Dracula (1931) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
473 Reviews
Sort by:
I am Dracula....I Bid You Welcome
bsmith55522 May 2004
"Dracula" is a true cinematic classic that still hold up well today more than 70 years after its initial release. Bram Stoker's novel had been filmed before, most notably the 1922 German masterpiece "Nosferatu" with Max Schrenk playing the vampire as a monstrous rat like creature with no redeeming qualities.

Bela Lugosi rose to instant fame with his portrayal of Dracula, a part he had been playing on stage for several years. Lugosi's interpretation is that of a suave and sophisticated nobleman with a hypnotic stare and a cultured Hungarian accent. This made the character more appealing to the ladies while at the same time terrifying to the audience when we see the monster revealed beneath.

The story has the tragic Renfield (Dwight Frye) arriving in Transylvania to complete a transaction with the Count which will allow him to lease a English castle. Before they leave for England by ship, Dracula turns Renfield into a quasi-vampire who obeys his master's every command. Upon arriving in England it is discovered that all of the ship's crew have been murdered and only a raving lunatic of a Renfield remain alive.

Renfield is committed to a sanitarium run by Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston). Dracula seeks him out and discovers Seward's comely daughter Mina (Helen Chandler) and her friend Lucy. Dracula quickly "kills" Lucy and sets his sights upon Mina whose fiance Jonathon Harker (David Manners) is baffled by her sudden change in health and personality. Seward consults with a colleague Dr. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) who quickly identifies the source of the problem as a vampire. They soon expose Dracula for what he is and......

The atmospheric sets of this movie set the tone for the story. Dracula's castle is dark, damp and web filled and his cellar is positively scary. So too is his English manor with the classic winding stair case leading to the cellar. The opening theme I found to be equally foreboding and frightening. I wonder how many of those early film goers realized that it was adapted from the classic ballet "Swan Lake".

Bela Lugosi should have become a major star after this film, but did not. His first mistake was the turning down the role of the monster in "Frankenstein" (1931). He did enjoy moderate success in the first half of the 30s playing various mad scientists and criminal masterminds. But he also accepted roles in several "poverty row" quickies which did little to advance his career. He had a brief return to glory in 1939 when he played "Ygor" in "The Son of Frankenstein" and again in 1948 again as Dracula in "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein". With his well documented personal demons, Lugosi wound up his career in cheap "B' movies ultimately becoming the "star" in some of Ed Wood's "classics". Oddly enough, though he was forever identified with the Dracula character, he only played him on screen twice, in 1931 and 1948 as noted. He did play "Dracula like" characters in MGM's "Mark of the Vampire" (1935) and in Columbia's "Return of the Vampire" (1943).

Dwight Frye almost steals "Dracula" from Lugosi with his portrayal of Renfield. He takes him from a young ambitious businessman to a half crazed lunatic and back again. After this and his role of Fritz the hunchback in "Frankenstein", this great character actor never again achieved such heights. A real tragedy. Oddly enough, Stoker's book portrays Renfield as a minor character and it is Jonathon Harker who makes the unfortunate trip to Transylvania.

Also filmed in a Spanish language version.
86 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The definitive Dracula
tomgillespie200230 April 2011
One of the most iconic and popular characters in film history, Dracula has taken many forms, in many genres, and performed to various quality. Although not the first film to feature the character of Count Dracula (a couple of lost silent films and F.W. Murnau's unauthorised version Nosferatu came before), Bela Lugosi's portrayal of the menacing and seductive Count is commonly seen as the definitive.

The story is known to most – solicitor Renfield (Dwight Frye) arrives at Count Dracula castle at night, despite prior warnings by the nearby locals. He is greeted by Dracula, who, unknown to Renfield, is a vampire. Upon arrival, he pricks his finger, causing it to bleed which visibly excites Dracula until he spies the crucifix hanging around Renfield's neck. Renfield is drugged by Dracula and the two travel to London the next day by boat. When the ship arrives, only Renfield remains on the boat, now seemingly a lunatic and a slave to the Count. He is hospitalised while Dracula becomes entranced by a woman named Mina (Helen Chandler), who is engaged to John Harker (David Manners). As circumstances grow stranger, Professor Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) becomes convinced that the Count is indeed a vampire, and that he must be destroyed.

The film would be the beginning of a long run of successful horror movies made by Universal, which would be hits critically and commercially, and many are nowadays considered classics of the genre. Although falling short of the outright perfection of James Whale's Frankenstein (also 1931) and its sequel Bride Of Frankenstein (1935), Dracula still proves a great adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. Lugosi's performance is the definitive Dracula, his minimal movements and slow, pronounced dialogue, spoken with his Hungarian accent proves an unnerving Count. I'm not forgetting Max Schrek's Nosferatu, while amazing for its sheer dedication, it was hardly the Dracula of the book.

Director Tod Browning, who up to the point of making Dracula had made over 50 feature films, controls the film superbly, and opts for slow, menacing darkness rather than loud jump scenes and special effects. It builds up the mood gradually, and with Lugosi's fantastic central performance, makes for an atmospheric experience. It's a pity that Browning would almost end his career the next year with the commercially disastrous Freaks, which I consider a true great of the horror genre.

It's just a shame that the film's final scene is rather soft and anti- climatic, jarring with the brilliance that came before. However, it remains an excellent film overall, and the film that would spawn many memorable films for Universal studious.

