In 1459, Pope Pius II called for a new crusade against the Ottomans, at the Congress of

Mantua. In this crusade, the main role was to be played by Matthias Corvinus, son of John
Hunyadi (Jnos Hunyadi), the King of Hungary. To this effect, Matthias Corvinus received
from the Pope 40,000 gold coins, an amount that was thought to be enough to gather an
army of 12,000 men and purchase 10 Danube warships. In this context, Vlad allied himself
with Matthias Corvinus, with the hope of keeping the Ottomans out of the country
(Wallachia was claimed as a part of the Ottoman Empire by Sultan Mehmed II).
Later that year, 1459, Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II sent envoys to Vlad to urge him to pay a
delayed tribute[12] of 10,000 ducats and 500 recruits into the Ottoman forces. Vlad refused,
because if he had paid the 'tribute', as the tax was called at the time, it would have meant a
public acceptance of Wallachia as part of the Ottoman Empire. Vlad, like most of his
predecessors and successors, maintained the goal of keeping Wallachia independent. Vlad
had the Turkish envoys killed on the pretext that they had refused to raise their "hats" to
him, by nailing their turbans to their heads.
Meanwhile, the Sultan received intelligence reports that revealed Vlad's domination of
the Danube. He sent the Bey of Nicopolis, Hamza Bey (also known as Hamza Ceakirdjiba),
to make peace and, if necessary, eliminate Vlad III.
Vlad epe planned to set an ambush. Hamza Bey, the Bey of Nicopolis, brought with him
1000 cavalry and when passing through a narrow pass north of Giurgiu, Vlad launched a
surprise attack. The Wallachians had the Turks surrounded and defeated. The Turks' plans
were thwarted and almost all of them caught and impaled, with Hamza Bey impaled on the
highest stake to show his rank.

The Night Attack of Trgovite, which resulted in the victory of Vlad the Impaler.

In the winter of 1462, Vlad crossed the Danube and devastated the entire Bulgarian land in
the area between Serbia and the Black Sea. Disguising himself as a Turkish Sipahi and
utilizing the fluent Turkish he had learned as a hostage, he infiltrated and destroyed
Ottoman camps. In a letter to Corvinus dated 2 February, he wrote:[13]
I have killed peasants men and women, old and young, who lived at Oblucitza and
Novoselo, where the Danube flows into the sea... We killed 23,884 Turks without counting
those whom we burned in homes or the Turks whose heads were cut by our
soldiers...Thus, your highness, you must know that I have broken the peace.

Sultan Mehmed II's invasion of Wallachia[edit]

In response to this, Sultan Mehmed II raised an army of around 60,000 troops and 30,000
irregulars, and in spring of 1462 headed towards Wallachia. This army was under the
Ottoman general Mahmut Pasha and in its ranks was Radu. Vlad was unable to stop the
Ottomans from crossing the Danube on 4 June 1462 and entering Wallachia. He constantly
organized small attacks and ambushes on the Turks, such as The Night Attack when
15,000 Ottomans were killed.[1] This infuriated Mehmed II, who then crossed the Danube.
Radu was left behind in Trgovite with the hope that he would be able to gather an antiVlad clique in Wallachia that would ultimately establish Radu as the new Voivode of the
region. Vlad's rule falls entirely within the three decades of the Ottoman conquest of the
Balkans, conquering the entireBalkans peninsula.
Vlad the Impaler's attack was celebrated by the Saxon cities of Transylvania, the Italian
states and the Pope. A Venetian envoy, upon hearing about the news at the court of
Corvinus on 4 March, expressed great joy and said that the whole of Christianity should
celebrate Vlad epe's successful campaign. The Genoese from Caffa also thanked Vlad,
for his campaign had saved them from an attack of some 300 ships that the sultan planned
to send against them.[14]

Defeat[edit]

Writ issued on 14 October 1465 byRadu cel Frumos, from his residence inBucharest signified the
victory of theOttoman Empire.

