At midnight on Walpurgis Night, an English clerk, Renfield, arrives at Count Dracula's castle in the Carpathian Mountains. After signing papers to take over a ruined abbey near London, ... See full summary »
At midnight on Walpurgis Night, an English clerk, Renfield, arrives at Count Dracula's castle in the Carpathian Mountains. After signing papers to take over a ruined abbey near London, Dracula drives Renfield mad and commands obedience. Renfield escorts the boxed count on a death ship to London. From there, the Count is introduced into the society of his neighbor, Dr. Seward, who runs an asylum. Dracula makes short work of family friend, Lucia Weston, then begins his assault on Eva Seward, the doctor's daughter. A visiting expert in the occult, Van Helsing, recognizes Dracula for who he is, and there begins a battle for Eva's body and soul. Written by
Although this version was shot in Spanish, it became a mixture of dialects since the cast came from Mexico, Spain, Central and South America. See more »
The three brides of Dracula that are seen in the catacombs are not the three that set upon Renfield. The catacombs shot was stock footage from Dracula (1931), and thus the three actresses playing the brides are different. See more »
The next morning, I felt very weak as if I had lost my virginity.
See more »
I have read most of the comments on the spanish version of Dracula, and I have two hypotheses as to why can anyone say this is a better version than Browning's: 1.- YOU'VE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE INTRODUCTORY DOCUMENTARY IN THE DVD VERSION - I also saw the documentary and was very excited to hear that this version was better and I can almost say that I was looking at it with the intention of finding the better version no matter what reality said, but the movie was definitely NOT better than the Browning's version. 2.- YOU DON'T SPEAK SPANISH - Folks, if you spoke spanish, believe me!!! you would understand how BAD this version is. It is so badly spoken (i hope not as bad as my english ;-) ) and so KITSCH!!!! it is incredible that anyone can say this is a good version.
Having said this, I would like to comment on the film: Perhaps there is one or two scenes better directed if by "better directed" you mean a better use of film language (i.e. the "Children of the night" scene), but in general Browning's Dracula remains a classical version for a good reason: it is better. The acting is so bad that it becomes very difficult to see through it a good directing... but directing means not only moving the camera, but also to direct people, and in that sense this movie fails miserably. I am very sorry I am so blunt, but I feel I need to shake you all in order to wake you up.
33 of 53 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?