16 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
How can it not be a classic?
meyers48017 March 2003
This is the movie that set the horror genre into action. Sure there may be a few campy scenes that look like they might be out of some high school play production (the rubber bats and armadillos in Dracula's castle come to mind), but there is an unmistakable suspense and eerieness about the film. If you are lucky enough to find the DVD reissue from 1999, you have three great versions: the original 1931 version with basically no background music, the 1999 rescoring of the movie by composer Philip Glass, and the extremely interesting Spanish version, made at the same time as the original (with totally different actors). If you have this DVD, watch the movie twice: once with no soundtrack and once with the Glass rescoring.... totally different movie. Glass' score is great, but it doesn't really help the movie at all (it actually hurts it in many cases). But the utter silence in Browning's original just makes my skin crawl! The acting is actually quite great (Lugosi is, of course, phenomenal as is Dwight Frye as Renfield). The fear, the suspense, and, believe it or not, the sexuality, combines for a great movie that was an unbelievable success in its first release ($700,000 in it first US release, $1.2 million worldwide). Not bad for a movie made 72 years ago!
63 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lugosi's Triumph
Arriflex123 July 2004
Tod Browning's film of the Stoker novel didn't so much eclipse Murnau's NOSFERATU (1922) as shove it into antiquity. One big reason was the technological advancement of sound. Roughly three years old by 1930, the public embraced the talking picture wholeheartedly over silents.

The other big reason for Dracula's success was that the star of the stage play had been cast as the star of the film. And movie history was made. Bela Lugosi's Count Dracula is now a eighty-one year old icon, outlasting all other interpretations before or since. The twist is that this Dracula looks nothing like Stoker's creation (read the book). Lugosi, either through his work with the playwrights or later at Universal with Browning, devised the most insidious form the character would ever take- a handsome, courtly, well-groomed, civilized aristocrat, so gracious and attractive that he projected an aura of well-being over the viewer. This was worlds away from the Murnau/Max Schreck approach of head-on abomination in NOSFERATU.

Sensibly, no one in their right mind would stay within viewing distance of Schreck (or Kinski in NOSFERATU, THE VAMPYRE and Dafoe in SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE) after the first glimpse. But Lugosi's Count would have you chatting and drinking wine- until he began to drink of you. That cape and those evening clothes are the perfect deception. Browning's Dracula is sometimes stagy and tentative in its continuity (it feels at times that the director was unsure where to go next in the progression of scenes). But Karl Freund's photography summons up a persistent mood of heavy gloom and enveloping dread.

Two other assets in the film are Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield. Van Sloan was Universal's resident Learned Man, appearing as an Egyptologist in THE MUMMY (1933), and perhaps most famously as Dr. Waldman in FRANKENSTEIN (1931). A career-long character actor, Dwight Frye was an eccentric talent who appears to have worked exclusively at Universal. He had his best role as Renfield, producing a still blood-curdling, sneering laugh that seemed to come from the depths of a hellish insanity. If you haven't seen this Dracula please do so. The Count awaits.
39 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
For my money,the scariest movie ever.
SmileysWorld31 October 2001
I suppose we all have differing opinions on what is scary and what isn't.For my money though,this film tops my list.I have seen many a horror film,but few have made me shiver as this one did.The creepy silence virtually throughout the movie,coupled with Bela Lugosi's intimidating presence and Dwight Frye's chilling performance as Renfield(remember the eyes and the laughter?)give me chill bumps on top of chill bumps just thinking about it.Yes,the movie has flaws, but they are few and far between.Hey,it was 1931 after all,and movie making was still in it's infancy.I have seen the various opinions on this film,good and bad,and while it may not top a lot of people's list when it comes to scariest movie ever,it sure tops mine.Bone chilling!
57 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bela Lugosi in the role he was born to play!
ACitizenCalledKane4 January 2005
While Tod Browning's Dracula is not the definitive take on the most famous vampire of all time, it is possibly the most memorable one. This is not due to Browning's technical achievements or directorial wizardry, by ANY means. It is due to Bela Lugosi's career-defining portrayal of the title character. Born in what is now Lugoj, Romania, Lugosi brings to the part the flavor of his homeland, making him more believable as Dracula. This other-worldly aesthetic helped to make his performance what many consider the ultimate incarnation of Stoker's Dracula. Having played the Count in Hamilton Deane's Broadway version of Dracula, which started in 1927, Bela Lugosi was more than prepared for the role when it was time to commit it to film. Still struggling with the English language, however, he had to learn his lines phonetically. European accent in tact, he was able to deliver such memorable lines as, "I bid you welcome," "Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make," and, of course, "I am Dracula." His performance alone is reason enough to watch this monster movie classic. If only the rest of the film was as spectacular as Lugosi. Dwight Frye's Renfield, while perhaps a little too over-the-top, is still another highlight to the film, and even Edward Van Sloan's Van Helsing is enough to challenge the might of Count Dracula. The rest of the film is rather flat to me. Now, I know it was made in 1931, and that, at the time, it horrified audiences, but I still stand by my opinion that the overall movie pales in comparison to Bela Lugosi's performance. Everyone else just seemed to be going through the motions, and it seems especially evident while Helen Chandler and David Manners are on screen. They just aren't convincing. I'm not saying that their performances ruin the film. It is still a classic, and certainly worth a viewing, but if you are in the mood for a vampire movie that is worthy of Bram Stoker's name, look no further than F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu. It is much more convincing and even scarier than Tod Browning's Dracula, despite being nine years older and silent. All in all, though, one cannot overlook the stellar performance of Bela Lugosi in the role he was born to play!
40 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bela is king! Great Universal classic!
Kristine10 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Thinking back to 1931, it's hard to imagine what going to the movie theater was like for people. It was something new and exciting; instead of having 6 movies open in one weekend, they were lucky if 6 movies opened in one month. Horror movies were nothing new in 1931, but one's with sound were and Universal Studios cranked out hit after hit after hit, one of the first being was Dracula. Not too many people realize that these films created exactly what we think of the typecast today with the most popular monsters. Dracula, if you've read the book, is nothing like what Bela created: the cape, the accent, the charm, the presence, the looks, etc. This was the first time we ever had a romantic Dracula, the silent film released before called Nosferatu was a monster, Bela created a Dracula that could charm you one second and the next he's draining the life out of you. Dracula is one of the most memorable movies of all time and it's not hard to see why when you watch it.