Vlad's initial victory against the Ottomans was short-lived and he soon withdrew
to Moldavia leaving behind detachments in Wallachia that were overrun by the
Ottoman Sipahi commander Turhanoghlu Omer Bey, who was rewarded by being
appointed governor of Thessaly.
Vlad's younger brother Radu cel Frumos and his Janissary battalions were given the task
by the Ottoman administrator Mihaloghlu Ali Beyon behalf of the Sultan, of leading

the Ottoman Empire to victory. As the war raged on, Radu and his
formidable Janissary battalions were well supplied with a steady flow
of gunpowder and dinars; this allowed them to push deeper into the realm of Vlad III.
Radu's forces finally besieged Poenari Castle, the famed lair of Vlad III. After his victory
Radu was given the title Bey of Wallachia by Sultan Mehmed II.
Vlad III's defeat at Poenari was due in part to the fact that the Boyars, who had been
alienated by Vlad's policy of undermining their authority, had joined Radu under the
assurance that they would regain their privileges. They may have also believed that
Ottoman protection was better than Hungarian.
By September 8, Vlad had won another three victories, but continuous war had left him
without any money and he could no longer pay his mercenaries.[citation needed]

Imprisonment in Hungary[edit]
In autumn of 1462, Vlad and Matthias Corvinus spent five weeks negotiating alliances and
battle plans at Braov. After believing he had gained Hungarian support for his crusade
against the Ottomans, a confident Vlad started on his way home to Wallachia.
Unbeknownst to him, there was an ambush waiting for him at Castle King's Rock, a fortress
about six kilometers north of Rucr, barely inside the Wallachian state. On November 26,
Vlad was captured by Matthias Corvinus' own men and spirited away to Hungary.[15]

Transylvanian Saxon engraving from 1462 depicting Vlad epe

Neither his contemporaries nor modern day scholars can say why exactly Matthias
Corvinus shifted his loyalties and betrayed Vlad. Relatively recent research volunteers a
possible explanation, though: In the early 1460s, the Hungarian king became distracted by
the possibility of receiving the title of Holy Roman Emperor, and effectively tried to end the
anti-Ottoman crusades in Eastern Europe. To focus on gaining power in Central Europe, he
abandoned the Balkans to the Turks, a hasty and incriminating move for a supposed
crusader-king. In order to justify his actions, he ordered Vlad's arrest, claiming that the

Wallachian prince was actually in league with the Turks;[15] therefore, the entire area was
undeserving of his protection.
Vlad was imprisoned at the Oratea Fortress located at today's Podu Dmboviei village. A
period of imprisonment in Visegrd near Buda followed.
The exact length of Vlad's period of captivity is open to some debate, though indications
are that it was from 1462 until 1470. Diplomatic correspondence from Buda seems to
indicate that the period of Vlad's effective confinement was relatively short, his release
occurring around 1466 when he married Ilona Szilgyi.[16] Radu's openly pro-Ottoman policy
as voivode probably contributed to Vlad's rehabilitation. Moreover,tefan cel
Mare, Voivode of Moldavia and relative of Vlad intervened on his behalf to be released from
prison as the Ottoman pressure on the territories north of the Danube was increasing.

Reconquest of Wallachia, Third reign and death[edit]

Around 1475 Vlad began preparations for the reconquest of Wallachia with Stephen V
Bthory of Transylvania, mixed forces of Transylvanians, Hungarian support, some
dissatisfied Wallachian boyars, and Moldavians sent by Prince Stephen III of Moldavia,
Vlad's cousin. Vlad's brother, Radu the Handsome, died many years earlier and had been
replaced on the Wallachian throne by another Turkish candidate, Prince Basarab the Elder,
a member of the Dneti clan. When Vlad's army arrived, Prince Basarab's army fled,
some to the Turks, others in the mountains. After placing Vlad on the throne, Stephen
Bthory and his forces returned to Transylvania, leaving Vlad in a very weak position. Vlad
had little time to get support before a large Turkish army entered Wallachia to put Prince
Basarab back on the throne. Vlad had to meet the Turks with the small forces at his
disposal, which were made up of fewer than four thousand men. Vlad III declared his third
reign in 26 November 1476, where it had lasted little more than two months and thereafter
he was killed. According to profs. McNally & Florescu, Vlad Dracula was killed in battle. [17]
There are five variants of Vlad's death. Some sources[who?] say he was killed while fighting
the Turks, surrounded by the bodies of his loyal Moldavian bodyguards. Others say he was
killed by disloyal Wallachian boyars also fighting the Turks, or killed during a hunt. Still other
reports claim that Vlad was accidentally killed by one of his own men. The exact date and
location of Vlad's death are unknown, but he was dead by 10 January 1477. He is
presumed to have died at the end of December 1476, somewhere along the road
between Bucharest and Giurgiu.[9]
According to Bonfinius (Antonio Bonfini) and a Turkish chronicler,[18] Vlad was decapitated
by the Turks as a trophy, and his head was sent to Constantinople (now Istanbul),
preserved in honey. After, the head was displayed on a stake as proof that he was dead.

