Pssst, want to check out Dracula in our new look?
- 75 min.
- Tod Browning, Karl Freund
- Drama, Fantasy, Horror
- Rating *
- Votes *
- 3.6% (1:28)
Siskoid1931's Dracula with Bela Lugosi is worth seeing because it is iconic. However, it is at times painfully slow and theatrical. The latter is at least understandable given that it is more an adaptation of the stage play than Stoker's original novel, and Lugosi was cast precisely because he was in the stage play. But truth be told, while they do some interesting things with lighting to make his hypnotic tricks come alive, the possessed Renfield and Mina Harker are scarier than he is! But then, isn't that kind of the point? Universal more or less created the civilized, aristocratic, and suave Dracula with this picture, surely more insidious a villain than more monstrous portrayals. If it flags, it's in the middle once we reach London. While Edward Van Sloan is striking as Van Helsing, he's essentially an infodump device, making you realize we're too early for audiences to know all the vampire tropes by heart. 5 years 5 months ago
criscoJovanI will agree I enjoyed Frankenstein far more, but that's comparing apples to oranges. Like many classic - and it is indeed a classic - horror films, the atmosphere is really what makes it.
Also, the scene of Renfield's maniacal laughter below the deck is unforgettably terrific! 10 years 7 months ago
the3rdmanLugosi is a classy Dracula, but I would take Klaus Kinski over him any day--although the nearly half-century gap does render my choice rather unfair to the former. Dwight Frye delivers a pretty good performance as Renfield. Great sets and atmosphere are weakened by some decidedly un-frightening critters--the bats seem particularly innocuous--and unintentionally (I assume) funny performances. Not to nit-pick, but I didn't know that Romania was inhabited by armadillos (although I found a brilliant and hilarious interpretation of that here: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/10/hoisted-from-comments-the-armadillos-of-castle-dracula.html). Kind of fun to watch, but really the whole thing is bloody cheesy by today's standards. It's a bit hard to imagine this scaring anybody, even in 1931. 9 years 6 months ago
FriendsLogin to see which of your friends have seen this movie!
kujojito checked this movie 11 hours 10 minutes ago
wloper checked this movie 1 day 22 hours ago
Silduenha checked this movie 4 days 15 hours ago
In 11 official lists
This movie ranks #16 in Leonard Maltin's 100 Must-See Films of the 20th Century
Leonard Maltin's 100 Mus…16
This movie ranks #46 in TSZDT's The 1,000 Greatest Horror Films
TSZDT's The 1,000 Greate…46
This movie ranks #55 in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die
1001 Movies You Must See…55
This movie ranks #85 in AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills
AFI's 100 Years...100 Th…85
This movie ranks #86 in Roger Ebert's Great Movies
Roger Ebert's Great Movi…86
This movie ranks #97 in David Thomson's Have You Seen?
David Thomson's Have You…97
This movie ranks #234 in The New York Times's Book of Movies
The New York Times's Boo…234
This movie ranks #271 in Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life
Time Out's 1000 Films to…271
This movie ranks #290 in Library of Congress's National Film Registry
Library of Congress's Na…290
This movie ranks #412 in TSPDT's 1,000 Greatest Films: 1001-2000
TSPDT's 1,000 Greatest F…412
This movie ranks #740 in Halliwell's Top 1000: The Ultimate Movie Countdown
Halliwell's Top 1000: Th…740