I don't want to oversell it. It looks like it was made for about the same budget as one of the Patrick Troughton DR WHO serials of that era. (In 1 scene you can clearly see a 'wall' vibrating.) And Denholm Elliott is certainly no Chris Lee. Then again who is. But he does a credible job and the production still has a lot to recommend it. And this is 1968. So remember the terrain. Hammer isn't exactly cranking out new classics at this point. Chris Lee's Dracula "HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE". On this side of the Atlantic, we had Barnabas Collins and that was about it as far as vampires go. And despite very severe limitations, this TV adaptation gets a lot right. Its clearly the template for the BBC's more ambitious Dracula with Louis Jourdan almost 10 years later, even tho guided by a different director. Lucy Westenra in 1977 is virtually a clone of Lucy Weston here. Dr. Seward also foreshadows Jonathan Harker in Langella's 1979 version, both coming off as jealous, ineffectual, limp dishrag suitors. The forced condensation of characters and locales in 1968 also leads to a few imaginative and effective surprises I wont spoil here, that aren't from Stoker yet keep to the spirit of the piece. In particular, the Brides and vampire Lucy are right on the mark. Neither the Max Factor femme fatales of HAMMER or the zombies of COUNT YORGA, they practically drip with infection, yet remain compelling creatures. Susan George as a seriously conflicted Lucy does a great job, vividly conjuring the world of Dracula, where passion and desire are boundless but compassion is dead. This rarely seen Dracula is preserved on the MYSTERY AND IMAGINATION DVD set of surviving episodes from this BBC series of the 60s and early 70s. Black and white. Not preserved quite as well as some of the later color stories in the set but quite watchable.
11 Reviews
Interesting, but not true to the Stoker novel
jkevin122719 April 2005
After searching for this title for some time, I finally located a complete copy of this rare and obscure BBC Mystery and Imagination presentation. This episode ran in the UK in 1968. Starring the late Denholm Elliott as Count Dracula, this version of the classic vampire story is not true to the original novel. Much license was taken, probably to get the story into an 80 minute broadcast length. I won't go into plot details so as not to spoil it for any future viewer, but I will say that those who prefer versions true to the original novel will be disappointed with this production. I found it enjoyable myself, but no Christopher Lee style Dracula here. Denholm Elliott's version of the Count is that of a suave, gentleman traveler. Quite interesting to see a young Denholm Elliott in a role very different from the vast majority of his other works. For Dracula aficionados this will be an enjoyable and interesting take on the classic story if you can tolerate the heavy license in regard to plot changes. Supporting cast is very good, including Corin Redgrave as Jonathan Harker. I'm giving it a 6 out of 10 primarily due to the substantial plot changes, some of which make the story a bit confusing to those who know the original novel. However, I can recommend this definite rarity from 60s British television as being worth a look.
Better than some big budget versions
lists-919 November 2009
By 1968 it could be argued that the story of Dracula should already be permanently in the cold ground – done to death by repetition. However, this Thames Television production was quite different from the Hammer film series (that would soon go into a rapid decline). Talky and slightly theatrical, it is – despite this – more interesting than either the 1979 John Badham version or the more recent Coppola one. Like other low budget versions, this one "scales down" the novel, omitting its more epic scenes but concentrating effectively on the middle part of the book.
Denholm Elliott is no substitute for Christopher Lee as The Count (then, who is?) but he gives a competent performance. Colin Redgrave as Harker and Susan George as Lucy are both fascinating to watch, but Bernard Archard as Van Helsing sadly continues the tradition of silly voices in Dracula adaptations with a very distracting accent more redolent of Calcutta than Amsterdam.
Some scenes (such as the meeting with Dracula's brides) are very eerily done, while the final showdown with Dracula is a strange mixture of clumsy staging and convincing effects work. The slight twist at the end is a nice touch, too. A minor version, but worth seeing.
Denholm Elliott is no substitute for Christopher Lee as The Count (then, who is?) but he gives a competent performance. Colin Redgrave as Harker and Susan George as Lucy are both fascinating to watch, but Bernard Archard as Van Helsing sadly continues the tradition of silly voices in Dracula adaptations with a very distracting accent more redolent of Calcutta than Amsterdam.
