"Go watch them... the voluminous Children of the Night... how many movies they make."--anonymous
Since the 1920s, filmmakers have never tired of bringing the King of the Undead back to life, time and time again. This article documents how the numerous cinematic interpretations of Stoker’s novel changed over the years and the unique attributes of selected versions versus the actual folklore. Stoker's tome wasn't the first story about a devilish bloodsucker, but it is certainly the most iconic and influential. Since 1897 it's remarkable how much creative license has been taken with the character and how little of the novel itself has been properly adapted for the screen these 100 years.
NOSFERATU (1922)
Written in 1897, Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’ has since become one of the most frequent book-to-film adaptations in history. It would be 25 years after its original publication when the first movie version, NOSFERATU, was made. Looking at it today, even after 100 years, the silent feature film fear favorite from German director F.W. Murnau retains some of the most haunting, skin-crawling imagery ever seen in a motion picture.
One-hundred years of creative license began with NOSFERATU (1922) as well. Allegedly to avoid legal entanglements over copyright infringement, the filmmakers changed character names and reworked events in Stoker’s book such as changing Count Dracula to Count Orlok. It didn't matter since Bram Stoker's estate sued the film company anyway. In 1925, courts in Germany sided in favor of the estate, reportedly going so far as to order all copies of Murnau's film be destroyed. But like Dracula traveling from Transylvania to London, copies of the film survived the German courts, making their way to American shores.
Regarding the film and its similarities and differences to the source, the German filmmakers devised vampire mythology that would become pop culture mainstays for over a century and counting. In the novel, Count Dracula has a repulsive appearance till he begins his blood-drinking practices that makes him younger. In NOSFERATU, his repellant look never changes; he looks like a hairless rat with claws for hands and stays that way from his first appearance to his last.
In one of the most popular examples of creative licensing, Murnau’s movie originated the death by sunlight method of destroying a vampire; not part of any folklore, this was strictly an invention of the filmmakers that has remained a part of the cinematic vampire ever since. NOSFERATU went on to become a silent film classic that has made a lot of noise over the course of a century after it was made.
The 'Dracula' novel wasn't the first publication to revolve around a vampire. In 1819 author John William Polidori, adapting a story told by British poet Lord Byron, wrote a 44-page short story titled 'The Vampyre'. The Creature of the Night in this tale is Lord Ruthven, an especially vile monster comparable to the Devil himself. An aristocrat preying on the affluent in London, Ruthven befriends, manipulates, then targets a wealthy orphan named Aubrey, killing and draining the blood of the women in his life. Much like the classic Hollywood interpretation of Dracula and other vampires, Ruthven is charismatic as well as a predator in the vein of a serial killer, an undead serial killer. It's a vicious story and was among Bram Stoker's influences in writing 'Dracula'.
DRACULA (1931)
Director Tod Browning’s adaptation is, ironically, one of the least faithful of Bram’s book. Several characters are omitted while others are reduced in size or given greater significance compared to the novel. For example, Mina Murray (who was an orphan who becomes Mina Harker in the novel) is changed to Mina Seward, Dr. Seward’s daughter, for this film version. It would take 60 years before all the characters in Stoker’s book would be recognized in a motion picture.
Possibly the most glaring alteration is having Renfield journey to Dracula's castle to do the deal for Carfax Abbey as opposed to it being Jonathan Harker. Then there's the death of Dracula; it's similar to the written word but differs in where it takes place. In the novel, Dracula is slain while sleeping in his coffin during a chase from London to Transylvania enroute to his castle just before the sun sets. Once he’s killed, his body turns to dust. In Browning’s film, he’s staked through the heart after retreating to his coffin below Carfax Abbey, his English estate, as day breaks.
Regardless of its many alterations, Bela Lugosi’s interpretation of the blood-drinking Count is still the supreme classic—the most imitated and parodied incarnation. This first official film version is based largely on a 1924 stage play that both Lugosi and Edward Van Sloan (Abraham Van Helsing) had acted in prior to starring in the movie. Just as the play would need to condense the number of characters, so does the 75-minute movie. As historically notable as Lugosi is playing the Transylvanian Count, Dwight Frye is likewise the ultimate Renfield, delivering an unhinged performance that, after all these years, has yet to be rivaled.
A Spanish version of DRACULA was shot at Universal Studios at night on the same sets after Browning finished shooting during the day. Many prefer the Spanish version to Lugosi’s incarnation. The pacing is much slower, and not entirely due to the film running nearly 30 minutes longer than Browning’s movie. Carlos Villarias overdoes the facial expressions to the point it’s borderline comical. And despite shooting on the exact same sets as its English-language counterpart, there’s barely any Gothic atmosphere outside of outtakes from the American release. Pablo Alvarez Rubio did do a good imitation of Dwight Frye’s Renfield, though.
