Dracula [1931]
£2.96
And the winner is...Dracula - Firstly let me start with the Tod Browning/Bela Lugosi English language version (ELV). It s a landmark film being the first conventional version of Dracula, the first major film of the post-Chaney Hollywood horror era, the film that unleashed Bela Lugosi on an unsuspecting world, and the film that established just about every convention of vampire films for decades to come. Compared with Nosferatu, this was a massively influential film up to and including the Hammer era. All of which is a bit strange, because it s not a very good film. Once the action leaves Transylvania and transfers to London (and it s newly acquired suburb of Whitby), the stagey, pompous dialogue and the glacial pace make for quite a boring film. The torpor isn t even relieved by it s being especially atmospheric - most of the action takes place in brightly lit conventional drawing rooms.All of these flaws are present in the Spanish language version (SLV), which is basically a straight copy of the ELV (or vice versa - both were filmed on the same sets and are based on the same stage play). However, the SLV is better on a number of counts (excuse the pun). Firstly the photography is superb. Much of the film is taken from one or more good quality prints (only a small central section when Drac arrives in London comes from a really poor print) and the use of atmospheric exteriors adds to the visual enjoyment. Secondly, there are one or two additions (e.g. the conclusion of Lucy/Lucia) that flesh out the plot in a more satisfying way. Then there s the violence. We re not talking Dawn of the Dead here, but the ELV is ridiculously coy about the `nasty stuff. Here also we get much more coffin-based action than in the ELV. Finally, the female costumes would have given the Hays Code lot a heart attack. Many people consider the SLV the better of the two versions, but it s not. All of the above doesn t compensate for the two things the SLV lacks.Compared to the hypnotic feral intense slit-mouthed leer of Lugosi, Carlos Villar looks like an overweight chump. Most of the time he looks like someone s dad playing at being frightening. He just isn t any good compared with the competition. Lugosi is one thing that makes the film worth watching in the first place. The other is Dwight Frye s Renfield. Pablo Alvarez Rubio plays Renfield as a stock film lunatic whilst Frye s Renfield is a stomach-churning OTT psycho - by turns intensely murderous and pathologically terrified. You only have to compare the laughing-in-the-hold scene when the ship has docked in Whitby to see the difference. Rubio is instantly forgettable, but the sound Frye makes will stick with you until they screw the lid down on your box of your native soil.Is the 2-disc region 1 set worth it? If you are upgrading from video or buying for the first time (AND you have a region 1 capable player) then it s not so expensive that you shouldn t give it a go and make up your own mind. If you already have a good print DVD of the ELV, then I d only consider this if you are a real horror film enthusiast (in which case why are you reading this - you already have it). People just looking to see the first real Dracula should stick with the ELV, it IS the better of two mediocre films.
Why the missing Spanish version ??? - I echo A Customer s review.. This is a great dvd with one major flaw: the missing Spanish version of Dracula that is included on the Region 1 edition of this release. The accompanying documentary & commentary even refers to this little seen version.. really rubbing that salt into the wound. Why Universal deemed that we Brits didn t deserve to see this version is a complete mystery. This ruins what is otherwise a very good release.. BTW special mention goes to the very informative commentary. At under £4 this is still a good purchase. However I still think I d want to order the Region 1 edition for completeness.
