shamelessly borrowed from his own Dark Shadows storylines to introduce the idea of Lucy being Dracula’s reincarnated lover, a trope that would resurface in many subsequent Dracula stories (such as Francis Ford Coppola’s lavish, if flawed, 1992 adaptation).

Despite the romantic angle, however, Palance plays the character very true to the book version. His Dracula is cold, calculating and pure evil with moments of unbridled focused rage that truly show him as a force of nature not to be trifled with. Palance has the perfect presence for Dracula, not only physically imposing, but hypnotically captivating as he stares directly into the viewer’s soul. Nigel Davenport as Van Helsing proves to be an excellent match, being similar in stature and playing the character in a very matter of fact manner who isn’t afraid to speak his mind and do what is necessary to deal with Dracula.

Fiona Lewis is beautiful and haunting as the ill-fated Lucy, and we feel genuinely concerned for her as Dracula brings her more and more under his power and she inches closer to death. It is nice to see Arthur Holmwood (Simon Ward) finally get time to shine as he helps Van Helsing, as he is a character that often gets overlooked or cast aside for the more audience pleasing Quincy Morris. Oddly there is no Renfield in this version, but with the briskly moving plot and a bevy of captivating performances one doesn’t feel it suffers for the loss of that character. Be sure to keep an eye out for a young Sarah Douglas as one of Dracula’s vampire brides!

An interesting side note, Dan Curtis filmed two versions of every death scene in the movie. A gory version complete with coughing up blood and graphic closeups of the impalement, and a bloodless version suitable for television showings of the time. Another fun fact: Gene Colan, the artist for Marvel’s Tomb of Dracula comic, based his design for Dracula on Jack Palance, whom he had always felt would be a great Dracula. Two years later, this movie happened – proving him right!

Count Dracula (1977)

BBC mini-series directed by Philip Saville and starring Louis Jourdan as Dracula.

“The trouble with mirrors is they don’t reflect quite enough, don’t you think?”

Two things the BBC has always been highly skilled at are period dramas and adapting books for television, and this production is no exception. Easily the most faithful adaptation of the book ever filmed, with only a few minor changes for brevity. Louis Jourdan is charming and properly evil as Dracula. There is no romance to be found here; he is clearly the cold, calculating Count from the book brought to life. He never seems concerned when a character suspects something isn’t quite right about him, as he has dealt with such suspicions for centuries and none have been able to defeat him.

For example, in the classic scene in which Harker (Bosco Hogan) notices Dracula casts no reflection, the Count casually picks up the mirror, remarks that mirrors can’t be trusted as they “don’t reflect quite enough,” then tosses it out the window. All with a knowing smile, fully aware that Harker now suspects something is amiss, but completely unconcerned as he knows there is literally nothing Harker can do about it. In another scene he makes it very clear what he thinks of us humans, telling an enthralled Mina that she is his “nourishment.” His “beautiful wine press.” She smiles in response, completely under his power. This Dracula, much like the Count from the book, is selfish and evil, thinking of us as nothing more than food to provide him the crimson sustenance he requires to prolong his eternal existence. We are not people, we are cattle. The Count is very sure of his power and his ability to control or destroy those around him who may pose a threat. He is arrogant and egotistical, and of course we know it is this hubris that would ultimately prove to be his undoing.

Frank Finlay as Van Helsing immediately endeared himself to me, and now ranks as one of my all time favorite Van Helsings alongside the classic portrayal of Edward Van Sloan. This Van Helsing is not only knowledgeable in the ways of the supernatural and how to fight it, but is by turns charming and delightful with moments of subtle humor and is more than willing to get his hands dirty and put himself in harm’s way to protect those he is trying to save. The scene where he defends the enthralled Mina against the advancing vampire brides in the dead of night is tense and terrifying, with Van Helsing doing double duty trying to stave off the brides and keep Mina from willingly going with them, all the while waiting for the morning sun as it inches over the horizon far too slowly. Contrast this with an earlier scene in which he happily makes cocoa for everyone whilst they discuss their plans to find Dracula’s hidden boxes of earth. This Van Helsing is an absolute delight, not just as a cunning match for Dracula and his minions, but also as the kind of character you would love to just sit and talk shop with given the chance.