During the Universal Monsters Era, Count Dracula made a few more appearances in other films but was not the focal point of these later productions. John Carradine would play the undead Count in the action-filled monster mash-ups, HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945). These two films had no connection to the events in the novel other than Dracula turning into a bat. They also follow the movie industry creation of Dracula being destroyed by the rays of the sun. Carradine's portrayals of the undead Count were unique in that his look and wardrobe were different from one film to the next.
Carradine would play Dracula a few more times in motion pictures like the wickedly cheap cult horror western BILLY THE KID VS DRACULA (1966) and the bizarre disco horror comedy NOCTURNA, GRANDDAUGHTER OF DRACULA (1979). He would also play the Count in the last episode of McCLOUD (1970-1977), ‘McCloud Meets Dracula’. As for Bela Lugosi, he played a few more vampires but returned to the role of Dracula in the comical favorite ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948). After that, it would be 30 more years before Universal returned to Transylvanian earth.
Something that would become crucial to the film's would be the visualization of the fangs of the vampire. Up to now, they've never been shown, although the two sharp rodent-like teeth jutting from the mouth of Count Orlok could be construed as fangs. But the famed, sharpened incisors wouldn't appear till 1957, and not even a Dracula picture, but the Mexican production of EL VAMPIRO (THE VAMPIRE). It's one of the most unique vampire films bolstered by a grand performance of its title blood-drinker by German Robles.
HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)
Lugosi might be the iconic rendition of Eastern European bloodsuckers, but Lee is widely recognized as the favored vampire king with several films all with different scenarios but with fleeting attachments to the original source. In the inaugural 1958 film, Christopher Lee looks nothing like the character as written. He has limited lines relegated to his introduction on-camera but is an imposing figure when reciting them. His enactment of the Count is initially suave, later becoming brutish and feral shortly into the film. Relatively few, if any, horror fans are watching HORROR OF DRACULA for accuracy. Taken as a Dracula picture, it's a fantastic horror film reinforced by two powerhouse performances from Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, and effectively supported by co-star Michael Gough.
Lee’s Dracula is entirely animalistic in the first official sequel, DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966) where the character is given nary a line of dialog to speak. It wouldn't be till SCARS OF DRACULA (1970) that Lee would be given a lot of dialog, a genuinely undead pallor and be given something to do taken from Stoker's writing--that being crawling up the walls of his castle. In many instances it was as if Hammer executives had no idea what to do with the character. Even the directors seemed indifferent to the type of films they were making, preferring to focus on the relationships instead of utilizing the bloodthirsty Count people were coming to the movies to see.
Peter Cushing as Van Helsing is the perfect foil for Lee's Count in Hammer's hit that wound up becoming a massive success in America and the rest of the world. As Van Helsing, Cushing dueled with Dracula on two more occasions and faced off against a disciple of the Ruler of the Damned in THE BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960). He is so good in his equally iconic role, you’d think he played the character more than the four times he actually did.
In the same vein as Universal’s DRACULA (1931), Hammer’s version is likewise lacking in authenticity to the novel; many liberties were taken with the source material. One major example is the treatment of Jonathan Harker. He’s vampirized by Dracula and later staked by Van Helsing. This never happens in the novel as Harker becomes a vampire hunter along with several others in pursuit of Dracula. In the novel Harker is married to Mina but here, his betrothed is Lucy. In Hammer’s version, Mina is married to Arthur Holmwood (played by Michael Gough). Lucy’s post-vampirism penchant for preying on children in the novel is accounted for, but her full method of saving her soul is not. She’s staked through the heart; but unlike the novel, her decapitation and mouth stuffed with garlic is not depicted; the British censors, who already objected to the blood and violence being filmed, would never have allowed such a scene to even be hinted at.
Dracula’s death is also different from Stoker’s work. In the novel, Dracula is eliminated during a tense chase from London back to Transylvania. In Hammer’s version, he’s destroyed inside his castle after Van Helsing leaps across a table and rips the curtains away to let the sunshine in, whereby Dracula turns to dust.
Lee would play Dracula eight times, the most of any actor. As popular and enduring as Hammer’s Dracula films are and continue to be, they unwittingly lessened the lethality of the king vampire by coming up with new methods with which to dispose of him. Running water was never a threat to Stoker’s Dracula, but it was in DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966); he died twice in spectacular fashion in DRACULA AD 1972--first impaled on the spoke of a wagon wheel at the beginning and second when he falls into a pit of stakes at the end; a crown of thorns made Dracula immobile, allowing Van Helsing to stake him in THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (1973); in the underrated SCARS OF DRACULA (1970), a lightning strike sets him ablaze; even God himself takes him out in TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA (1970).