Some scenes (such as the meeting with Dracula's brides) are very eerily done, while the final showdown with Dracula is a strange mixture of clumsy staging and convincing effects work. The slight twist at the end is a nice touch, too. A minor version, but worth seeing.
MYSTERY AND IMAGINATION: Dracula (TV) (Patrick Dromgoole, 1968) ***
Bunuel197631 October 2011
R.L. Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" and Bram Stoker's "Dracula" are certainly among the most-filmed of horror novels. On a personal note, at the current count, the former leads by 16 movie versions watched (including two animated shorts!) but the latter is hard on its heels with 15 (including this one): 1922 (German), 1931, 1931 (Spanish), 1953 (Turkish), 1958, 1967 (Pakistani), 1970, 1973 (TV), 1974, 1977 (TV), 1979, 1979 (German), 1992 and 2002 (TV).
Like the same year's FRANKENSTEIN, this is a creditable rendition of the vampire staple, but it too goes off on bizarre tangents (most bafflingly, its emphasizing very minor characters such as a graveyard caretaker and Lucy's mother!), while streamlining plot points (like the 1931 adaptations, Harker is bestowed with characteristics usually attributed to Renfield). Similarly, too, the choice of leading man is quite audacious: if anything, Denholm Elliott's sporting of thin dark glasses here would be picked up by Gary Oldman in the would-be definitive 1992 version! For the record, Elliott would also appear as the protagonist of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Fall Of The House Of Usher" from this same series (of which only 8 out of 24 episodes are still available for reappraisal!).
Again, as with FRANKENSTEIN, the heroine's role (Mina) is undernourished, while Professor Van Helsing is given a distinct Jewish slant! However, two other figures are so impressively incarnated that they threaten to swamp Dracula himself: these are Corin Redgrave's white-haired, giddy yet erudite Harker (who seems to be channeling Peter Sellers!) and Susan George as a vixenish Lucy (an interesting aspect to her is that she is made to experience gradual personality changes before becoming a fully-fledged member of the Undead!).
To make up for the low-budget obviously allotted to the film-makers, the camera is ably deployed to suggest the supernatural – notably the 'trippy' flashback to Harker's terrifying tenure at Castle Dracula and depicting the waking vampire from his forced daytime slumber via a series of dissolves of his (atypically) re-constituted stony grave. While Elliott's rather dapper and insufficiently creepy bloodsucker is no match for the likes of Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee and Klaus Kinski, the film is undeniably marked by other qualities that ought to distinguish it even within the vastness of the considerable cinematic treatments of the subject at hand.
Like the same year's FRANKENSTEIN, this is a creditable rendition of the vampire staple, but it too goes off on bizarre tangents (most bafflingly, its emphasizing very minor characters such as a graveyard caretaker and Lucy's mother!), while streamlining plot points (like the 1931 adaptations, Harker is bestowed with characteristics usually attributed to Renfield). Similarly, too, the choice of leading man is quite audacious: if anything, Denholm Elliott's sporting of thin dark glasses here would be picked up by Gary Oldman in the would-be definitive 1992 version! For the record, Elliott would also appear as the protagonist of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Fall Of The House Of Usher" from this same series (of which only 8 out of 24 episodes are still available for reappraisal!).
Again, as with FRANKENSTEIN, the heroine's role (Mina) is undernourished, while Professor Van Helsing is given a distinct Jewish slant! However, two other figures are so impressively incarnated that they threaten to swamp Dracula himself: these are Corin Redgrave's white-haired, giddy yet erudite Harker (who seems to be channeling Peter Sellers!) and Susan George as a vixenish Lucy (an interesting aspect to her is that she is made to experience gradual personality changes before becoming a fully-fledged member of the Undead!).