Renfield, a British solicitor, travels to the Carpathian Mountains. He enters a castle welcomed by charming but odd nobleman Count Dracula, who unbeknownst to Renfield, is a vampire. They discuss Dracula's intention to lease Carfax Abbey in London, where he intends to travel the next day. Dracula's three wives suddenly appear and start to move toward Renfield to attack him, but Dracula waves them away, and he attacks Renfield himself. Aboard the Vesta, bound for England, Renfield has now become a raving lunatic slave to Dracula, who is hidden in a coffin and gets out for feeding on the ship's crew. Some nights later at a London theater, Dracula meets Dr. Seward, who introduces his daughter Mina, her fiancé John Harker, and the family friend Lucy Weston. Lucy is fascinated by Count Dracula, and that night, after Lucy has a talk with Mina and falls asleep in bed, Dracula enters her room as a bat and feasts on her blood. She dies in an autopsy theater the next day after a string of transfusions, and two tiny marks on her throat are discovered. Later on Mina has the same bite marks and now the men call on Professor Van Helsing to take on Dracula and save Mina before she meets the same fate as Lucy.

Despite the fact that it might not be as terrifying as it was back in the day, you have to consider that this movie made people faint in the theater and gave them nightmares for years to come. The film does have flaws, Lucy dies and that's it, she never comes back which was interesting that Mina was becoming a vampire when bitten, but Lucy doesn't. However, the atmosphere of the film still holds up incredibly well, Dracula's castle has the perfect shadows and isolation that could send shivers down anyone's spine. Makes you wonder how the heck Renfield could stay in that place? I would've camped outside, especially when Dracula comes down and says in that creepy voice "I bid you welcome"; would you trust someone like that while looking at your neck like it was a Thanksgiving turkey leg? Bela gave a terrific performance that will be remembered for all time. But also much credit to Dwight Frye who plays Renfield and still has one of the most horrific images of all time when they open the door on the ship to see him laughing manically with his eyes wide open. Not to mention his scene with the maid where he's laughing at her, she faints and he crawls towards her. You know what? I lied; this is still a scary movie and I will continue to watch it every Halloween. Bela is king and made Dracula one of the most terrifying monsters in movie history.

51 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A horror classic that still thrills and enchants! The most important and influential vampire movie ever made.
Infofreak12 April 2003
It's almost impossible not to love 'Dracula', a horror milestone that is the most important and influential vampire movie ever made. Bela Lugosi became a cinematic legend after this movie, and his portrayal of Dracula basically invented the modern vampire as we know it. Murnau's silent classic 'Nosferatu' was an obvious influence on Todd Browning, but while Browning was no James Whale (the innovative British director who made 'Frankenstein' for Universal a few months after this) he added a lot of his own style and ideas to the project, and Counts Orloff and Dracula are completely different kinds of creatures. Lugosi made his Count sophisticated, attractive and sexy, and this is what made this movie such a sensation at the time, and what helps make it still a wonderful viewing experience. Lugosi's performance is one of the greatest in horror history. Some of the other actors in the cast are a bit shaky but Edward Van Sloan as Van Hesling is excellent and Dwight Frye's Renfield (a different character from the book) is also memorable. Both actors would reappear in 'Frankenstein'. 'Dracula' is an important landmark horror movie, but even better, is still a fantastic viewing experience seventy years later. Don't just watch it because it's a classic, watch it because it's wonderful entertainment!
45 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Still the champ
hausrathman11 March 2004
Bela Lugosi forever captures the role of a certain undead Transylvanian count who takes a trip to London in the first legitimate version of the classic Bram Stoker novel. Despite many attempts by many talented film makers, I believe this version, directed by Tod Browning, remains the definitive take on the often-filmed novel. But why? Is it simply nostalgia? Granted, I do fondly remember staying up late as a child watching this film on Ghost Host theater and finding myself suitably frightened. However, if I were the same age today, would I find the film as effective? Would a steady diet of more modern and explicit horror films made me too jaded to enjoy the more subtle charms of this film? I hope not, but I could see how it might. The film is slow, and its slowness is further emphasized by the absence of an under score. It is stagey - being as it was more influenced by the stage play than the novel itself. Also, the story plays itself out too quickly. Van Helsing manages to figure everything out and dispatch the count in about two seconds. There simply isn't much suspense - and even less gore or violence. Yet it remains the champ. Why? The main reason is Lugosi himself. He gives the performance of a lifetime. He truly inhabits the role and is genuinely creepy. The rest of the cast, particularly Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield, support him admirably. However, when I watch the old Universal horror films nowadays, I find myself really enjoying the atmospheric sets and lighting. Yes, there is still much to love about Dracula today. (As long as you avoid the optional Philip Glass score on the DVD!)
36 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
TheLittleSongbird29 May 2011
Dracula(1931) mayn't be the definitive version of the brilliant Bram Stoker novel, but it is still a classic. My only complaints are the abrupt ending and David Manners as John, he tries his best but sometimes his line delivery is awkward and some of his lines are stilted.