The Hammer Dracula pictures were sparse in their faithfulness to the novel although bits of Bram’s writing turned up here and there. DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966) ported over the assertion that a vampire cannot enter a home without first being invited by the owner. Then there was the off-kilter Renfield-type character played by Thorley Walters. Some intriguing things were added to Hammer's most successful Dracula movie in DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968) wherein the Count is staked but it fails to destroy him because the staker is an atheist and can’t complete the required prayer to finish the job.
What’s astonishing about the many Hammer vampire features is that by the 1970s and beyond, certain elements of vampire lore that were never in Stoker’s novel were now accepted as if they were.
For example, sunlight had been depicted as instant death to vampires since 1922s NOSFERATU. This was strictly a film industry creation and doesn’t adhere to any authentic folklore. In HORROR OF DRACULA (1958), Van Helsing resolutely states that no vampire can be exposed to the sun’s rays without being destroyed by them. In Stoker’s ‘Dracula’, the Lord of the Undead can walk in the daylight, but without the full use of his vampiric abilities. Hammer produced several non-Dracula movies that depicted vampires walking freely during the daytime that, over the years, many fans would take issue with; by this point, death by sunlight was widely accepted as the prime method of destruction next to a stake through the heart.
Films like the Karnstein trilogy—THE VAMPIRE LOVERS (1970), LUST FOR A VAMPIRE (1970) and TWINS OF EVIL (1971)—showcased day-walking bloodsuckers. These three films were based--with varying degrees of authenticity--on 'Carmilla', a novella written by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu. Published in 1872 (25 years before Stoker's Dracula), it too was the subject of numerous cinematic adaptations outside these three from Hammer Films; THE VAMPIRE LOVERS being the best and most faithful to Le Fanu's work. Entries in this trilogy were also the only films to utilize actual Eastern European lore in how to destroy a vampire. In THE VAMPIRE LOVERS, Carmilla is both staked and decapitated. In the novella the same happens, but her head and body are burned to ashes then tossed into a river.
To permanently end a vampire’s existence you must both stake the heart and sever the head from the body; then stuff garlic into the creatures mouth to prevent this unholy ghoul from coming back again. Depending on which European region you were in, there were varying superstitions as to how to deal with these creatures. Dismemberment, burying the body parts in different locations so they couldn’t reconstitute themselves; burning the body and scattering the ashes; and using metal spikes hammered into the head are assorted means of dispatch found in euro folklore. The type of wood used for staking was apparently different depending on the region you were in, too. In Stoker’s novel it’s not a wooden stake at all, but a blade that deals the fatal blow to Dracula.
COUNT DRACULA (1970)
Not quite as accursedly god-awful as virtually everything else bearing the name of director Jess Franco, but hardly recommended viewing, either. You'd think with the combined funds of Spain, Germany, Italy and Great Britain the filmmakers could’ve came up with something with a bit of polish and class behind it, but those are two words you don't associate with the director. Christopher Lee referred to the film as a disaster; however, he did enjoy working on the picture insofar as his being allowed to play Dracula closer to the way Stoker had written him.
In the novel, he’s a decrepit, white-haired old man with thick eyebrows and a long, bushy mustache who becomes younger the more he feeds on the blood of human victims, and that's how he's played by Lee in the film, the first such motion picture to do so. Franco's COUNT DRACULA (1970) was also the first time a film based on Stoker's novel attempted to replicate the book's finale, albeit poorly, in Franco's case. Here, Jonathan Harker and Quincey Morris follow Dracula's carriage carrying his coffin back to Transylvania. They open the coffin, awakening the Count. Instead of the throat slashing and staking as in the novel, they casually put a torch to him. As he silently burns to ashes, they toss his flaming coffin off the top of his castle wall.
The enigmatic and unpredictable Klaus Kinski is either frozen or sedated in his bewildering interpretation of Renfield. Kinski was a great actor when he liked the project he was working on; when he didn't, he pulled stunts like this, acting in a trance-like state. Herbert Lom is only slightly less bland as Van Helsing who never even shares a scene with Lee’s Dracula. To be fair, the attempt to tell the same old story in a slightly different fashion is welcome, and probably the aim of the filmmakers in getting Christopher Lee considering he was openly vocal about the lack of direction Hammer had in the character and their continued drifting away from anything Stoker had written. Even so, any of the Hammer Dracula's are superior to this snoozer.