On a similar note, Jack Shepherd’s take on Renfield also immediately fascinated me. He strikes the perfect balance of quiet, calculating, charming madness with moments of pure unbridled mania. The scene in which he desperately pleads with Dr. Seward (Mark Burns) to let him go as he knows Dracula is coming for him is absolutely heartbreaking. His fear is palpable, his trauma disturbing to watch as his normally calm veneer cracks and shatters in full view. This is one of the few adaptations that gives Renfield a very clear character arc, as we see much of his perspective on events and we the viewer are made aware of how other characters have changed through his reactions to them. For example, when Mina comes to visit him after Dracula has begun the process of enthralling her, Renfield doesn’t recognize her, even though they had previously met. It is as if Renfield doesn’t see people in quite the same way a sane person does, perhaps seeing their aura or spiritual essence rather than their physical form. It is a complex, multi-layered performance that adds far more to the character of Renfield than we typically see.

While the production values of this adaptation are typical for BBC television of the era (location footage shot on film, studio footage shot on video), that never mars or hinders the mini-series in any way. At 2.5 hours in length, things never feels rushed, nor do they feel overlong. It gives the story and characters just enough time to breathe and develop, providing an immensely satisfying viewing experience. It is immediately captivating, with a stellar cast, and is undisputedly the most faithful adaptation of the book to date. Highest possible recommendation.

Dracula (1979)

Directed by John Badham and starring Frank Langella as Dracula.

“You fools! Do you think with your crosses and your wafers you can destroy me?”

Much as the 1931 Bela Lugosi film was an adaptation of a stage play loosely based on the novel, so is this – with Langella reprising his performance from that play. Wasting no time getting to England, this one begins with the shipwreck of the Demeter and Dracula’s arrival. He and Johnathan Harker (Trevor Eve) have arranged the purchase of Carfax via mail. This approach works well for this version, as it gives us more time to get to know the main set of characters in England rather than spending the first third of the film with only Dracula and Harker. A few other changes from the book – Mina and Lucy have been inexplicably name-swapped; Mina (Jan Francis) is Van Helsing’s daughter and Lucy (Kate Nelligan) is Dr. Seward’s daughter. This creates an interesting dynamic between these characters, as the two fathers now have more at stake than their book counterparts with their own daughters being Dracula’s targets of interest.

While this film does play the romantic angle to some extent, one may easily make the argument that it is more deceptive seduction than love. Langella’s Dracula is suave, charming, and absolutely evil. The purest personification of the Devil taking on a pleasing shape and using his irresistible charm to enthrall any who strike his fancy or dare to cross his path. Director John Badham creates a hallucinatory dreamscape as Dracula seduces and enthralls Lucy to his will, bringing the viewer along for the ride. We can’t help but feel completely entranced by Langella’s Count, almost wishing he would succeed in his evil endeavors.

Laurence Olivier brings an old world classiness to his portrayal of Van Helsing, proving to be an intellectual and tactical match for Dracula’s centuries of experience dealing with previous unsuccessful adversaries. His emotional pain when having to dispatch his own daughter-turned vampire is palpable and heart breaking. 

Donald Pleasence is a delight as always as Dr. Seward, tasked with not only running the asylum but also helping Van Helsing with some of his more unpleasant tasks. Tony Haygarth plays a fun version of Renfield with some amusing insect-munching moments, but there isn’t much to his character beyond that, sadly. “Doctor Who” fans may want to keep an eye out for future 7th Doctor Sylvester McCoy as Seward’s assistant Walter. Sadly many of McCoy’s lines were cut, though he does get quite a lot of time onscreen.