I did also think that to a lesser extent the first half is better than the second. The opening scene is absolutely brilliant, but while there are still some compelling and well-done scenes the second half is rather talky. That said, there is a lot I loved about Dracula. The costumes, sets, photography and lighting are suitably atmospheric and grandiose, the story is still the timeless story even with the many changes I love and the screenplay apart from the odd stilted line from John is very good.

I saw Dracula in two versions, one without background music which added to the genuine atmosphere, and one with a suitably hypnotic and haunting score from minimalist composer Phillip Glass. While I loved Glass' score, I do prefer slightly the one without the scoring, the silence further added to the atmosphere I feel. The whole film is beautifully directed too, and while the film is very short at about an hour and a quarter the pace is just right.

The acting is very good, perhaps theatrical in a way but I think it worked. Bela Lugosi has such a magnetic presence in the title role, Edward Van Sloan is perfect as Van Helsing but in a sinister and funny performance Dwight Frye steals the film.

In conclusion, excellent film and a classic. 9/10 Bethany Cox
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lugosi...a chiller
k-deeb5 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Bela Lugosi couldn't have played it any better in Dracula. Simply said, scenes where we find ourselves looking into his eyes, we find ourselves fearfully looking into the eyes of death. Bela Lugosi also imposes a strong presence over his characters which I think is important to his image in Dracula. He is much taller than the other actors, which makes him look more powerful and makes his present felt. He is wonderfully scary. While it is obvious that it was made in 1931 during some scenes, it still strikes fear in the audience.

The Mise-en-scene is incredible in this movie, particularly in the opening scene when the carriage comes speeding up the hill and quickly drops the man off to Dracula. There is a thick fog and darkness, Dracula wearing a black outfit covering everything, and cliffs in the background. Dracula's castle is also an excellent example of mise-en-scene with the darkness, high cathedral ceilings, spiderwebs everywhere, bats swooping about, and wolves howling in the background.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Flawed Masterpiece
Shield-314 September 2001
The 1931 `Dracula' casts an imposing shadow over the horror genre. It is, after all, the movie that launched the classic Universal horror cycle of the 1930s and 1940s. It is also a tremendous influence on the look and atmosphere of horror movies in general (and vampire movies in particular). It gave Dracula a look and a voice, and created a legend.

Okay, so we know it was influential. But how does it work as a movie? Well… the first time I watched it, I was underwhelmed. The pace is slow. While Bela Lugosi's Dracula is menacing, the rest of the cast is colorless to the point of transparency. There are some good gliding camera shots here and there (thank you, Karl Freund!), but the majority of the film is locked into stationary medium and long shots. The film is tightly bound to its theatrical origins – director Browning has his characters look at things out of frame and describe them rather than just showing us, which would be much more effective.

Fortunately, `Dracula' improves with repeated viewings. The glacial pace and lack of sound in many places gives the movie a nightmarish sense of menace. In fact, `Dracula' is somewhere between a nightmare and a piece of classical music – everything proceeds at its own pace, gliding through the motions, gradually building suspense and momentum until the piece reaches climax. The end result is a flawed but haunting, hypnotic masterpiece, and one of the greatest vampire films ever made.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ironic History
DKosty12313 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
It is interesting that when Universal went to make this one, they did not get much of what they wanted to do yet came out with a very good film. Universal wanted a big budget film, but because of the depression, this one was made on the cheap. The studio head wanted Lon Chaney Sr for the title role. He was not available and almost by accident they found Bela Legosi.

Todd Browning did a great job directing the first horror film. Todd could not have liked the fact that at night, the crew shooting the Spanish Version would look at Brownings daily shot and then re-shoot improved versions of their own with their cast.

Still, the Spanish version did not have Bela. The rest of the cast around him played the roles real well. The real irony here is that Bela would only do the role one more time, making fun of himself in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein. Legosi is one of the few actors who has the best dramatic performance and the best comedy performance on film for the same role.

This original holds up well, including the creepy arrival of the ship of corpses in England. The estate rented by Dracula in England is now actually the same name as a famous web site. Another accident related to this film. Sometimes fate creates a work of art where none is expected. Dracula is one of those, copied a lot but none as good as the original.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Classic Movie from Universal Studios
Claudio Carvalho16 February 2005
The real estate agent Renfield (Dwight Frye) travels to Transilvania for a business meeting with Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), who is interested in Carfax Abbey in London. Renfield is converted in a servant of Dracula and prepares his master's ship travel to his new a property. While navigating, Dracula sucks the blood and kills all the crew of the vessel. Once in London, Dracula sucks the blood of Lucy Weston (Frances Dade) and she becomes an undead. He feels also a kind of passion for Mina Seward (Helen Chandler), the daughter of Dr. Jack Seward (Herbert Bunston) and fiancé of Jonathan Harker (David Manners). Dracula sucks her blood, Mina has a weird behavior and health problem, and Dr. Seward calls a specialist, Prof. Abraham Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), to diagnose the mysterious problem with Mina. Although being a scientist, Van Helsing believes in the supernatural, and tries to save Mina from turning into a vampire.