BLACULA (1972)
Director William Crain’s seminal slice of 70s bloodsucker cinema isn’t technically a Dracula movie, although Shakespearean actor William Marshall and his incredible voice takes over for the Transylvanian Count. The character of Dracula (played by Charles Macaulay) is featured in the pre-credits sequence in 1780, thirteen years before the events in Bram Stoker’s DRACULA. Prince Mamuwalde and his wife Luva arrives at Castle Dracula to seek his aid in ending the slave trade. Instead, Dracula damns Mamuwalde to an immortal lust for blood while cursing him with his name. On an even greater level of evil, Dracula not only locks the now vampirized prince inside a coffin to starve for eternity, but he walls Luva inside the tomb with him to hear his cries for blood forever. The story then moves to modern day 1972.
BLACULA has no true connection to Stoker’s work aside from characteristics associated with vampires. Mamuwalde takes on animalistic features when he’s about to feast on a victim, reverting back to normal once his thirst is satiated. He also transforms into a bat, just as stated in the novel that he possesses the ability to turn into animals or even become mist.
What makes BLACULA unique is that it’s the first Dracula and or vampire motion picture to characterize its blood-drinking villain as sympathetic and plagued with tragedy. Unlike Dracula as written in the novel, Mamuwalde is a tragic character in every sense of the word. The acts of evil he commits are against his will. Another first in vampire cinema is the reincarnated lover or wife that Dracula, or in this instance, a vampire cursed by Dracula, finds again after centuries apart. This was not in the novel, but a Hollywood invention that, ironically, didn’t first appear in a Dracula film or even a vampire picture; the concept of a doomed love spread over centuries was first depicted in Universal’s classic monster picture THE MUMMY (1932). There’s also a variation of this in 1964s THE MONSTER OF THE OPERA, an Italian film that originally had the title of THE VAMPIRE OF THE OPERA.
Lastly, BLACULA distinguishes itself in a third way during its finale. Mamuwalde has twice now lost his wife—Luva in the 18th century and Tina, her reincarnated form, in the 20th century—so he has nothing to “live” for other than an even more miserable existence alone with a never-ending bloodlust. He then decides to end it all and ascends the stairs to the roof of a building, allowing the sunlight to turn him to dust… till the sequel, SCREAM, BLACULA, SCREAM (1973), wherein he’s brought back to life, once more against his will. In that one, he despises having been brought back into existence, so he seeks the help of a voodoo priestess (played by Pam Grier) to send him back to the grave. (Insert: SCREAM, BLACULA, SCREAM)
COUNT DRACULA’S GREAT LOVE (1973)
Former bodybuilder Paul Naschy (Jacinto Molina) only played Dracula one time. He doesn't look the part at all, but he was such an enormous fan of Universal's classic monster movies, he wasn't about to pass up opportunities to play the roles of the monsters that fueled his imagination as a child. Even so, his sole interpretation of Dracula has little connection to Bram Stoker's novel or any other depictions of the character up to that point in 1972 when the film was shot.
The 1970s was when Dracula and other vampires were regularly turned into romantic caricatures of their darker, folkloric origins. Apparently, many filmmakers had difficulty seeing the value in keeping Dracula as a plague on mankind, preferring to turn him into a perpetual victim or a lovesick vampire longing for a companion to spend eternity with. Instead of simply exploring the evil of Dracula filmmakers were drawn to turning him into an undead bad boy with a soft side. This insistence on finding Dracula a date instead of fresh victims hit its stride by the end of the decade.
For this Spanish version in blood-red color, the Count is under the name of Dr. Wendell Marlowe. He doesn’t live in a castle but a run-down sanitorium. The plot is a mess but what sustains this movie are the bountiful Gothic tresses adorning the picture; these are accentuated by mountainous amounts of cleavage and bare breasts. Depending on how the script feels at any given time, Naschy’s Dracula wants to resurrect his daughter and at other times he wants to meet the eternal love of his life; only to decide at the last minute to end it all and commit suicide by self-staking himself. It’s entertaining in that there’s always something going on—whether Naschy is bedding down one of the actresses, or the vampires are fighting for reasons never explained—there’s no attempt at coherence but the visuals satisfy.
BLOOD FOR DRACULA (1974)
At the turn of the century, a dying Count Dracula is urged by his domineering servant Anton to leave Romania for Italy to search for the virgin blood he needs to rejuvenate himself. Upon his arrival, he discovers several virgin women to drain them of their blood. At the same time, a local handyman drains them of their virginity. This presents a serious problem for Dracula who can't keep the blood down he's sucked from a plucked female. Lots of blood, vomiting, naked flesh and a gore-drenched ending for the Count at the end.