To make up for the low-budget obviously allotted to the film-makers, the camera is ably deployed to suggest the supernatural – notably the 'trippy' flashback to Harker's terrifying tenure at Castle Dracula and depicting the waking vampire from his forced daytime slumber via a series of dissolves of his (atypically) re-constituted stony grave. While Elliott's rather dapper and insufficiently creepy bloodsucker is no match for the likes of Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee and Klaus Kinski, the film is undeniably marked by other qualities that ought to distinguish it even within the vastness of the considerable cinematic treatments of the subject at hand.
Dracula, low budget British TV style
Mister-Creeper8 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The 1897 Gothic horror story of Dracula, as written by Bram Stoker, is one of my all-time favorite tales. And even when it's not presented on film exactly as Stoker wrote it, as is the case with this low budget, made-for-TV adaptation, I still really enjoy the story - as long as it remains at least somewhat similar to the original story. I don't even mind when the roles of Mina and Lucy are switched. Or even when Jonathan Harker takes Renfield's place as the insect-eating lunatic. The familiarity of the story matters to me the most, not the exact specifics.
So here we have Dracula, Mystery and Imagination style; a low budget small screen version that was broadcast for British television on November 18, 1968. Let it be known that I thoroughly enjoy many classic British horror films and television shows involving mystery and horror. More specifically, I love Hammer horror in general and especially all 9 of their Dracula films starring horror icons Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Many of those films have nothing at all to do with Bram Stoker's novel, except of course for including the characters of Dracula and Van Helsing. This adaptation of Dracula doesn't have Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, nor anywhere near the budget Hammer Studios had, but it still works for me - though I did feel that they could have chosen someone better to play the role of Count Dracula. Nothing against his acting ability, but Denholm Elliot just didn't seem to fit the part very well. My intuition tells me that I am not alone in feeling that way.
I felt that each scene was set up and done very well, considering the obvious budget restraints. They managed to create an atmosphere that permeated throughout the production. And the acting was pretty good for the most part. I probably could have done without the growls and hissing sounds that Mina and Lucy made. It sounded like something that would come out of a cat rather than a vampire. Otherwise, their acting was perfectly fine. All in all I was pleasantly surprised by this episode of Mystery and Imagination and look forward to viewing the other episodes, as yes, I did watch this one first and it is Episode 3 of Season 4. But with anthology series such as this you don't really need to watch them in any particular order. I chose to watch the episode I was most interested in seeing first and since I enjoyed it, I will probably move on to either The Tell-Tale Heart or Curse of the Mummy next. Dracula gets a 7 out of 10 from me.
So here we have Dracula, Mystery and Imagination style; a low budget small screen version that was broadcast for British television on November 18, 1968. Let it be known that I thoroughly enjoy many classic British horror films and television shows involving mystery and horror. More specifically, I love Hammer horror in general and especially all 9 of their Dracula films starring horror icons Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Many of those films have nothing at all to do with Bram Stoker's novel, except of course for including the characters of Dracula and Van Helsing. This adaptation of Dracula doesn't have Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, nor anywhere near the budget Hammer Studios had, but it still works for me - though I did feel that they could have chosen someone better to play the role of Count Dracula. Nothing against his acting ability, but Denholm Elliot just didn't seem to fit the part very well. My intuition tells me that I am not alone in feeling that way.
I felt that each scene was set up and done very well, considering the obvious budget restraints. They managed to create an atmosphere that permeated throughout the production. And the acting was pretty good for the most part. I probably could have done without the growls and hissing sounds that Mina and Lucy made. It sounded like something that would come out of a cat rather than a vampire. Otherwise, their acting was perfectly fine. All in all I was pleasantly surprised by this episode of Mystery and Imagination and look forward to viewing the other episodes, as yes, I did watch this one first and it is Episode 3 of Season 4. But with anthology series such as this you don't really need to watch them in any particular order. I chose to watch the episode I was most interested in seeing first and since I enjoyed it, I will probably move on to either The Tell-Tale Heart or Curse of the Mummy next. Dracula gets a 7 out of 10 from me.