"Dracula" is a spectacular well-known classic vampire story, with a magnificent transposition of the Bram Stoker's novel to the cinema. Although being a 1931 black and white movie, the photography and the camera work are excellent. There are at least two magnificent scenes: the long traveling of the camera in the sanatorium, from the yard to Remfield's room and the long stairway in the end of the movie to Dracula's tomb. The performances are quite theatrical, as usual in that period, and the film does not show any explicit violent scene. I dare to say that probably it is Bela Lugosi's best performance. "Universal Studios" released in Brazil a wonderful box, with the shape of a coffin, called "Classic Monster Collection" with eight classic horror movies on DVD. Maybe "Dracula" is my favorite one. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Drácula"

Note: On 23 November 2013, I saw the Spanish Version of this movie.
32 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
These images are the base upon which all horror films are built
Bonehead-XL23 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I've probably written about these films more then any other yet I notice something new every time I watch. This time, I realized "Dracula" is set in the modern day. During the flower girl scene, you hear a car horn and see modern street lamps. Another question I ask for the first time: Why did Dracula disguise himself as the carriage driver? Why hide his face? Despite this question, it is one of the most atmospheric scenes in a film built primarily on atmosphere.

Modern critiques tend to say Lugosi is the sole graceful factor in a stagy film. True but don't undersell. Karl Freund's camera is not stationary. A pan around Renfield's shoulder, a slow move up steps, a panorama of Seward's sanatorium. Renfield leering from the ship or the shadow of the captain lashed to the wheel are just two chilling scenes. The use of shadows is toned down from Universal's silents and it's generally agreed that Freund's artistry was held back by Todd Browning. Wither Browning had trouble adapting to sound or was still grieving for Lon Chaney (and the version of "Dracula" they had planned on making) is debated.

Either way, you can't deny the power of these images. The early shots of Dracula's castle, the brides awaking in the catacombs, the illogical armadillos, beetles in tiny coffins, Lugosi's glaring eyes. These images are the base upon which all American horror films are built. They still send chills up a viewer's spine seventy years later. The set design is incredible, particularly the dusty staircase of Castle Dracula or the ruins of Carfax Abbey. Supporting the sets are fantastic glass painted backgrounds.

I won't waste words on why Lugosi is the iconic Dracula. He exudes an authority over everyone simply with his body language. Shots of him doing nothing but standing in shadow-swept doorways manage to be creepy.

Given Dracula's sway over the opposite sex, it's easy to understand while the vampire is a fantasized character for men. But why is the vampire a sex symbol for women? The film is split on the issue. The scene of Dracula cornering the flower girl brings to mind nothing but sexual assault. I believe Dracula leaning over the sleeping bodies of his prey aren't meant to be provocative but rather to invoke classical nightmare imagery. We are all vulnerable when we sleep and many horror films prey on that innate vulnerably. (Yep, I just traced a line from Dracula to Freddy.) Dracula is feared by his female victims, yet still oddly attractive. Lucy doesn't seem totally asleep when Dracula comes for her. A later scene, where Mina walks into the count's arms, his cape wrapped around her, blending in with the shadows, is undoubtedly romantic. The vampire is a man with complete control over his females, psychic and sexual. Why women would desire such a mate is a topic unsuited for this blog. The seductive female vampire is a horror concept not yet solidified. Mina, once turned, seems less like a willing seductress and more like a drug addict, uncontrollably forced to attack her beloved husband.

The movie is flawed, no doubt. Who the heck is the main character? The count is unknowable. Harker or Seward don't do anything besides wring their hands. Van Helsing comes in too late, Lucy exits too early, while Mina is a damsel in distress. Nope, it's gotta' be Renfield. We follow him from the beginning and he features in most of the scenes. A book must exists that explores his character more. There's a lot of untapped potential there. Dwight Fry had enough range to play a straight-laced businessman perfectly, even if his unhinged insanity is what we remember. When his spider is thrown away, you almost feel for the guy. His monologue about Dracula presenting him with a feast of rats is great and I wonder why no other adaptation has gone into more detail about that. Why does Dracula even keep the guy around? He doesn't serve him much and is even responsible for revealing the count's hiding place.

The pacing drags in the latter half, as the staged qualities take over. There's a number of narrative question marks. Lucy's story arc is oddly abbreviated. We hear about her escapades as the Woman in White but Van Helsing disposes of her off-screen. Why does Dracula have Mina just hanging around the abbey at the very end? What purpose did that serve? Renfield preys on the unconscious maid in one scene but we never find out why. The guy sure gets out of his cell easy. Dr. Seward should probably hire a new staff. Dracula's final confrontation with Van Helsing is anticlimactic. Even the weaker second half of the film has its moments, such as Dracula making eye-contact with Mina's maid or smashing the mirror out of Van Helsing's hand.