Badham originally wanted to shoot the film in black and white to echo the feel of the classic Universal films, but the studio insisted he film it in color to have more appeal to a modern audience. In 1991 the film was released on home video with the color de-saturated, almost to the point of being black and white. The recent Blu-ray release from Scream Factory includes both versions – the de-saturated version that has been commonly available for years, and the long sought after theatrical Technicolor version. In the very diplomatic introduction for the Blu-ray, Badham recommends the viewer watch both versions and decide for his/herself which they prefer.

Overall this is an entertaining, if somewhat flawed rendition of the story. Some of the changes are interesting, while others seem arbitrary. Well worth seeing, however, for Langella’s absolutely captivating performance as the Count, the sumptuous cinematography, the superb supporting cast of familiar faces, and the grand, sweeping score by John Williams.

Nosferatu (1979)

A brilliant and truly chilling remake directed by Werner Herzog and starring Klaus Kinski as Dracula.

“Death is not the worst. There are things more horrible than death.”

Right from the opening titles showing the actual mummified remains of plague victims set to the haunting, somber music by experimental composer Popol Vuh, you know you’re in for a uniquely dark journey. While the plot remains firmly rooted in the events of the 1922 film, the character names have been changed back to those in the book. Oddly Lucy (Isabelle Adjani) and Mina (Martje Grohmann) have been name-swapped yet again. Klaus Kinski plays a subdued, seemingly world weary version of Dracula who almost seems as though he’s just going through the motions by the time we meet him, the joy of immortality long since having waned. It is a fascinating performance, brimming over with subtleties and nuances that benefit from repeat viewings to fully appreciate.

The original film touched on the idea that Dracula brought plague with him via the rats on the ship bearing him from Transylvania to England. Count Orlock’s design was intended to be very rat-like to visually connect to his responsibility for the plague, hence the central position of the fangs rather than the usual enlarged canines. This version takes that idea and runs with it, with literally hundreds of rats onscreen at varying times. It makes it very clear that part of Dracula’s overall goal is to spread plague, perhaps as a means to alleviate his boredom or to extend his suffering to all those around him. To further drive the point home, Dracula even sends Renfield (played by the wonderfully manic Roland Topor) away on a special mission with several rats to spread plague further across the land.

There is a particularly off-putting scene in which Lucy is walking the streets and encounters a family, at peace with the fact they are all going to die from the plague, having a final family meal. They invite her to join them, and they all seem blissfully unconcerned about the multitude of rats swarming all over the ground, the food on the table, and them. It is simultaneously sad and horrifying and there are many such scenes throughout that impact the viewer in such emotionally conflicting ways. Werner Herzog is an absolute master of his craft, and he knows how to manipulate emotion effectively. When he sets his mind to horrify you, be warned it’s a type of horror that truly gets under the skin and will stay with you long after the film is over.

Lucy seems to be the only one who truly knows what’s going on and when she is unsuccessful is enlisting anyone else to help (Van Helsing (Walter Ladengast) in this film is the single most useless and ineffective Van Helsing ever, and this is clearly deliberate), takes it upon herself to end Dracula’s reign of terror, even if it costs her life.

Herzog has said in interviews that he considers the original film to be one of the greatest German films ever made, and his love for the source material is clearly on display with this heartfelt remake. It’s genuinely disturbing and chilling, with plenty of nods to the original to please fans and more than enough fresh material to surprise first time viewers of this version who may be intimately familiar with the original.

Interesting side note: All of the dialogue scenes were filmed twice, once in English and again in German. This was so the film could be shown in both markets without having to dub in one language or the other. It is well worth watching both versions, as there are many subtle differences in the performances and some scenes play out quite differently in each version. Herzog has said he considers the German version to be the most “culturally accurate,” as the original was German. If you feel like an entertaining marathon, I recommend watching the original, both language versions of this, then capping it all off with 2000’s Shadow of the Vampire. You won’t regret it, and you’ll never look at Dracula quite the same way again.

So many Draculas, so little time. I hope you’ve enjoyed this list, and that I’ve helped you to discover a few hidden gems you may not have been aware of. It is no wonder Dracula has been adapted so many times over the years, being such a classic of horror literature that gave the genre so much. Thank you for reading.