|Page 14 of 46:||               |
|Index||457 reviews in total|
"Dracula" set an iconic template for the original Universal horrors in the 1930's. Despite its flaws, it is a chilling movie overall. The flaws including slow dialogue and static gave an atmospheric adaptation of the novel that precedented the film industry and created a classic. Regardless of the flaws, the movie had an outstanding set design, iconic visuals, and model works that created the Transylvanian sequences unique. Even if the film had technical limitations, it stands out due to the appearance of Dracula and the ominous atmosphere.
Dracula (1931), directed by Tod Browning was a fun film to watch. Some of the scenes were perfectly shot. In the beginning of the film there is a scene with two women walking in all white against a dark background and they almost look like ghosts. The fog and stark black against some bright white items created the intended spooky ora. Although, I found that at some points the soundtrack played throughout the version I watch was distracting from the actors voices. Also many scenes seemed to drag out. There wasn't much going on at many times and you must just listen to the actors speak in a room. Overall I am glad I watched this film but probably would not recommend this to a friend.
I love the story behind this and Nosferatu was one of my all time favorite classic horror movies. I've seen Dracula live in play to but Bela Lugosi absolutely kills it and owns the role. He has his way with the women and to see him sucking blood from a human for 1931 Im sure that was some what outlandish or controversial. I love the classic mirror scene where it is notices his reflection is not shown, it is a simple way of using the very basic camera angles and techniques to plant this seed in the audience of Dracula being truly the evil vampire he is . Good sense of realism I at times was fixated on the screen and for a moment forgot everything else and just wanted to see what would happen next. Draculas castle to this day is most impressive in this movie and instead of the monster which was Nosferatu you have the charming count ! I dig it
Yes to this movie, Count Dracula and the beginning of Universals entry into the monster movie genre. Well done first and foremost to all involved and a special mention to Bela Lugosi who left his "mark" (pun) in the Dracula world never to be dismissed or surpassed for its time. Vampires are not stupid. The Count here benefits from being alive longer than most men therefore he is experienced about what he does and how to exert his will over others. I suppose it gets easier over time too. He is a focused fellow i.e. making friends and then drinking their blood and he is very good at it. One guy stumbles on him, his world and his weakness and becomes his nemesis. They both acknowledge this and it is game-on. The dead versus the living is played out well here with both having a high confidence level to win. Enjoy the simplicity of this movie and the story of which I highly recommend you read. BTW...the surrounding countryside people-folk are not fooled about what is going on but neither do they have the courage to do anything about it except pray, seek garlic and wolf bane and of course don't go out at night. Good movie to eat a sandwich but watch the drink choice if you get my drift. Stay with clear liquids here.
Dracula is a respectable film for the groundwork it helped lay within the horror genre, but I feel it falls flat when compared to its companion film, Frankenstein (1931). While the acting performance of Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) was phenomenal and iconic, the rest of the acting, pacing, and direction felt sub-par. Though perhaps in part due to constraints of filming this an atmospheric, Gothic set design during this era of filmmaking, at times it felt like the camera placement and focus could've used more variety.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Before Hammer, their was Universal Monsters. 1931 Dracula, is still one
of the best classic horror films today. Bela Lugosi, he was Dracula;
from his accent, to his eyes; these attributes regarded him as being
the best to portray the vampire from Bram Stoker's novel today. Don't
get me wrong, I am a big fan of the Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing
versions of the Dracula Firms. Each actor, has their own style; that
intrigues viewers to this day.
Some people, may say that this version, is not all that good; because it is putting a play into film, but I see the movie; from the eyes of one whom is hopeful to produce or direct film in the near future. The cast, from Renfield to Dracula himself; this was a good choice of talent for the times. Other than Peter Cushing, nobody else to this day but the actor Edward Van Sloan; would come even close to portraying Stokers' visual of who was meant to be Vanhelsing.
1931 Dracula, is the first; and I believe still one of the best. to this day, I cannot recall on a bad Dracula movie; ever to be filmed. Bram Stoker's character, will stand the time of many a passing year, and will continue to entertain us on to new eras of horror film.
Quite nice picture but not the best in terms of amazing sets etc. Quite good sound for the time, interesting score. I liked the original music. The Spanish language version is essentially a totally different movie. I'm reviewing the original version. I thought that it was so cool and amazing to start with but when it left Transylvania I became disinterested.
When you look back at this classic film it may look very goofy to some, and it certainly is. But that doesn't stop the impact that this movie had on me and many others. Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula, he's what I consider to be THE Dracula. While many people have done a good job playing this role I believe that Bela Lugosi had the most influence. Whenever someone does an impression of Dracula it is always the over-the-top Lugosi Transylvania voice which is great. It shows that this great movie has a lasting impact and a great influence on the genre as a whole. Over all this movie is very good, the sets are creepy, the story is memorable, and Bela Lugosi leaves a lasting impression even if he's not that creepy and more goofy.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I was kind of disappointed watching this movie honestly, I picked Dracula because I was interested in what the actual real original movie would be like, since Dracula is such a popular figure even today. I feel like I saw movies from earlier times that had better use of effects, and it couldn't even show Dracula walking through a spider web without cutting the scene. It was kind of hard to follow as well. How come when he bit the first guy he turned into his servant but he had to bite the girl like 5 times in order to turn her? I didn't really understand the purpose of all that. It didn't show any of the bites anyways and wouldn't even show someone screaming. Did he die at the end? I feel like the movie just kind of stopped instead of actually coming to an end.
Dracula was the story to define the portrayal of vampires for decades to come. A menacing, blood-thirsty creature, Count Dracula showed no mercy as he preyed on his victims until the moment of his demise. Bela Lugosi's portrayal of the vampire set the standard for what a true vampire should be, horrifyingly charming, yet as creepy as a creature of the night can possibly get. However, the movie was set at a fairly slow pace, in regards to action and even the Count's movement. His death had been anti-climactic, I had been expecting Count Dracula to put up more of a fight given his trouble of obtaining Mina, as opposed to going to sleep in his coffin allowing for Dr. Seward and Dr. Van Helsing to kill him effortlessly. However, his spooky personality and ruthless demeanor allowed for an entertaining thriller nonetheless. Dracula will continue to define the legacy of vampire movies until the end of time.
|Page 14 of 46:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|