I'm not begrudgingly calling it a great movie. It remains the best adaptation of Stoker's novel in many ways and is the most important of the Universal Monster cycle in countless ways.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
firstchance5 October 2011
I found Dracula to be an interesting movie. The camera really pans out on some scenes, like in the sanitarium and the staircase at Dracula's estate. I found the movie to movie a little too slow for my liking. It seemed to lull in some parts and I found myself getting a little bored. The actors were every dramatic which played out nicely and gave more life to the scene. I enjoyed Renfield because he was so insane and his laugh was creepy. I laughed at the part between the male nurse and Renfield when the spider is taken away from him. I didn't quiet understand the beginning with the three girls… they did not seem to really add anything to the film. I think Dracula is a classic that has been redone many times. I would say this version was not my favorite, but I still enjoyed watching it.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A most palatable film!
Tom May15 May 2001
Yes, after the "first two reels", this film is less effectively baroque, but it's still heartily enjoyable stuff, even if the finale is poorly handled. Bela Lugosi's performance as the good Count is so wonderfully definitive that it seems remarkable how many other actors have subsequently donned the cape. I've not seen any of the other versions, but I suspect few could match Lugosi's hypnotic display of acting. From the wonderfully eerie, sublimely photographed Transylvania scenes to the scenes in a London theatre, Lugosi is spellbinding. While he dominates the film, others make their mark. Helen Chandler is quite good as the unfortunate Mina Seward, Dwight Frye is wonderfully mad as Renfield and Edward Van Sloan is towering as Van Helsing. Certainly, there is a contrast in tone between the two parts of the film; the first nightmarish, eerie, mesmerising and very cinematic, the second more akin to a stage play, and rather more melodramatic, but it does come together in my view, as a most effective, likeable whole. It is all immensely helped by a quite wonderfully Philip Glass score, that perfectly complements and embellishes the images. In many ways it is typical Glass, and that is no bad thing, but the atmosphere the Kronos Quartet create is just right. Rating:- ****/*****.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The king of all vampires, and the beginning of modern horror.
elwood-x22 October 2013
What can be said about a movie that has had such a profound impact on both film and pop culture? After years of living in a decrepit castle with his vampire "brides", the notorious Count Dracula begins to mysteriously buy property in London with the help of a real estate agent named Harker. However, we soon learn that there is a sinister reason behind the Count's move, as he begins his reign of terror once he arrives in the City.

Bela Lugosi created a character that would become the standard for all vampires. Sophisticated, charming but downright horrifying, Lugosi' Dracula still holds up as one of the most magnificent horror villains. Other stand out characters include Dwight Frye's disturbing portrayal of Harker, and Edward Van Sloan's Dr. Van Helsing.

Eight decades after it first terrorized audiences, Dracula the film was falling apart. Decreased picture quality, and a significant hissing sound severely hurt the quality of one of the greatest films in the horror genre. But over the past 15 years, two great things have happened. The first, which is a bit controversial with film purists, was the inclusion of a new film score performed by renowned composer Philip Glass. I have to say, the score was much needed to help bring the film to modern times. The sophisticated, but eerie, score really adds depth to the scenes and is a profound upgrade for the quality of the film overall.

Finally, in 2012, Universal did a full scale restoration of the film (along with the other Universal monster movies) for its release on blu ray. All I can say is WOW. The picture is nearly crisp, with a more balanced picture and virtually no scratches. Furthermore, that horrible hissing noise that plagued the film is significantly reduced, and for the first time in eighty years, the sounds and dialogue are as clear as the day the film was released. These restoration processes have dramatically inflated the quality and relevance of the film, helping to cement it as one of the most significant pieces to come out of the golden age of cinema.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I Hope You Have Fangs For Great Movies!
Burningcrown11 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Horror movies have always been a staple to human entertainment ever since the 1930's. I think we should examine one of the movies that started in all: Dracula.

This movie has many things to it thank make it scare people in general. The movie is almost very dark and the lighting is grim, giving the atmosphere a strong form of fear in the scene, especially the first encounter with Count Dracula himself. Another thing that gives this movie that scary detail is his (Dracula's) personality, such as showing interest in the blood that pours from Renfield's finger during their chat, which makes it evidence that he is dangerous.

All in all, this movie scared even myself and I encourage everyone else to watch and be amazed.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A wonderful horror film
Larry Funk21 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Dracula is an absolutely wonderful horror film that does a great job of unnerving the viewer. Dracula acts in a strange enough manner around others to let most people find him odd, and even after the viewer learns that he is a vampire and he has killed several people, his behavior around other people continues to kind of weird the viewer out. One of the only complaints I would have about this movie was that I thought one of the shots was overused. A close up of Dracula's face with the only light being shone on his eyes. While this does a great job of unnerving the viewer, it is used many different times throughout the film, and it does begin to lose it's luster after a while. That aside, however, I really enjoyed watching this movie.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
timelessly odd
HelloTexas1112 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Watching the 1931 version of 'Dracula' now is like watching a silent movie with occasional bits of dialogue. It is creaky, like nearly all early sound movies, and there's not even a music score (one was added nearly 70 years later.) People move slowly, there are long gaps between lines which seem unnatural. At times, the entire movie seems to be playing in slow-motion. It's hard to imagine a teenager of today sitting still long enough to watch it, much less enjoy it. But to a film buff, there is still much to enjoy and the main thing this 'Dracula' has going for it is its own peculiar, unique sense of weirdness. Bela Lugosi's vampire seems to affect the other characters without ever biting their necks. They move about as if in a daze and speak in a halting, confused manner... including Edward Van Sloane's Professor Van Helsing, who's supposed to know what's going on. Perhaps stranger than Lugosi is Dwight Frye as Renfield, with his lunatic laughter (if one could call it that). Renfield pops up in scene after scene, even after he's supposedly locked away in his room at the sanitarium. The sets are every bit as odd. The lower chambers of Dracula's castle and later Carfax Abbey are as barren as the surface of a dead planet, just dirt and pillars and a few coffins. They truly look like places no human should go, places only for rats and wolves and bats. It's hard to believe Bela Lugosi was already 49 years old when he made 'Dracula.' He looks much younger. And though he doesn't have a great deal of dialogue, his most famous lines are all here. "I never drink... wine." "The children of the night... what music they make!" "Now that you have learned what you have learned." Harder still to believe that Universal only had him play Dracula once more, 17 years later, in 'Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein.' As stagy and slow-moving as it is, 'Dracula' earns its reputation as an original with its many indelible images and sparse, stark dialogue. It truly is one of a small group of films that everyone should see at least once.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If You Haven't Seen This, You Haven't Seen Dracula
sddavis6326 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This movie might as well be called "Bela Lugosi." Count Dracula was the part of a lifetime for Lugosi – one that both made him a star and destroyed his acting career. He ended up being helplessly and hopelessly typecast as a result of the absolutely brilliant performance he offered as the vampire count. The voice, the eyes, the presence – all Lugosi, all Dracula. From 1931 on, whenever anyone sees or hears Bela Lugosi (no matter what part he's playing) they see or hear Dracula, and – even now, over 75 years later – when someone does an imitation of Dracula, it's done in Lugosi's Hungarian accent. The typecasting is a shame, really – because Lugosi was a superb actor. I've seen him in several films and even in the later work of his career, when many of the movies he was in were less than stellar, Lugosi – when given a meaty enough role as opposed to a cameo – could make even a weak movie worth watching. And it basically all started with Dracula.