Pretty much the familiar Dracula story, but more sexual...
planktonrules13 March 2017
There must have been a bazillion versions of the Dracula story...both in films and on television. Because of this, there is definitely a strong sense of déjà vu when you watch any of them. In many ways, this made for British television is much of what you'd expect with a few differences. The biggest is that this one is much more sexual in nature than most. No, there's no nudity or anything like that...but the women who succumb to the Count appear on the verge of an orgasm when he appears! And, you'd almost swear that a couple of these ladies were orgasming! It's a very daring approach to the source material...something that simply would not have been allowed on American television at that time. It also is a bit unusual because all of the early part of the story is mission and the Count is in Englad at the beginning of the show. It's reasonably well done and kept my interest, though a few of the acting performances were a bit over the top (such as Lucy's mother) and a bit of subtlety would have improved the show. Also on the negative side is the budget, as the show has very few sets and mostly is a drawing room program and lacks location shooting which would have made for a more entertaining show. Worth seeing, though, just for the amazingly well done death scene at the end considering the tiny budget.
A Unique and eerie take of Stoker's novel
dac8723 June 2005
I have just received a copy of this VERY rare film and was Very pleased with it. This film, while not sticking entirely to the book was the first Dracula movie that actually gave me chills. Perhaps it was the primitive picture which gives one the slight feeling of claustrophobia or the vampires themselves who all sport Nosferatu like fangs, but this movie is actually scary.
SPOILERS! The film begins in an asylum in England; by now Dracula has already arrived in England and has attacked Lucy at least once. Rather than the character of Reinfield, Jonathan Harker is the deranged madman who eats flies. He recounts to Dr. Seward (now our hero in this version) some of what he has seen in Transilvania, including a disturbing attack by Dracula's brides. Like the Bela Lugosi film, Dracula befriends all of the characters just so he can get closer to their jugulars, so to speak. He turns Lucy (played wonderfully by Susan George)into a vampire and she is, in turn, attacks Mina (Harker's wife. Dracula's attack on Lucy is EXTREMELY erotic and it shocked me that it was actually shown on TV; also shocking was the not very discreet lesbianistic (if that's a word) scene when Lucy attacks Mina. Van Helsing quickly dispatches of Lucy and uses Mina as bate to lure Dracula into a trap. Dracula is destroyed in a cemetery, but Mina, unbeknown-st to her friends remains under Dracula's spell and the ending is left ambiguous.
This film returns many scenes from the novel left out by other film: Mina and Lucy's discussion with Mr. Swales about the young man who committed suicide, whose grave is beside their favorite retreat; and the character of Mrs. Weston is also returned. I quite enjoyed this film and it is actually tied with the 1977 version starring Louis Jordan as my favorite take on Stoker's tale.
SPOILERS! The film begins in an asylum in England; by now Dracula has already arrived in England and has attacked Lucy at least once. Rather than the character of Reinfield, Jonathan Harker is the deranged madman who eats flies. He recounts to Dr. Seward (now our hero in this version) some of what he has seen in Transilvania, including a disturbing attack by Dracula's brides. Like the Bela Lugosi film, Dracula befriends all of the characters just so he can get closer to their jugulars, so to speak. He turns Lucy (played wonderfully by Susan George)into a vampire and she is, in turn, attacks Mina (Harker's wife. Dracula's attack on Lucy is EXTREMELY erotic and it shocked me that it was actually shown on TV; also shocking was the not very discreet lesbianistic (if that's a word) scene when Lucy attacks Mina. Van Helsing quickly dispatches of Lucy and uses Mina as bate to lure Dracula into a trap. Dracula is destroyed in a cemetery, but Mina, unbeknown-st to her friends remains under Dracula's spell and the ending is left ambiguous.
This film returns many scenes from the novel left out by other film: Mina and Lucy's discussion with Mr. Swales about the young man who committed suicide, whose grave is beside their favorite retreat; and the character of Mrs. Weston is also returned. I quite enjoyed this film and it is actually tied with the 1977 version starring Louis Jordan as my favorite take on Stoker's tale.
It Was Only Ever In Black And White!