Dracula (1931) - Having watched a lot of the old Universal horror classics recently, i considered myself suitably prepared for this outing. Especially having enjoyed even more so than i thought i would, particular films like Frankenstein (1931), The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), & The Mummy (1932), i was fully expecting to get on fine with this movie. But to be honest, i was a bit disappointed. Strange as it may sound, this 1931 talkie came across to me as far more dated than Nosferatu , despite being a silent movie made 9 years earlier!A lot of this is down to the fact that most of the performances come over as very theatrical, & to be honest i didn t really warm to to the way Bela Lugosi in particular plays the role. I ve only seen his Dracula once, & it was a long, long time ago, & i was hoping that he wouldn t appear so hammy as i remembered, but i just find him a bit unconvincing. As a Hungarian actor Lugosi had the genuine accent for the role, but it s odd because he seems to deliver some lines in the fairly typical melodramatic fashion that you would expect from movies of this era, & yet other lines seemed to be delivered in a rather wooden, flat, stoccato style. Such lines as: I have chartered a ship to take us to England. We will be leaving....... tomorrow....... evening are heavy with melodramatic pauses, & yet spoken almost monotone. It s a strange combination, & to me it just comes across a bit wooden.To be fair to Lugosi, He s not all bad. He does have a certain screen presence, & does manage to give the Count a certain distinctive, insiduous appeal, but whilst he succeeds in that one dimension, the character of Dracula as Stoker had written him, wasn t so one-dimensional. For some unfathomable reason, this version uses the character of Renfield instead of Harker, who first arrives at the castle, & in the novel Harker is put at ease by Dracula, as described in the book: The light & warmth of the Count s courteous welcome seemed to have dissiapted all my fears. Lugosi doesn t quite capture these elements, even though some aspects of the Count s friendliness are scripted in the scenes where Renfield arrives at the castle, Lugosi still comes over as a bit of a cardboard villian that lacks the character s depth. Perhaps i m being a bit harsh on Lugosi in drawing comparisons to the novel. Anyone who s read any Stephen King will know how difficult it is for film & tv/adapations to live up to a lengthy, in-depth novel. Perhaps Lugosi was trying to show the malevolence of the character that lurks underneath, but there s a striking difference in the way that Lee s Dracula is later portrayed in these scenes. (But i musn t get ahead of myself) Anyway, there are other factors that i like about the initial scenes at the castle Dracula. Visually, i think it works rather well. I like the dark & dank look of the place, complete with sprawling cobwebs everywhere, adding to the real decrepit feel of the place, which fits with the way it s put across in the book, as opposed to the colourful, well kept, almost lavish furnishings of the Hammmer version. Also, Dracula s 3 brides make their first screen appearance, but unfortunately they re not used to great effect, They re just a bit of window dressing really. The confrontation between Dracula & the brides who have gone after Harker is totally omitted, & toned down to Dracula merely waving them away as they approach. Also notable is Dwight Frye, who, taking into account the style of this era does rather well as Renfield, i think. I find his character quite realistic & convincing. In spite of the criticisms i ve made so far, the first 20mins are some of the best scenes in the film IMO, whereas in Nosferatu , i felt that things didn t really get going for about 20mins. Unfortunately, i feel that the reverse is also true. For me, this movie started to feel a bit slow after the first 20mins. Granted, Dracula s first victim after he arrives in England is done quite well, with the nice lighting effect shining onto Lugosi s eyes adding to the sense of malevolence, but much of the scenes at the Sanatourium i rather struggled through them. I thought it fell a bit on the dull side until the next notable scene for me, where Dracula finally meets up with Van Helsing, who tricks Dracula into opening the mirror box. I have to admit that i also find Edward Van Sloan s portrayal of Van Helsing a bit hammy, compared to many of the later portrayals, but it has to be remembered that most of these guys were stage actors, so it s bound to come through in the very early talkies that were starting to be made in this period. However, i do quite like the stand-off between Dracula & Van Helsing where Dracula fails to hypnotize him, & Van Helsing pulls the cross out on him. But i can t ignore the fact that although there are a few likeable bits interspersed throughout, this movie just seems to plod along & doesn t have much flair to it at all after the scenes at the castle, & the ending (or lack of one) feels like a real let down.One thing that seriously hinders this movie altogether is the total lack of music. There are many scenes that fall flat which a bit of dramatic or atmospheric music would ve livened up. Even the good bits which i like, would ve sounded so much better with some incidental music to underscore the mood. Ironically, the box set contains a disc with a score added by composer Philip Glass set to the film. I watched some of the scenes on that version to see how it comes across, but in my personal opinion, i don t think the music was that great, & it was hampered further by the relatively poor quality of the original soundtrack which meant that in parts you couldn t hear the dialogue as clearly as you should ve been able to.All in all , i think this is a relatively poor outing for Universal. Considering that Frankenstein was made in the same year, & The Mummy only a year later, These are much better films than Universal s Dracula , if you ask me. They don t feel half as slow as this film, & for my money, Karloff could act Lugosi off the screen. Coming after Nosferatu , this movie is a bit of a damp squib, IMO. I much prefer Murnau s silent movie over this! It does have a few redeeming qualities, but taking into consideration everything i ve mentioned, & the overall enjoyability factor, I can only give this movie a score of 5/10