If you're looking for a typical vampire picture, you won't find it in Paul Morrissey's blackly humorous, sex and horror movie. Udo Kier's Dracula is written as a wimpish bloodsucker, but he's just as good acting as Count Dracula as he was in FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN (1974) where he played the infamous doctor. The only link to Stoker's work is at the beginning when an aging Dracula, badly needing lady plasma, paints his eyebrows and his hair to cover up the gray. There's lots of political rambling about the wealthy being killed off so the Marxists could lay claim to their money; but in reality, Marxism killed more people than Count Dracula ever could.
BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA (1974)
Director and producer Dan Curtis had the Midas touch for horror in the 1970s. His Made For TV version of Stoker’s death master is among the best productions ever mounted. Jack Palance plays Dracula with an intensity seldom seen. He doesn’t fit Stoker’s physical description, but does replicate the characters predatory nature. Palance’s vampire is a violent thug, manhandling and or plowing through anyone that gets in his way.
This film is also responsible for introducing Dracula’s search for the reincarnated form of his long dead wife or lover. In Stoker’s novel, Dracula isn’t a tragic, lovelorn character, but a despicable monster that relishes in spreading his vile contagion. Curtis’s version is the first time this darkly romantic plot device was inserted into cinematic makeovers of Stoker’s material. Curtis had used it several years earlier in his DARK SHADOWS (1966-1971) soap opera that spanned 1,225 episodes. It was first used, however, in 1932s THE MUMMY starring Boris Karloff, mentioned above.
In it, the living mummy, Imhotep (Karloff), discovers the reincarnated form of his ancient princess lover and attempts to make her his immortal bride. This concept was carried over to Curtis’s long-running soap opera and then writer Richard Matheson migrated it to this excellent version of Dracula. Another cinema first is the correlation between the vampire and Vlad Tepes, alias Vlad the Impaler. Unlike the tragic romance motif, linking the ruler of the damned to a real-life monster was taken from Stoker’s novel. BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1974) played theatrically outside of the United States. Highly recommended not just for its filmmaking but for the most intimidating and violent depiction of Dracula as portrayed by Jack Palance up to that time.
DRACULA (1979)
Director John Badham’s turn at the material was to transform Transylvania’s most famous resident into a handsome fellow via Frank Langella. This is yet another example of a motion picture adaptation swapping out elements of the original source for a new vision while retaining just enough familiar territory. There’s a magnificent visual style like Browning’s version and Terence Fisher’s version; and like those two examples, Badham’s version utilizes very little from the novel.
Up to this point in history, only 1922s NOSFERATU had depicted Stoker’s creation as a repugnant creature of the night; the irony being they couldn’t use the name due to copyright. Director Badham’s vision is the most romantic and suave rendition yet. If you’re looking for a dark love story you’ll find it here, and especially in Frank Langella, one of the weakest Dracula’s; a fangless creation who never comes off as scary or even intimidating because he’s too busy searching for a vampire bride. The other main characters are not only swapped around again but some are further tinkered with; Dr Seward has gone from being one of Lucy’s paramours to being her father (played by Donald Pleasence). Mina went from being an orphan in the novel to being Van Helsing’s daughter (played by Laurence Olivier). This time, Mina (played by Jan Francis) is the throwaway victim while Lucy (played by Kate Nelligan) is the object of Dracula's affliction.
Director Badham did come through on one key scene of horror that haunted many a kid who saw it growing up, that being the confrontation between Dr. Seward, Van Helsing and his daughter, the now undead Mina. The makeup applications for Mina with her blackened eyes, clawed hands and skin that looks to be flaking away is a terrifying image conjuring more horror than anything Dracula does in the film. The ending is a drastic change from the novel but regardless, it's one of the film's highlights. In it, Dracula and Lucy are ocean-bound for Transylvania, but Van Helsing and Harker have boarded the vessel too. After a battle that leaves Van Helsing impaled but not before sending a hook into Dracula's back that sends him skyward from the cargo hold high above to the ship's sails where the sun burns him to death.
NOSFERATU, THE VAMPYRE (1979)
Director Werner Herzog’s version of ‘Dracula’ does double duty as a remake of Murnau’s 1922 silent era shiver-inducer NOSFERATU. Herzog’s film differs from many other Dracula pictures in that they shot everything in real castles or villages. Pernstejn Castle in Slovakia, for example, stood in for Dracula's Castle. Curiously, the Museum of the Mummies of Guanajuato is featured in the opening credits. The interior sets of many of these films highlight the dark fantasy aspects this classic story provides. Herzog gave his film a unique look largely barren of studio sets. Even so, many seeing this for the first time may find it shockingly dull as scenes go on and on. However, it’s more like Herzog has been painting on canvas for 107 minutes.