TondaCoolwal7 November 2020
Just watched this on Talking Pictures and was both amused and intrigued. I watched it when it was originally broadcast in 1968 and was impressed at the time. Being mostly familiar with Christopher Lee's OTT Hammer portrayal, Denholm Elliot's Dracula was a lot more subdued and creepy. The cast is full of familiar TV faces including James Maxwell, Bernard Archard, Joan Hickson and, every sixties teenage boy's fantasy, Susan George. However, the episode is practically hijacked by Corin Redgrave as Dracula's mentally deranged slave Jonathan Harker. Redgrave runs the whole gamut of artistic expression, alternating between berserk rages and whining self-pity. At one point he even speaks with Dracula's voice when the Count possesses him to warn the others against interfering. Dracula's power over Lucy (George) and Mina (Susannah Neve) is disturbing as they both abandon their middle class reserve wantonly. Mina particularly seems to be a willing acolyte as opposed to Lucy's more innocent victim. As a TV adaptation it does suffer from budgetary constraints. The story is somewhat abbreviated. Briefly related in flashback, Harker's character is combined with Renfield's as the solicitor who visits Dracula and brings him back to England. The action, such as it is, is confined to Lucy's home, one cell in the asylum and the rather impressive cemetery set where, conveniently, Dracula has taken up residence in an unconsecrated grave. All of the familiar tropes are there. The aversion to crosses and sunlight. The concerned relative who innocently breaks the circle of garlic flowers. The stake through the heart etc. Special effects are bargain basement with a plastic bat on elastic announcing the Count's arrival, followed by a swish of his cloak across the camera when he materialises in the room. Having said that, the vampire fangs are very convincing; consisting of two pointed front incisors, like real vampire bats, rather than the usual elongated canines. The fiendish expression of lustful delight on Dracula's face as he is about to sink them into his lovely victim's neck, has to be seen to be believed! Dated - yes; but an interesting take on a familiar story, courtesy of the old Thames Television franchise. Oh, and watch out for the ambiguous ending. My main disappointment was finding out that it hadn't been recorded in colour.
Rather boring
Stevieboy66629 December 2019
This adaptation is not a movie, it is an episode of the TV series called Mystery and Imagination, although it does have a running time more akin to movies. I found it very heavy on dialogue and slow/boring. Denholm Elliott makes a dull Dracula, though he does have an impressive set of fangs. The budget was obviously low, flimsy looking props, camera crew seen reflecting in a window, cheap effects. Even the gorgeous Susan George can be seen flickering an eye lid despite being dead.
Draculaphiles may get more out of this but I'd just recommend watching one of numerous movie adaptations instead.
A Very Good Version of Dracula - Much Better Than I Guessed
Rainey-Dawn24 January 2017
The wiki says: Dracula is a video-taped television play adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, part of the series Mystery and Imagination (Season 4, Episode 3). ~This is a PLAY on video and not even really a low budget TV show from what the wiki has to say about it. This is a very good episode of the TV show regardless of nit-picking about it.
It might not be exactly Bram Stoker's novel, there might be changes due to the time allotted (1hr 15mins) but it is a worthwhile watch if you can find a copy of it for viewing. It's much better than I could have ever guessed it would be.
Some very eerie scenes, well acted, beautifully filmed and an interesting take on the story. Highly recommended for lovers of Vampires - especially the lovers of anything Count Dracula.
8.5/10
It might not be exactly Bram Stoker's novel, there might be changes due to the time allotted (1hr 15mins) but it is a worthwhile watch if you can find a copy of it for viewing. It's much better than I could have ever guessed it would be.
Some very eerie scenes, well acted, beautifully filmed and an interesting take on the story. Highly recommended for lovers of Vampires - especially the lovers of anything Count Dracula.
8.5/10
One very scary movie.
jacobjohntaylor112 November 2017
The is a very scary movie. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It is a very good movie. 7 is a good ratting. But this is such a great movie that 7 is underrating it. This is a 9. This is a great retelling of a classic story. See this movie. It is a great movie. It is very scary. It is one of the best remakes I have seen. It is very scary. If it does not scary you no movie will. This movie is scarier then A Nightmare on elm street. And that is not easy to do. This is a true classic horror film. See it. It is a great movie. See it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