Burial[edit]

Vlad's body was buried unceremoniously by his rival, Basarab Laiota, possibly at Comana,
a monastery founded by Vlad in 1461.[19] The Comana monastery was demolished and
rebuilt from scratch in 1589.[20]
In the 19th century, Romanian historians cited a "tradition", apparently without any kind of
support in documentary evidence, that Vlad was buried at Snagov, an island monastery
located near Bucharest. To support this theory, the so-called Cantacuzino Chronicle was
cited, which cites Vlad as the founder of this monastery, but as early as 1855, Alexandru
Odobescu had established that this is impossible as the monastery had been in existence
before 1438. Since excavations carried out by Dinu V Rosetti in June October 1933, it has
become clear that Snagov monastery was founded during the later 14th century, well
before the time of Vlad III. The 1933 excavation also established that there was no tomb
below the supposed "unmarked tombstone" of Vlad in the monastery church. Rosetti (1935)
reported that "Under the tombstone attributed to Vlad there was no tomb. Only many bones
and jaws of horses." In the 1970s, speculative attribution of an anonymous tomb found
elsewhere in the church to Vlad epe was published by Simion Saveanu, a journalist who
wrote a series of articles on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Vlad's death. [20] Most
Romanian historians today favor the Comana monastery as the final resting place for Vlad
epe.[19]

Legacy[edit]
Reputation for cruelty[edit]

Pilate Judging Jesus Christ,National Gallery, Ljubljana, 1463.

The Martyrdom of Saint Andrew(14701480, Belvedere Galleries) Paintings such as these are said
to depict Biblical tyrants with the features of Vlad. Above, as Pontius Pilate, below as a Roman
proconsul

After Vlad's death, his deeds were reported in popular pamphlets in Germany, reprinted
from the 1480s until the 1560s, and to a lesser extent in Tsarist Russia. A typical German
pamphlet from 1521 gives numerous examples of lurid incidents, such as the following: [21]
He roasted children, whom he fed to their mothers. And (he) cut off the breasts of women,
and forced their husbands to eat them. After that, he had them all impaled. [21]
Vlad epe's reputation was considerably darker in Western Europe than in Eastern
Europe and Romania. In the West, Vlad III epe has been characterized as a tyrant who
took sadistic pleasure in torturing and killing his enemies.[22] Estimates of the number of his
victims range from 40,000 to 100,000.[23] He also had whole villages and fortresses
destroyed and burned to the ground.[24]
Impalement was Vlad's preferred method of torture and execution. Several woodcuts from
German pamphlets of the late 15th and early 16th centuries show Vlad feasting in a forest
of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Braov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart
other victims.[25] It has also been said that in 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of
Constantinople, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of 20,000
impaled corpses outside Vlad's capital of Trgovite. [26]

German sources[edit]

1499 German woodcut showingDracule waide dining among the impaled corpses of his victims.

The German stories circulated first in manuscript form in the late 15th century and the first
manuscript was probably written in 1462 before Vlad's arrest. The text was later printed in
Germany and had a major impact on the general public, becoming a best-seller of its time
with numerous later editions adding to and altering the original text.
In addition to the manuscripts and pamphlets the German version of the stories can be
found in the poem of Michael Beheim. The poem called "Von ainem wutrich der hies Trakle
waida von der Walachei" ("Story of a Hothead Named Dracula of Wallachia") was written
and performed at the court of Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor during the winter of 1463.
[27]