The movie itself has some problems – foremost among them, because of the importance they play in the story – are the bat appearances. Bats don't fly like that, and they certainly can't hover! The ending struck me as rather abrupt, and I found myself thinking that there should have been more, and throughout the movie there are still examples of the transition in acting style required by the transition to "talkies" – especially what I consider to be deliberate over-acting, necessary in silent movies but sometimes distracting in "talkies." Having said that, Lugosi even pulls that off well. His overly dramatic turning away from the wolfbane or cross and cowering behind his cape is in fact overly dramatic, and yet – it's also Dracula. That's just what Dracula does when confronted by wolfbane or a cross, because it's how Lugosi played the part, and coming from Lugosi it seems perfectly natural.

The movie isn't especially frightening or suspenseful. Even for someone who had never seen it in 1931, real suspense is lacking. We find out very quickly that Count Dracula is a vampire – just a few minutes in Lugosi pops out of a coffin. The sets are very good though – creating a sense of mystery and fear, even if there's nothing overly frightening about this. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the story, though, the movie is made by the performances – Lugosi's obviously, but also Dwight Frye as his hapless victim Renfield, who becomes enamoured of eating flies and spiders and rats as a result of being turned into Dracula's slave. His performance is actually quite funny, and one thing lacking in the movie is any explanation of what happened to Renfield. After Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) "dispatches" Dracula does Renfield return to normal, as Mina (Helen Chandler) did, or does he spend the rest of his life in an insane asylum? That was a loose end that wasn't tied up.

I've never read Bram Stoker's original novel, so can't comment on how this movie relates to Stoker's work, but I have seen many film versions of Dracula, and this is by far the classic version. Many other actors have played the evil count, but none have pulled it off as perfectly as Bela Lugosi. 8/10.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Iconic at the every least
S.R. Dipaling10 December 2007
While the special effects,editing and sound really FEEL like they're over seventy-five years old,the movie itself still has a good,slow,eerie feel to it. I have yet to read Stoker's novel,but I'm quite familiar with the assortment of characters(the Count,VAn Helsing,Mina,JOhn/JOnathan HArker,Renfield,Lucy,Dr.Seward,the sanitarium staff,etc.) Probably more shocking when it was originally released(one story tells of a fainting at a screening of the film),director Tod Browning's movie would be considered quaint by most standards,it still holds up in imagery and in character,with Bela Lugosi able to inject plenty into mere glances and steadily,deliberate movement. The tale of the charismatic,mysterious nobleman from Transylvania who crashes ashore off a shipwrecked cargo vessel onto England,moving into an abandoned estate in sub-urban London's Carfax Abbey feels as common and comfortable as an old slipper. The acting isn't all that exceptional,save Lugosi,Dwight Frye(as the doomed,bug-eating lackey Renfield,whose back-story seems somewhat different than I recall from other versions of the story)and perhaps Edward Van Sloan(As the fiercely incorruptible Van Helsing),but that doesn't hinder this film's message or its mood. It works on a very basic premise,that being that this Dracula sort is one effective and lethal operator.

I think that one who appreciates film legend and lore needs to take a look at this offering,for the sights and sounds are as true and necessary to the progression of film horror and melodrama as any from the "Golden age of film".
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stilted, Stagey, and yet still Superb.....
BaronBl00d15 February 1999
"I bid you welcome," "I never drink wine," "Children of the night...what music they make," and of course "I am Dracula" are memorable lines that resonate throughout horror films, literature, art, etc... throughout the 20th century because of a landmark film made in 1931 starring Bela Lugosi and directed by Tom Browning. This film was the birth of the horror film as we know it. Its importance can not be underestimated. Dracula is a wonderful film for so many reasons, but first let's look at its many faults.

The film is by today standards very antiquated. It has almost no soundtrack, stage acting for the most part, limited special effects, and a slow pacing. It has long parts of little action and lots of chat. It shows little while leaving much to one's imagination(a plus for those like myself that are good at envisioning what is not shown). With all this not going for it, why is Dracula such a classic? Why is it considered to be such a great film and a great horror film?