By 1979, Stoker’s novel had fallen into the public domain. Director Herzog differentiated his take from Murnau in his ability to use the names of the characters in the novel. Dracula himself was altered; the grotesque look of Murnau's NOSFERATU (1922) was kept but he was changed from a vengeful and vile monster to a lonely, pitiable creature who wishes to end the eternal curse. The ending differs from any other adaptation in that after Dracula is destroyed by the sun, he is then staked by Van Helsing. Jonathan Harker, now a vampire himself, rides off on horseback to continue the plague of Dracula.
THE MONSTER SQUAD (1987)
There were plenty of vampires that left their mark in the 1980s like FRIGHT NIGHT (1985), VAMP (1986) and THE LOST BOYS (1987), but other than this kid-friendly monster opus, filmmakers let the Count sleep for a decade. Essentially THE GOONIES (1985) for Monster Kids, director Fred Dekker fashioned an enormously fun little picture that brings to mind the Universal monster rallies and those wild mix and match monster melees of Spanish horror icon, Paul Naschy; particularly his wackiest monster round-up, ASSIGNMENT: TERROR (1970).
The depiction of Dracula doesn't follow the Stoker storyline, but a Hollywood tale wherein the world's most famous vampire is hellbent on procuring a magical amulet to take over the world. Duncan Regehr was an outstanding Count Dracula, blending the classic Lugosi look with a Bond villain. He could have done well with the role in a film built around history's most famous vampire.
BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA (1992)
When Dracula was resurrected after more than ten years, his comeback was certainly an impressive showing. Director Francis Ford Coppola helmed what is still, nearly 25 years later, the most epic and accurate theatrical version of DRACULA yet. Ingenious in how it was made with the sheer volume of old-school and modern effects technology, Coppola’s vision gets better with age; as much as Dracula’s youthfulness is replenished with fresh blood.
The original theatrical poster doesn't give one much faith in how closely the film will follow the novel. Due to filmmakers being seemingly incapable of steering away from a romantic angle, Coppola follows suit. Instead of Mina being targeted by Dracula, she willingly goes to him, accepting she is the reincarnated form of his wife who killed herself upon falsely hearing her husband, Vlad Dracula, had died in battle in 1462. Additionally, Coppola messed around with Van Helsing (played by Anthony Hopkins) by turning him into something of a wild man. The biggest coup of Coppola's version is that it's the first to include all the major characters from the source as well as following the book in other ways despite its deviations.
The wild finale is also the closest any of the film adaptations came to recreating Stoker’s depiction of Dracula’s dispatching. In it, there’s a mad dash for Dracula and the Gypsies guarding him to make it to the safety of his castle. A great chase ensues as Harker, Van Helsing and the rest of the vampire hunting posse they’ve formed finally manage to slay the blood-sucking devil. The finale mimics Stoker’s ending but with some alteration. Just as the sun sets, Dracula bursts from his box. Harker stands ready with his Kukri knife (or Gurkha knife) to immediately slash the monster’s throat just as the Texan Quincy Morris rams his Bowie knife straight into Dracula's heart. This is the only major theatrical release to not only include all the men assembled for Van Helsing’s vampire posse, but to film the ending as written. The one major difference is the addition of Mina taking the dying Dracula into his castle and decapitating him.
Highly recommended for its use of every special effects trickery imaginable and the unique musical score by Wojciech Kilar is arguably the most standout musical score ever attributed to the Dracula saga. Annie Lennox (formerly of the 80s band Eurythmics) wrote and performed 'Love Song for a Vampire' that plays over the ending credits.
DRACULA 2000 (2000)
Arguably the most creative interpretation of the vampire king, the 2000 moniker heralds a new approach and that’s exactly what you get in director Patrick Lussier’s movie. There’s nods to Stoker in the first half and a lot of deviations in the second that make for a surprisingly fresh and energetic approach to familiar material. Curiously, even with Wes Craven's name as Presenter and inventive new method of telling Bram's story, DRACULA 2000 was unable to make much money at the box office. It did do well enough to gain two DTV sequels starring Jason Scott Lee.
The most fascinating scripting additions is ditching the Vlad the Impaler connection and making it into a biblical one. In this films lore, Dracula is actually Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus’s 12 Apostles. After The Last Supper, Judas would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver in Gethsemane by kissing him on the cheek, alerting the watchful eyes of the authorities as to which man to arrest. Feeling remorseful for the betrayal, Judas would then hang himself after returning the bribe of silver he’d taken. For the film, Judas hangs himself, the silver spilling out onto the ground. He is then cursed by God to walk the Earth as a vampire who cannot die. In so doing, Judas, now known as Dracula, despises God and all Christian symbols such as crucifixes and silver. (Insert: international poster)
One of the few strands DRACULA 2000 maintains with its inspiration is when we first see him he looks like a ghastly creature; once he gets a good enough dose of blood he turns into Gerard Butler who does quite well in the role. As for the film, it’s a surprisingly effective mix of traditional and modern vampire storytelling.