To this day four manuscripts and 13 pamphlets have been found, as well as the poem by
Michel Beheim. The surviving manuscripts date from the last quarter of the 15th century to
the year 1500 and the found pamphlets date from 1488 to 15591568.
Eight of the pamphlets are incunabula, meaning that they were printed before 1501. The
German stories about Vlad the Impaler consist of 46 short episodes, although none of the
manuscripts, pamphlets or the poem of Beheim contain all 46 stories.
All of them begin with the story of the old governor, John Hunyadi, having Vlad's father
killed, and how Vlad and his brother renounced their old religion and swore to protect and
uphold the Christian faith. After this, the order and titles of the stories differ by manuscript
and pamphlet editions.[24]

Russian sources[edit]
The Russian or the Slavic version of the stories about Vlad the Impaler called "Skazanie o
Drakule voevode" ("The Tale of Warlord Dracula") is thought to have been written sometime
between 1481 and 1486. Copies were made from the 15th century to the 18th century, of
which some 22 extant manuscripts survive in Russian archives.[28] The oldest one, from
1490, ends as follows: "First written in the year 6994 of the Byzantine calendar (1486), on
13 February; then transcribed in the year 6998 (1490), on 28 January". The Tales of Prince
Dracula is neither chronological nor consistent, but mostly a collection of anecdotes of
literary and historical value concerning Vlad epe.

There are 19 anecdotes in The Tales of Prince Dracula which are longer and more
constructed than the German stories. The Tales can be divided into two sections: The first
13 episodes are non-chronological events most likely closer to the original folkloric oral
tradition about Vlad. The last six episodes are thought to have been written by a scholar
who collected them, because they are chronological and seem to be more structured. The
stories begin with a short introduction and the anecdote about the nailing of hats to
ambassadors' heads. They end with Vlad's death and information about his family.[citation needed]
Of the 19 anecdotes there are ten that have similarities to the German stories. [29] Although
there are similarities between the Russian and the German stories about Vlad, there is a
clear distinction in the attitude towards him. The Russian stories tend to portray him in a
more positive light: he is depicted as a great ruler, a brave soldier and a just sovereign.
Stories of atrocities tend to seem to be justified as the actions of a strong ruler. Of the 19
anecdotes, only four seem to have exaggerated violence.[citation needed] Some elements of the
anecdotes were later added to Russian stories about Ivan the Terrible of Russia.[30]
The nationality and identity of the original writer of the anecdotes Dracula is disputed. The
two most plausible explanations are that the writer was either a Romanian priest or a monk
from Transylvania, or a Romanian or Moldavian from the court of Stephen the Great in
Moldavia. One theory claims the writer was a Russian diplomat named Fyodor Kuritsyn.[31]

Ambras Castle portrait[edit]

A contemporary portrait of Vlad III, rediscovered by Romanian historians in the late 19th
century, had been featured in the gallery of horrors at Innsbruck's Ambras Castle. This
original has been lost to history, but a larger copy, painted anonymously in the first half of
the 16th century, now hangs in the same gallery.[1] This copy, unlike the crypto-portraits
contemporary with Vlad III, seems to have given him a Habsburg lip.[32]

Romanian patriotism[edit]
Further information: Romanian national awakening
Romanian and Bulgarian documents from 1481 onwards portray Vlad as a hero, a true
leader, who used harsh yet fair methods to reclaim the country from the corrupt and rich
boyars. Moreover, all his military efforts were directed against the Ottoman Empire which
explicitly wanted to conquer Wallachia. Excerpt from "The Slavonic Tales":
And he hated evil in his country so much that, if anyone committed some harm,
theft or robbery or a lye or an injustice, none of those remained alive. Even if he
was a great boyar or a priest or a monk or an ordinary man, or even if he had a
great fortune, he couldn't pay himself from death. [citation needed]

A woodcut depicting Vlad epe published in Nuremberg in 1488 on the title page of the
pamphlet Die geschicht Dracole waide.

