Stream it now Dracula Reset Status Want to Watch Already Watched Don't Want to Watch

I was quite surprised by how good this film was after the disaster of Frankenstein. It was much creepier and I think Bela Lugosi makes a better monster than Boris Karloff. He freaked me out, dude! It did drag at times, but it kept my interest much better than most classics do. Another good one for this time of year. YAY HALLOWEEN!

I watched Dracula today as my night shift wrapped up at the movie store. I did it honor of halloween, really.



In summation - my favorite vampire movie. Bela Lugosi really captures what being a vampire is all about. Too bad we don't see more of his succubi though - they were devestatingly radiant.

So these movies aren't exactly scary anymore--so what? It's fun and memorable.

I love Dracula, and Bela Lugosi's downfall later in life hasn't spoiled his earlier performances for me. He perfectly conveys a sense of elegant creepiness, and the performances from the rest of the cast are top-notch. Not to mention Todd Browning's superb direction.

Bela Lugosi gives one of the all-time great performances as Count Dracula, the infamous vampire who expressed an interest in real estate once upon a time. This version of Dracula is still the definitive adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel (excluding F.W. Murnau's masterful Nosferatu). While the movie is more of a campy delight than an unsettling horror film (unlike Murnau's movie), it is consistently entertaining and strangely beautiful at some points. What this movie does is transform the vampire character from a hideous ghoul to a romantic figure. Lugosi is sensual and even erotic as Dracula...even though his character is basically a hopeless romantic doomed to an eternal life of loneliness. Director Tod Browning frequently shoots Lugosi looking straight at the camera, which draws the audience into the count's seductive spell. I still believe that the movie might be more effective as a short film: it is so compelling in its opening passages that it can not help but seem anti-climactic and repetitive as the action shifts to London. While much of the shock value and effectiveness of Dracula has worn off, it is still a treat to watch and a film that will probably be as immortal as its central character.

(BASIC)

The Classic Horror Film Festival did not go well.

Last night we showed Dracula. Only four people (counting myself) showed up initially, with eight (slightly drunken) others showing up halfway through. Of course, it didn't help that despite the DVD case insert saying that it contain the remastered version with the added score by Phillip Glass, it was not said version (and a crappy print to boot). I should be happy anyone came at all, though, as I did not realize that there would be a presidental debate that night when I was planning this.

Tonight we started off with The Mummy. This time six total showed up at the beginning, with another half-dozen walking in halfway. This transfer wasn't so bad, except for some spots at the beginning. Thank goodness -- I rather like this film for its spooky atmosphere, damn good makeup, and the general creepiness of Boris Karloff.

Unfortunately, the DVD they sent for Frankenstein was scratched (and therefore unplayable), and our library didn't have a copy of it, so I was forced to cancel.

I'm rather pissed about the disk, but I'm also a little dissappointed with the turnout. I understand that old horror movies aren't the biggest draw, but I had hoped that more people would be curious...or that we could even draw some alums (it's Homecoming here on campus), but alas, no.

So, here I sit alone in my room, as all my friends are either retiring early or busy with homework.

Dammit, my social life sucks.

Edit: Now I just learned that the aforementioned version of The Mummy doesn't even come up for the ratings. *grr* No appreciation for the classics, I tell ya...

In 1931 it had only been four years since Al Jolson informed us that we "ain't heard nothin' yet" in "The Jazz Singer". Studios were still trying to figure how to deal with the concept of sound, and among other problems they wondered how the movies would now play in foreign markets. The solution was to film multiple versions of movies using international casts. So when Universal filmed the story of Count Dracula, two movies were actually made. During the day Director Tod Browning, star Bela Lugosi, and the rest of the crew made the widely seen English language version, and at night George Melford directed Carlos Villarias as the famous vampire in a Spanish language version. Debates still abound as to which version is better. Recent viewings of both films gave me an excellent opportunity for a side-by-side comparison. Both movies do a nice job building up the suspense to our first viewing of Dracula. Renfield (English: Dwight Frye; Spanish: Pablo Alvarez Rubio), a real estate agent, travels to Transylvania to close a deal with the mysterious count. Villagers warn against their meeting and cross themselves at the mention of Dracula's name. You would think Renfield would take their warnings seriously considering he had not met Dracula yet, and the count did request he keep their meeting a secret, but he continues to the castle anyway. Both films supply suitably creepy shots in anticipation of our meeting the monster. I enjoyed the awakening of Dracula and his brides, as coffins creak open and vermin such as rats, bats, and wasps have free run of the castle. (And I never would have thought armadillos were common in Transylvania.) The bat driving the horses of the carriage carrying Renfield was a nice touch as well. The English version does a better job introducing us to the count, though. We first see him, standing, observing, waiting for Renfield. There is something evil in his calmness. This had to be where Jonathan Demme got the idea for our first glimpse of Hannibal Lecter in "The Silence of the Lambs". The Spanish version gives a very nice tracking shot up a flight of stairs, eventually taking us to Dracula, but we had already seen the character during the awakening, and the effect is diminished because of it. Soon Dracula has Renfield under his spell, and the poor agent is reduced to madness. Neither movie handles this particularly well. I would've appreciated a bit of a transition in the character before he succumbs to his madness in the English version, and even more of the transition was lost in the Spanish version. However, the Spanish version does a far better job with the subsequent boat trip to London. A little more time is spent showing the sailors fear of a brewing storm, intercut with shots of the even bigger monster they should worry about on board. All the while Renfield laughs insanely. It's a much creepier scene than in the English version, which just quickly rushes us from the boat to London. This is followed by a nice short scene in Browning's version, which doesn't show up in Melford's at all. On Dracula's first night in London, he walks the foggy streets and approaches a flower girl. We pan away as he looms over her, but we hear her scream. It's slightly orgasmic. Of course, Count Dracula would be hungry after such a long boat ride (not that he starved with all those sailors on board). This scene featuring his first victim was very much missed in the Spanish version. Before long, Dracula gets down to business, first killing Lucy/Lucia Weston (English: Frances Dade; Spanish: Carmen Guerrero), then spending most of the movie seducing Mina/Eva Seward (English: Helen Chandler; Spanish: Lupita Tovar). The English killing of Lucy, like Renfield's madness, needed more time, but it was handled much better with minimal differences in the Spanish version. I appreciated seeing the wounds on Tovar's neck, something we never see at all in Browning's film. It's not long before that old vampire hunter, Professor Abraham Van Helsing (English: Edward Van Sloan; Spanish: Eduardo Arozamena), starts to piece things together. Both movies handle his discovery of the vampire beautifully. Glancing at the mirror inside a cigarette box, he notices the count casts no reflection - a sure sign you're looking at a vampire. He gets Dracula to look in the mirror himself. I enjoyed Rubio's obvious uncertainty of what he knows must be a trick before looking in the mirror, but I liked Lugosi's reaction to actually seeing the mirror much more. Both sequences are very nicely filmed and performed. Eventually, Van Helsing hunts down Dracula in his new home, kills the vampire, saves Mina/Eva, and all is well, at least until Universal released "Dracula's Daughter" in 1936. The biggest difference between the two versions of "Dracula" is the Spanish film runs about thirty minutes longer. Most of this additional footage focuses on Renfield, and as a result we have a much greater sympathy for the character in the Spanish version. There's even an odd scene in which the maid in the Seward house faints, and Renfield crawls menacingly toward her, leans over her, and then we cut away to the next scene in the English version. We can't help but wonder what Renfield was possibly doing to her. Our imaginations take off, but the maid looks fairly unharmed in later scenes. We get the pay-off, however, in Melford's film. Renfield hovers for a moment while crouched over the maid, and then he tries to catch a fly - food to Renfield - that he spotted flying above her body. It was a nice touch of humor relieving a lot of built up tension, and I'm even more perplexed as to why Browning chose to end the scene prematurely. Oddly enough, the longer film is paced much better. While the first hour of the English version is too rushed, I felt the ending start to drag a bit. The Spanish version is able to carry the audience along at much more satisfying pace. The Spanish version also uses music and sound effects to a much greater advantage, supplying us with very creaky doors and a score that adds to the atmosphere. The English version gives us a bit of "Swan Lake" during the opening titles, and that's it. I guess the main question, though, is which version gives us the better Dracula. Lugosi was not a strong actor, and don't believe those rumors that tell you he couldn't speak any English when he made the film. Lugosi had been a successful performer on the American stage for ten years before making "Dracula". He does look like Dracula, however, and he will forever own the role. I don't care much for the plodding speech pattern he gives Dracula, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and guess that Lugosi, too, felt that a lot of Browning's film was rushed. Lugosi was not a great actor, and I don't even feel he was great in the role, but I can't deny that he is and always will be my Count Dracula. Being so familiar with Lugosi, it was difficult accepting Villarias. He looks like the evil offspring of Carl Reiner and Bob Dole, and I found very few scenes in which I thought he was believable as the notorious vampire. In fact, I believe he was probably trying to recreate Lugosi's performance. He must have seen, too, that Lugosi was going down in the film history books for this one. So it seems Melford offered a slightly stronger film, but a much weaker vampire. Browning gave us a film with a few more flaws in it, but he had Lugosi. I guess to most horror afficiandos, that's all that really matters.

It's undeniable that old horror films have a beautiful look and feel to them, if nothing else. They don't scare us with the cheap thrills, and don't give us creepy music to play with our minds, but instead just have a dark feel that when it works, it gives us chills. Browning's 1931 version of Dracula doesn't necessarily give chills, but it's creepy nonetheless, if not just for Lugosi's performance. Sometimes it does feel a bit groggy and seems stereotypical (but I suppose it is something that has been repeated over and over). But it's atmospheric and definitely well made for its time.

On a short side note, I liked Nosferatu (1922) slightly better.

B:fresh:

***/****

Pro: Great set design. Lugosi & Frye. Charming the victims.

Con: Acting issues with lesser cast. The ending.

Most of the second act just strings along until an extremely underwhelming climax. In the book, Van Helsing and company desperately follow Dracula back to Transylvania and begin a frantic chase to catch him before the sun sets and he is free to slip through their fingers. I can understand the budget and time constraints that would eliminate the possibility of a return journey, but surely the chase element could have been retained to make this ending more exciting. All we get is Van Helsing and Harker getting to the Abby (at sun rise - I mean how easy is that) and simply opening the coffin and driving the stake home. An act, by the way, that occurs out of shot. I'm not saying that the only thing you see is the hammer going up and down with impact sounds. I'm talking seeing the coffin opening and then a shot of Helen (a Dracula victim and the love interest) moaning as, we can only assume, The Count is being skewered. I know that censors at the time were strict, but there had to be a less confussing solution than this.

Let's face it, Dracula is Dracula. Stoker wrote a damn good story and even more mediocre adaptations can still be entertaining, but when one compares this to it's contemporaries - especially the chilling German Nasfartu - one can't help but look at this film and note what could have been.

H.C.