VAN HELSING (2004)
Director Stephen Sommers is clearly an enormous fan of the old Universal monster movies. A lot of that passion has went into his film. Unfortunately, storytelling and coherence have been left out of it. It’s a loaded baked potato with so much CGI, it’s like you’re watching somebody play a video game for 2 1/2 hours. If it were made today, it would find kinship among the glut of superhero movies that show no sign of ending; the way it’s shot, VAN HELSING is made in the superhero mold.
Other than a masquerade ball sequence, Richard Roxburgh’s portrayal of Dracula rarely feels like you’re watching the immortal horror character as opposed to the comic book style villain he’s presented as here. Van Helsing fares even worse. As played by Hugh Jackman, he never leaves a lasting impression due to how poorly written the character is. The script is as lifeless as the bottomless pit of computerized imagery the film drenches itself in. Young kids will enjoy it the most, though. Computerized action holds dominion during the finale as well when Van Helsing transforms into a werewolf and has a monster melee with Dracula who turns into a vampire version of the Incredible Hulk.
DRACULA 3D (2012)
Renowned Italian horror cinema master Dario Argento seemed hellbent on fashioning the worst version of ‘Dracula’ ever adapted for the screen. In comparison of Coppola's lavish version, Argento's stake in the material is the total antithesis of that film. The last good movie Argento made was OPERA back in 1987. After a run of disappointments, the announcement that Argento was doing a new version of DRACULA and in 3D, it wasn’t met with much excitement; nor was there any excitement when people paid to see it.
Argento uses so little of Bram’s work it’s a wonder why he even bothered when he could've simply made an entirely new adventure for the undead Count instead. Aside from using some of the character names, there’s no resemblance to Stoker’s work. Probably to keep costs down, there’s no change in location from Transylvania to London; it’s set strictly in the former. Like the 1958 Hammer version, Harker is bitten by Dracula but not staked till after he’s returned from the dead. Dracula does shapeshift into a wolf although Argento takes things to ridiculous new extremes and has him also turn into a man-sized praying mantis. Rutger Hauer plays Van Helsing, showing up in the last 30 minutes and makes no impression at all; the material isn’t there for the character nor is it much better for Thomas Kretschmann who plays Dracula. Embarrassing from its first frame till the last, DRACULA 3D is unwatchable in any dimension.
DRACULA UNTOLD (2017)
Of all the titles on this list, UNTOLD is the most radical in its revisionism. Both the historical and the fictional Dracula is made valiant; the Lord of the Undead is essentially a blood-drinking Superman. It’s a fascinating flipside of Stoker’s character and Romania’s famous torturer. Vlad’s cruelty is discarded to transform him into an entirely heroic figure who temporarily embraces evil to save his people… at least that’s the plan.
In the Dracula films of the new millennium, the stories continue to venture further away from their source of inspiration. The accent in DRACULA UNTOLD is largely on action than horror. The romance angle plays an even heavier role than it ever did before. In the novel, Dracula never longed for a lost love; he only lusted after more victims. Another major difference is in how Dracula attains his powers. In the novel, Dracula’s origin is never revealed. UNTOLD divulges this information as Dracula having made a bargain with a supreme vampire residing inside a cave on Broken Tooth Mountain.
DRACULA UNTOLD is among the more intriguing experimentations with Stoker's work. Perhaps one day Hollywood will produce an accurate version of Vlad the Impaler, touching on the viciousness and cruelty of the man. Just as Dracula is one of literatures and filmdom's most evil personifications, so is Vlad among history's most evil men.
THE LAST VOYAGE OF THE DEMETER (2023)
One of the more fascinating entries on this list is a full-length feature built around chapter 7 in ‘Dracula’, titled ‘Log of the Demeter’. The doomed Russian vessel embarks on its last voyage while, unbeknownst to the crew, the ship's cargo is Count Dracula and crates of Transylvanian earth. Stoker based this chapter in his novel on a real ship named the Dmitri that had run aground at Whitby Harbor a few years prior to writing his novel. As for the accuracy of the film itself, considering the chapter in the novel is only several pages long, the film version is comparatively faithful. The length of the film versus that of the chapter in the novel is the reasoning for any deviation; there simply isn’t enough in those six pages to stretch the narrative to feature length. You never get to know the crew in the novel, so an entirely new set of characters is created.
The usual sunlight disintegrating vampire's motif is used to good effect. Dracula himself is kept off-screen for a long time; this aids a great deal in building the tension. When you do see him, he's a monster reminiscent of Max Schreck's Nosferatu, but with wings. In the chapter, there are no survivors of the Demeter; the movie changes that. The film ends in anticipation of a sequel that likely will never come. THE LAST VOYAGE OF THE DEMETER was unjustly ignored during its theatrical run, unable to make even half the $45 million spent on it. It's easily the most flavorfully Gothic Dracula picture since Coppola's vision back in 1992.
NOSFERATU (2024)
Robert Eggers (THE WITCH) remake of the 1922 silent classic and combination of Stoker’s tome is a feast for the visual palette, but it moves at a heavily sedated pace. The photography is amazing— deriving an atmosphere reminiscent of Tim Burton’s films but with greater, palpable menace. If you’re expecting a trio of vampire brides or a multitude of stakings you’re going to be disappointed. Eggers film is confined largely to Thomas and Ellen Hutter (representing Jonathan and Mina Harker from the novel). It re-envisions the tiresome, dark love story angle as an even darker tale of lust, obsession and sacrifice. On this occasion, the main female character, Ellen Hutter, has long since promised herself to the undead monster before she marries Thomas. This adds a new dimension to the mythos that’s layered in a similar way to the erotic thrillers post-FATAL ATTRACTION (1986). Orlok latches on to this lonely girl; he possesses her body to ensure she remains his; she ultimately marries another; Orlok then plots to kill the husband to claim the wife; the husband survives to fight for his woman; Orlok then threatens to kill everyone close to her till she pledges her life to him.
Aside from the film’s hypnotic imagery, particularly the use of shadow that pays tribute to Murnau’s movie, there’s the performance of then 34-year-old Bill Skarsgard as Count Orlok. The NOSFERATU is brought to ghastly life with heavy makeup and prosthetics that’s more in line with Bram’s description than Max Schreck’s famous look in the 1922 film as well as most other incarnations. Other areas the film sticks to the book is in the depiction of Abraham Van Helsing, referred to here as Professor Albin Eberhart von Franz. Movies have always written him as a seasoned vampire hunter learned in dispatching supernatural entities. But in the novel, he’s had no prior experience in dealing with vampires and learns as he goes. Also as written in Stoker’s text, wooden stakes aren’t necessary, but bladed weapons thrust into the heart are just as effective. Then there’s the Nosferatu, himself…
Skarsgard’s performance (he also played Pennywise in IT [2017] and IT: CHAPTER TWO [2019') as Count Orlok is possibly the single most evil interpretation yet of the blood-lusting King Vampire. He doesn’t change into animals but, like the novel, Orlok can change the weather like some sort of malevolent, omnipotent force. And it isn't entirely a visual representation of evil but an audible one. Orlock commands every scene he's in, dictating tyranny and promising never-ending plague like a Gothic terrorist. Eggers film is one of the best on this list and the definitive version of NOSFERATU.
DRACULA: A LOVE TALE (2026)
French director Luc Besson, the man behind THE PROFESSIONAL (1994) and THE FIFTH ELEMENT (1997) does his own, entirely French financed version of Stoker’s classic, making barely any attempt at accuracy with the source material. Knowing Besson’s reputation, if you’re expecting an action-oriented rendition, you’re in for a rude awakening. Besson’s film is heavily reminiscent of Coppola’s movie; however, he focuses so much attention on the love story angle, it bleeds dry the evil of Dracula.
You genuinely pity him more than in previous incarnations; and not just because he resorts to creating a perfume to bring women to him. The quality of sadness recalls the treatment of the character in Herzog’s NOSFERATU, THE VAMYRE (1979). Director Besson was apparently unaware that the original source has no love story angle within its pages. His insistence on bringing that aspect of Stoker’s work—that’s nonexistent—is a testament to the years of proliferation the myth of Dracula’s reincarnated love has had over the course of 100 years.
New to the tale are a mini army of gargoyles who act as Dracula’s servants, and who also know Kung Fu—demonstrating it during the finale when the military attacks Drac’s castle. He’s never referred to as such, but this films Van Helsing, an unnamed priest, is a different sort of vampire hunter. The ending where he and Dracula meet is the most unusual take on one of the oldest good versus evil paradigms in literature and cultural history. As for authenticity to its source, there is none; the film is as Besson described it—Dracula spending 400 years trying to find the love of his life. You'll spend only 2 hours with this very dry movie that stakes itself in what little heart lies in inside of it.
Over the course of the last 100 years you have seen Bram Stoker's most famous work go through an extravagant number of changes. There's yet to be a conclusive version that brings the entirety of Stoker's pages to life. The story continues to fascinate filmmakers and viewers alike no matter which version or alternative style it's being told in. If nothing else, Count Dracula continues to show he still has a lot of life left in his veins... possibly for another 100 years of blood.
HAPPY HALLOWEEN