An Italian writer, Michael Bocignoli from Ragusa, in his writings from 1524, refers to
Vlad epe as:
It was once (in Valahia), a prince Dragul by his name, a very wise and skillful man
in war. [33]
(In Latin in the original text: Inter eos aliquando princeps fuit, quem voievodam
appellant, Dragulus nomine, vir acer et militarium negotiorum apprime peritus.)[34]
In the Letopiseul cantacuzinesc ("Cantacuzino chronicle"), a historic account
written around 1688 by Stoica Ludescu of the Cantacuzino family, Vlad orders the
boyars to build the fortress of Poenari with their own bare hands. Later in the
document, Ludescu refers to the (re)crowning of Vlad as a happy event:
Voievod Vlad sat on the throne and all the country came to pay respect, and
brought many gifts and they went back to their houses with great joy. And Voievod
Vlad with the help of God grew into much good and honor as long as he kept the
reign of those just people.[citation needed]
(In Romanian in the original text: De aciia zu n scaun Vladul-vod i veni
ara de i s nchin, i aduse daruri multe i s ntoarser iari cine pre la
case-i cu mare bucurie. Iar Vladul-vod cu ajutorul lui Dumnezeu cretea
ntru mai mari bunti i n cinste pn' ct au inut sfatul acelui neam drept .)
Around 1785, Ioan Budai-Deleanu, a Romanian writer and renowned historian,
wrote a Romanian epic heroic poem, "iganiada", in which prince Vlad epe
stars as a fierce warrior fighting the Ottomans. Later, in 1881, Mihai Eminescu,
one of the greatest Romanian poets, in"Letter 3", popularizes Vlad's image in
modern Romanian patriotism, having him stand as a figure to contrast with

presumed social decay under the Phanariotes and the political scene of the
19th century. The poem even suggests that Vlad's violent methods be applied
as a cure. In the final lyrics, the poet makes a call to Vlad epe (i. e. Dracula)
to come, to sort the contemporaries into two teams: the mad and the wicked
and then set fire to the prison and to the madhouse.[35][better source needed]
(In Romanian in the original text:
Dar lsai mcar strmoii ca s doarm-n colb de cronici;
Din trecutul de mrire v-ar privi cel mult ironici.
Cum nu vii tu, epe doamne, ca punnd mna pe ei,
S-i mpari n dou cete: n smintii i n miei,
i n dou temnii large cu de-a sila s-i aduni,
S dai foc la pucrie i la casa de nebuni!)
In contrast, documents of Germanic, Saxon, and
Hungarian origin portray Vlad as a tyrant, a
monster so cruel that he needs to be stopped. For
example, Johan Christian Engel characterizes
Vlad as "a cruel tyrant and a monster of
humankind".[citation needed] Several authors and
historians believe that this may be the result of a
bad image campaign initiated by
the Transylvanian Saxons who were actively
persecuted during Vlad's reign and later
maintained and spread by Matthias Corvinus. It is
conceivable that these actions were not beyond
the Hungarian King since he had already framed
Vlad epe by producing a forged letter to
incriminate Vlad of coalition with the Turks.
However, there is incontestable evidence, both in
Romanian and foreign documents, including
Vlad's own letters, that he killed tens of thousands
of people in horrible ways.[

Lucy Westenra's sister Mina bids farewell to her fianc Jonathan Harker, who is leaving for
a business trip. Harker, a solicitor, is travelling to Count Dracula's castle in Transylvania to
expedite his purchase of Carfax Abbey and other properties in England.
At the door of the castle, Count Dracula himself welcomes Jonathan. Abandoned by
superstitious locals, Harker was forced to accept a lift there from an anonymous passing
coachman. Jonathan agrees to stay for a month to help the Count with his English. Dracula
is urbane and gracious, but also vaguely sinister, and casts no reflection. After a series of
disturbing events, Harker explores the castle, finds the Count asleep in a coffin, and tries
(ineffectually) to kill him with a shovel.
In England, Mina and Lucy go to the seaside town of Whitby. Among their friends are
Quincey Holmwood (Lucy's American fianc), and Dr. John Seward, who owns a
local asylum. Among Seward's patients is the madman Renfield, who worships and fears
Dracula. Mina and Lucy witness a storm in which the foreign ship 'Demeter' goes aground,
and later a local is found dead. Mina follows a sleepwalking Lucy to the local graveyard and
glimpses Dracula holding her in his arms. Lucy thereafter grows pale and weak; at night in
her bedroom, Dracula drinks her blood. Jonathan meanwhile turns up delirious and weak in
a convent in Budapest.
Seward calls on his friend Abraham Van Helsing for help with Lucy's strange illness.
Although Van Helsing recognizes the symptoms and protects her bedroom with garlic, a
wolf shatters the room's window; the shock kills Lucy's mother, and Lucy is found pale and
nearly dead.
Seward and Holmwood both accompany Van Helsing to Lucy's grave. A bloodied Lucy
approaches, and attempts to entice Holmwood, but is forced to flee from Van Helsing's
crucifix. Later in the tomb, Holmwood drives a wooden stake into Lucy's heart. Van Helsing
fills her mouth with garlic and cuts off her head.
Harker, Van Helsing, Seward, and Holmwood all go to Carfax Abbey to sterilize Dracula's
refuges - boxes of native earth - with Christian artefacts. Renfield realizes Dracula is now
visiting Mina, and seeks to warn her and Dr. Seward. In revenge, Dracula kills Renfield,
who just manages to warn the others. They rush to find Mina in her bedroom, drinking
blood from Dracula's chest. Dracula vanishes as they enter. Van Helsing touches and sears
the hysterical Mina's forehead with a piece of communion wafer, which scars her until
Dracula dies.

The Count flees back to his castle, and they follow; Van Helsing and Mina go to the Castle,
while the others follow the Gypsies transporting Dracula's coffin. In the Transylvanian
wilderness, Dracula's brides attack Van Helsing and Mina, but Van Helsing thwarts them,
and destroys them the following day. Harker, Seward and Holmwood chase Dracula's
carriage and fight the Gypsies loyal to Dracula; Mina shoots one, saving Harker. The
pursuers reach and open the coffin; inside, Dracula smiles, because it is almost sunset, but
Van Helsing drives a stake into the vampire's heart, and the body disintegrates, leaving
only his clothes and ashes.

Cast[edit]

Louis Jourdan as Count Dracula

Frank Finlay as Abraham Van Helsing

Susan Penhaligon as Lucy Westenra

Judi Bowker as Mina Westenra

Jack Shepherd as Renfield

Mark Burns as Dr. John Seward

Bosco Hogan as Jonathan Harker

Richard Barnes as Quincey P. Holmwood

Transmission history[edit]
The film was originally shown on BBC 2 in the UK in its entirety (155 minutes) on 22
December 1977. It was repeated twice in 1979, the first time on BBC 2 in January and
again on BBC 1 in December. On both of these occasions it was split into three episodes
and shown on three consecutive nights.[1] It was repeated again on BBC 2 in April 1993
when it was shown in two parts.[2]
In the United States, the film was shown as part of PBS's Great Performances anthology
series.[1]

Reception[edit]
Critical reaction to the film has been mostly positive. Writing in The Guardian, TV
critic Nancy Banks-Smith stated it was "A nice plushy production with much galloping off in
all directions and sulphurous smoke effects, a pleasant sensation of space and time and
money. Something of a hole in the middle though, like a vampire after remedial treatment."

She was less positive about the casting and performance of Louis Jourdan, however, which
she felt "...emphasised the lover at the expense of the demon. It makes a change. Though,
I would say, for the worst."[3]
Film historian Stuart Galbraith IV said that "Count Dracula remains one of the best-ever
adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel" despite a "couple of missteps", remarking that "the
cast is excellent", in particular praising the performances of Frank Finlay and Louis
Jourdan, whom he calls "especially good."[4] Critic Steve Calvert agreed that Count
Draculawas "one of the better versions" of Stoker's novel, calling it "perhaps even the best."
He felt that "few actors have ever played the role [of Van Helsing as] convincingly" as Frank
Finlay, that "without doubt, [Jack Shepherd is] the best on-screen embodiment there has
ever been of the fly-munching Renfield", and remarked of Jourdan's performance, "[His]
Dracula ... exudes a quieter kind of evil. A calculating, educated evil with a confidence and
purpose all of its own."[5]
In his book Hollywood Gothic: The Tangled Web of Dracula from Novel to Stage to
Screen, David J. Skal calls Count Dracula "the most careful adaptation of the novel to date,
and the most successful."[6] Brett Cullum of DVD Verdict said the special effects were the
film's "biggest downfall" and that it was "perhaps the least visually
interesting" Draculaadaptation, though he offered a mostly positive review, remarking that
there is "plenty to admire in the production", in particular the "sublime acting". [7] MaryAnn
Johanson of FlickFilosopher.com was less positive, writing: "Maybe it had more of an
impact in the 70s ... but today, while it remains a stylishly surreal reinterpretation of Bram
Stokers novel, theres something a bit dated and stodgy about it.