I never drink... wine - Bram Stoker s vampire novel has been remade dozens of times, but perhaps the best adaptation is the classic Bela Lugosi version. Fairly faithful to the novel and dripping with gothic atmosphere, what really makes Dracula stand out is the bone-chillingly charming performance by Lugosi. A solicitor, Renfield (Dwight Frye), is travelling to Count Dracula s castle for a real estate deal, despite the locals freaking out and crossing themselves whenever Dracula s mentioned. He soon finds out why -- the Count (Lugosi) is a vampire, who enslaves a mad Renfield to his will. Soon after, a ship with a dead crew (and Renfield and Dracula in the hold) arrives in England. Soon Dracula has moved into his new home, Carfax Abbey, and is insinuating himself with the Seward family -- and especially with pretty Lucy Westenra, who dies of blood loss and is reborn as a vampire. Only the intervention of the mysterious Dr. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) can stop Dracula s attacks in London. Technically Dracula wasn t the first adaptation of Dracula -- that honor belongs to Nosferatu -- but it was the first to actually tackle the storyline in Stoker s book. And to date, it s perhaps the only to portray everyone s favorite vampire with the necessary atmosphere -- ominous, dignified and creepy. Tod Browning sets it in all the necssary places -- crumbling castles, savage mountainous villages, foggy London streets, and sumptuous Victorian drawing rooms with eerie noises from outside. Granted, a fair amount of stuff is changed -- Jonathan Harker is partially replaced by the mad Renfield -- but none of these really detract from the storyline. And Browning pours the creepiness on thickly, such as Dracula s seduction of young women, which keeps up the whole idea of vampiric sexuality. But Browning also knows how to pour on the subtle horror, without blood or violence -- like any scene with Renfield. The script is just as great as the direction, with some unspeakably good dialogue (For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you re a wise man, Van Helsing), usually from Dracula. But the best scenes and dialogue are made up of highlights from the novel (such as Dracula saying dreamily, Listen to them, the children of the night. What music they make!). But the star of all this is Lugosi himself, one of the two quintessential vampire actors (the other being Christopher Lee). While he doesn t resemble the book s Dracula, his hypnotic stare and charming, intense manner make him an ideal vampire count. And Frye deserves a nod for one of the nastiest, maddest, creepinest performances in cinema history. Sort of a nuttier, bug-eating Gollum (Not when I can get nice fat spiders!). But what does it lack? Well, if you can play American DVDs, then you d be well advised to either get the Dracula Legacy Collection or the 75th anniversary version from the United States, since both of these have the gorgeous Spanish-language edition. This was shot during the hours when the English-speaking Dracula cast were asleep. Same sets, same marks, much the same cinematography, but a bit more fleshed out, and very well acted.The original Dracula is still the best, more than seventy years after it was made. Dripping with Gothic atmosphere and seductive charm, this is a magnificent piece of work.
not the classic it was meant to be. - a rather disappointing and ameteurish adaptation of the novel and stage play, this version of dracula could have been so much more. originally, the film was going to be based only on the novel and with a massive budget as well. however, due to the effect of the great depression, universal studios had to make drastic changes which i don t think were for the better. with the final budget amounting to about $297,000, the film is restricted to being based on the play instead. this causes a few problems, the film sets are restricted and limited, the camerawork is awkward but tod browning s direction is practically non-existent. for the most part, the acting is too theatrical and unbelievable with the exception of two people, bela lugosi and dwight frye. it is they who really give the film its classic status. the debate of who is the definitive dracula on film, will probably remain unresolved. personally, i don t think lugosi is the best although he is good. he does bring an air of creepiness to the character, but is also very slow in moment at times. example: the scene where he enters lucy s bedroom to infect her, he takes so long in getting down to the task in hand that some other vampire would beat him to it in half the time. dwight frye as the crazed but sympathetic renfield remains my favourite performance in the entire film. this was the beginning of frye being typecast as a jittery grosteque for the rest of his career, which is a shame as he had been a tremendous success on the stage. still, his roles in dracula, frankenstein and the bride of frankenstein remain his best but also represent some of the best characters in horror films. i can understand how and why the public and critics praised bela lugosi for his portrayal of dracula, but that just about spelt the end for his career straight away. a flawed minor classic that is sustained by two performances, a well-created atmosphere and a brillaintly filmed sequence at the beginning.