The answer is that even with all these flaws (and bear in mind some of these flaws are not flaws for all) the film offers a rich story in an eerie, atmospheric way. Bela Lugosi was Dracula. He was the model for oh so many vampires to come. His gesturing, his deliberation in speech, his facial movements all created a vampire never to be forgotten. Despite Lugosi, however, is the real genius of the film....Tod Browning. Browning created a movie and a setting hitherto imagined and conjured on a screen. Browning was the man behind the camera that created the cob-webbed stairs of the Dracula castle and the squalid emptiness of the crypt. He created the ghoulish female vampires thirsting for blood. Dracula is not just a film to see, it is film history and should be viewed with that in mind and not put under a microscope of today's languishing tastes.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make!"
DarthVoorhees22 September 2011
"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make!" so said Bela Lugosi in what was to be the role that cemented him as a pop culture icon of American film. To see director Todd Browning's original 1931 adaptation of Dracula is to see the American horror film at its finest. Dracula is the vampire formula at its purest before it could be diluted by the telling and the retelling. Dracula is a surreal experience as Browning takes us with him on a journey into our fear of death, but also our fear of the filthiness of sex. It is a film that has aged like a good wine which Bela Lugosi's Count Dracula swore to never drink.

If one were to try and dissect Todd Browning's Dracula to find a sole element of success the search would lead us time and time again to Bela Lugosi. Dracula simply is not Dracula without Lugosi's portrayal of the Count. So much credit has to be given to Lugosi and his portrayal of the titular character. It is doubtful this film would have the staying power, or the atmosphere that it has if another actor was portraying Count Dracula. Lugosi's performance and how it succeeds is the marriage of so many factors, but arguably Lugosi's greatest asset to his performance would have to be his rich Hungarian accent. Lugosi surprisingly doesn't get much dialogue in the film as much of the exposition comes from the protagonist Professor Van Helsing played by Edward Van Sloan, and Dracula's slave Renfield played by Dwight Frye. The lines Lugosi does deliver are often extremely concise. It is not the lines themselves, but rather the way Lugosi delivers them that creates this character. How Lugosi delivers the lines offers more insight into this character than any detailed dissection of the character could. Lugosi's lines are read almost phonetically, each word one by one, each little nuance of the language stressed in Lugosi's thick Hungarian dialect. The resulting effect is hypnotic, poetic, frightening, and in many ways very sad. Lugosi's introduction is in my humble opinion one of the strongest scenes in motion picture history almost solely based on the delivery of the line "I am... Dracula". The scene follows Renfield, a solicitor whom Dracula will drive mad, as he ventures through Dracula's dilapidated castle searching for the Count. Dracula appears out of the shadows sucking in whatever air Renfield could muster in these catacombs of death by merely saying "I am…Dracula." Lugosi's delivery is as much a part of the aging castle trapped in time as the cobwebs are. Lugosi was so suave and mysterious as Dracula that the audience became attracted to the vampire.

Dracula is not merely Lugosi's picture though. The film has a strong supporting cast highlighted by actor Edward Van Sloan, and Dwight Frye. One thing that can be said of Dracula's entire cast is that despite the extreme material no one even comes close to going over the top with their role. The amount of sincerity and the absence of any tongue in cheek aspect of performance are to be admired. Sloan and Frye's characters both had the potential to skate towards over the top territory, but both performances are firmly grounded in reality and are very effective in complimenting Lugosi's Dracula.

Dwight Frye is very strong as Renfield. The role is as complex as that of the Count. Renfield is a bipolar madman enslaved to do Dracula's bidding. Frye is asked to exhibit behaviors on all forms of the spectrum. This character and the characterization are unpredictable to the extreme. One constant about Renfield is that he is the predator, and he represents the fear of sexuality within the vampire mythos. Frye's facial expressions are other worldly especially when we see the extent of Renfield's madness. There is a scene where Renfield crawls with vulture eyes towards a housemaid who has fainted by the sight of his very appearance. Frye too is asked to deliver insight into a character despite the fact that the lines don't explicitly offer character exposition or development. Renfield's dialogue mainly consists of nonsensical lunatic ravings. The way Frye delivers the lines and how he builds the intensity is really powerful though. It is these build up of the madness that keeps this character effective.

Technically Dracula isn't all that impressive a picture from a cinematographer's standpoint, but does it really need to be? Browning is very cautious about what he wants to do with his camera. Much of the film is very static and offers little to no movement of the camera. What Browning captures in his shots though are really powerful images. The amount of attention given to the detail of each shot truly is amazing. The fact is there is not one shot of Bela Lugosi blinking in the entire film; that shows an incredible commitment. Browning is more of a still photographer than he is a cinematographer, but the power of the images is unmistakably there. This static dream-like world is perfect for the subject material.It may hurt the pacing a tad, but an argument can be made that the audience are much better able to appreciate Bela Lugosi, and even Dwight Frye's performance due to the way Browning stages his picture. Browning's appreciation for the hypnotic quality of images is one of the strengths of the film, not one of the weaknesses.

Dracula is a masterpiece of film making. The film still offers a hypnotic experience almost 80 years after Bela Lugosi first uttered "I am…Dracula". It is a film that has only gotten better with age. Todd Browning and Bela Lugosi succeeded in creating a surreal picture where vampires do exist.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews