IMDb > Drácula (1931) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Drácula
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Drácula More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 51 reviews in total 

31 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

What's all the ruido about....

6/10
Author: simeon_flake
18 July 2005

If my facts are straight, this much touted Spanish version of "Dracula" was considered lost for many years until its rediscovery in the 1970s upon which many a critic and film historian flocked to view this rare "gem" & seemingly all at once proclaimed it better than its more famous English cousin.

Perhaps the novelty of finding this similar, but in many aspects different alternate take on the Tod Browning classic led to such clamoring, though given the many years in which viewers have been accustomed to videotape & now DVD--in which a back-to-back comparison of the two films is a very simple exercise--the fawning many do over Melford's 'Drac' seems a bit in the extreme, particularly such critical observations of how Melford upstages the English film "scene by scene, shot by shot". Having recently viewed both films, it's my opinion that a shot-for-shot comparison doesn't prove very detrimental at all to Señor Browning.

For instance, the much raved about moving camera of George Robinson doesn't really show much more mobility than Karl Freund's. Yes, there is the shot of the camera roving up the stairs in Drac's castle, but aside from that & a few other minor instances, Melford & Robinson keep the camera as still as the oft-derided Browning. Btw, I found it more than a bit amusing that the critters Browning has roaming around the cellars of Dracula's castle--the opossum and bug escaping from a miniature coffin--were retained by Melford.

The really big difference in movies is seeing the different angles which Melford shot many of his scenes from & how he makes more use of the outside portico in many of the later drawing room scenes. For those of us familiar with the Lugosi film, this can make for an interesting visual variety, but does this really equate to "better" or "masterful" directing?

It's not my intention to slam this version of Dracula. I think any horror fan should give it a few looks to see how two different production teams can interpret a single script & put their own creative twists on it. From that standpoint, the Spanish "Dracula" is required viewing, but hardly the "scathing critique" of its English counterpart that many have proclaimed it to be.

Was the above review useful to you?

35 out of 56 people found the following review useful:

Better than the English version?

Author: Arturo Serrano (aserrano@ucab.edu.ve) from Caracas, Venezuela
9 April 2003

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Villarias Bites

5/10
Author: gftbiloxi (gftbiloxi@yahoo.com) from Biloxi, Mississippi
11 June 2007

Language was no barrier to Hollywood in the silent era: title cards were easily translated from English. When sound began to roar, Hollywood began to fear the loss of its foreign markets--and so, for a brief time, the studios occasionally produced two versions of certain films, one in English and one in another language, most often German or Spanish. Such was the case with the 1931 Dracula.

According to film historian and author David J. Skal, producer Paul Kohner fell in love with Mexican-born actress Lupita Tovar (they later married), and his romantic interest prompted the suggestion that she star in a Spanish-language version of the film. When the English language cast wrapped for the day, the Spanish language cast arrived and worked through the night using the same sets.

Most of Hollywood's foreign-language duplicates were forgotten as quickly as they were released, but the Spanish Dracula would be the exception. Todd Browning, who directed the English language film starring Bela Lugosi, was extremely uncomfortable with sound technology. While the first fifteen minutes or so his film are exceptional, the movie thereafter becomes a filmed stage play--and a very choppy and rather unimaginative stage play at that. Instead of simply duplicating Browning's set-ups, producer Kohner and director George Melford set out to best him, and when the Spanish version debuted most viewers declared it greatly superior to the English version.

And in many respects it is. Whereas Browning's version is visually flat and rather slow, the Spanish Dracula is visually exciting, and although it is considerably longer than the English version the pace never drags. It also has it all over the Browning version in terms of editing, and it has a cohesion the Browning version completely lacks. The supporting cast is also quite fine, with Lupita Tovar a standout, easily besting Helen Chandler's remarkably tiresome performance in the English version.

But the Spanish Dracula has a problem, and it's a big one: actor Carlos Villarias, billed here as Carlos Villar. Villarias had a respectable film career throughout the 1930s and 1940s, but he met his match in Dracula; where Lugosi intoned, snarled, and endowed the vampire with an elegant evil, Villarias goes through the film with a series of expressions that lead one to believe he has just encountered an overflowing toilet. His flaring nostrils and disgusted glances are so incredibly out of place that they quickly become unintentionally hilarious.

Lugosi's performance, of course, is generally considered the ultimate statement of the role, and with good reason. In a perfect world, we would be able to snatch Villarias out of the Spanish Dracula and insert Lugosi in his place; the result would be a truly amazing film from start to finish. As it is, however, we are stuck with Villarias, and frankly he bites.

The VHS release of the Spanish Dracula is out of print, but the film is available on the same disk with the Universal release of the more widely known Todd Browning version. By and large the film quality is remarkably good; it has not, however, received a digital remaster, and at least one of the reels would greatly benefit from it. If you are a fan of 1930s horror, you'll find it more than worth the effort, but I suspect more casual viewers will be reduced to hysterical laughter by the Villarias performance.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Dracula (1931) - US Version ***1/2; Spanish Version ***

7/10
Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@melita.com) from Naxxar, Malta
9 August 2005

The Browning/Lugosi 'classic' has always been one of my favorite Universal horror films but, ever since the simultaneously-produced 'rival' Spanish version resurfaced, the 'original' has taken a beating by fans and historians alike - mainly because the latter features superior camera-work! This, however, is the ONLY area where it can lay a claim to be better in when compared to the US version (the fact that leading lady Lupita Tovar had a sexier wardrobe than Helen Chandler shouldn't even be considered, I guess). Still, the fact that on the DVD the opinion that the seminal US version is the inferior one seems to be shared by quite a few people hasn't done it any favors! I remember being impressed by the Spanish version when I first watched it in 2001, singling out for praise the performance of Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield and, of course, George Robinson's cinematography. However, coming back to it now, I felt that Rubio's hysterical rendering of the character (which reminded me of Gene Wilder in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN [1974] of all people!) was nowhere nearly as nuanced as Dwight Frye's unforgettable characterization in the US version. Regarding the "superior camera-work", I guess this is true for individual sequences (Dracula's introduction, for instance) but, frankly, I never felt that Karl Freund - a pioneer of the moving camera - had somehow been restrained by Tod Browning, who admittedly wasn't very fond of this technique. Given that of late we've also been faced by the ridiculous assumption that Browning didn't actually direct the film, he couldn't have - since he wasn't even there!! It may be however, that since frequent Browning collaborator Lon Chaney (who had been slated for the title role) died before shooting began, the director sort of lost heart in the project - coupled also with the fact that the script was rather talky, another element with which Browning felt uneasy! Well, whatever went on behind the scenes, for me what's in front remains one of the highlights of the American horror film - from the marvelous dialogue (especially as delivered - each in their own unique way - by Lugosi, Frye and Edward Van Sloan), irreproachable performances (Frye and Van Sloan were at their best, while Lugosi only ever really came close with THE BLACK CAT [1934] and SON OF FRANKENSTEIN [1939]) and memorable individual scenes (the entire first act set in Transylvania, the confrontation scenes between Dracula and his nemesis Professor Van Helsing, Renfield's various ravings). The tame ending may appear anti-climactic to most people but I honestly was never bothered by it! If anything, this was remedied in any number of ways in subsequent outings...

Which brings us back to the Spanish Dracula: like I said, the film is an interesting and altogether pleasing 'alternate' to the Lugosi version...but it is fatally compromised by the inadequate leading performance of Carlos Villarias, whose bulging eyes and feral snarls can't hold a candle to Lugosi's definitive screen vampire! This version does go to places where the American doesn't (Browning shies away from the vampire attacks, for instance) and even features 'new' scenes like the aftermath of the vampiric Lucy's demise - but, at 104 minutes (a full half-hour longer than the US version, when considering that they were following the same script!) it's way overlong for its own good. The Browning/Lugosi version is often criticized for its sluggishness but this one actually moves at a snail's pace: take, for instance, the famous scene where Dracula is exposed by the mirror - Lugosi knocks the box down immediately, while Villarias takes forever to do so (even if his resolution is effectively flamboyant nonetheless).

A word about the DVD quality: disappointingly, the Spanish version features closed-captions (for the hearing-impaired) rather than proper subtitles. As for the US version, the print utilized for this particular transfer (which differs from that of the original, and more satisfactory, 1999 release) is a bit too dark for my taste and the dialogue sometimes was hard to catch due to the incessant hiss on the soundtrack! It also reverts to the 'original' single groan during Dracula's staking (instead of the elongated variant available on the earlier disc)...but does feature a bit of music at the end of the Opera sequence, which had been missing from the previous edition!! Well, this only means that it's worth keeping both copies of Dracula as neither is really definitive...

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Best horror movie of the period - period.

10/10
Author: (winner55) from United States
19 December 2008

Let's get real: there are only two reasons the reputation of the original Dracula has remained intact into the 21st Century - Bela Lugosi's performance and as a monument to camp/nostalgia of a certain kind. In all other respects, it is at its best competent, in its worst moments dreadful. While admittedly atmospherically moody in design, it is ridiculously slow, and, with the exception of Lugosi, the acting is hilariously bad. Does Lugosi's strangely ethereal, other-worldly performance save the show. Yes; on the other hand, goth-nostalgia grows ever more wearisome as the years wear on.

Despite a legend perpetrated by Universal Studios itself, that the Spanish language version of the film produced simultaneously with the original was shot by shot the same with different actors, the Spanish Dracula is a completely different interpretation of the same script. The lighting is better, the camera work more fluid and more professionally handled, the editing is far more advanced - indeed the look of the film would put it in the early '40s if we didn't know better. Adding to this impression of being ahead of its time is the acting - naturalistic, emotive, performed by a cast with a considerable repertoire of facial expressions and vocal intonations at their disposal, most utterly believable.

Finally, there is the redefinition of just what the 'horror' of Dracula really amounts to. Lugosi's presence in the original is heightened by the portrayal of a British middle class environment that is hopelessly banal. Here, the environment is given a warmer glow, but the real horror of the vampire is that he is a beast in aristocratic disguise, seething with barely suppressed violence. Pay special attention to the ship voyage sequence: in the original this is mostly about a storm in which Lugosi stands literally unmoved by the rough waves battering the ship. In the Spanish version, the sequence is about the direct confrontation between the Count - hungry, gloating sneer on his face, crouched, about to pounce - and the unbelieving sailors, with a soundtrack provided by a truly frightening screech of laughter from the mad Renfield.

A note must also be made concerning the sexuality of the two films. The implicit sexuality of the original is really largely legend, derived almost solely from Lugosi's own impressively suave charisma. The makers of the Spanish version have not left the matter to the chance of casting - the women are thinly dressed, and Dracula's approach to them openly seductive - this especially becomes clear in one scene where Dracula steps between the heroine and her fiancé, utterly ignores the fiancé's presence and speaks to the heroine in the soothing, caring tones of a lover! I'm not saying the Spanish Dracula is anything more than a well made B-movie - but it is an exceptionally well made B-movie, probably the best of its era - a real classic that stands the test of time on the virtue of its rugged performance and professional polish.

Give honor to Lugosi's historic performance - but pay homage to a nearly lost masterwork of genre cinema, the Spanish language Dracula, 1931.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Greatly Overrated

Author: Athanatos from San Diego, CA
26 December 1999

The Spanish-language Drácula (1931) is frequently said to be better than the simultaneously shot, English-language Dracula. I find this odd.

The performances of Villarías, Rubio, and Arozamena are much less affecting than those of Lugosi, Frye, and Sloan. I'll readily grant that Rubio's behavior is more like than of a typical madman than is Frye's, but *realism* precludes vampires in the first place.

The acting of some of the bit players in Drácula is poor. The lighting is simply thoughtless illumination. Continuity is ignored *ab initio*; for example, does Conde Drácula emerge from the coffin of Count Dracula (as shot by Freund or Browning), or from a packing crate?

There are various points at which Drácula *is* better than Dracula. Holes in the script of Dracula are generally plugged in Drácula. While Sloan's acting is superior to that of Arozamena, the English-language script requires him to be unbelievably ineffectual. (Watch Sloan pause on the steps to explain that there is no time to lose, and then continue *walking*!)

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Lugosi vs Villarias

Author: nilagmedia from Stockholm, Sweden
15 November 2004

Like many others I believe that Bela Lugosi is superior as Count Dracula (even though the Spanish film is far better in other aspects).

At first I thought that Carlos Villarias was hilarious as the Count, too much "over the top" and he doubtlessly lacks Lugosi's suave and chilling screen presence. But Lugosi had been perfecting the character on stage, and Villarios must have been trying to do a different kind of Dracula.

I believe that Villarios must have been thinking of Lon Chaney and "London after midnight" when he created his Dracula. The staring eyes, the uncanny smile - it's all there! After all: it would have been natural for Villarios to seek an inspiration from the greatest horro star of the time, wouldn't it?

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Unnecessarily longer and overacted- inferior by leaps and bounds

4/10
Author: donaldgilbert from Seattle, WA
18 January 2013

I can in no way believe that there are critics out there that found this superior to the English language version. Although it's 30 minutes longer, the Spanish Dracula added no new story; just stretched out some of the scenes in the English Dracula, with characters explaining things that needed no explanation. Browning's English Dracula was leaner; the Spanish version was at times, a bit on the dull side.

My biggest complaint, however, was that the acting was REALLY over-the-top. Seriously, I thought Lugosi and company were a bit hammy, but the cast of the Spanish version was laughable (especially the count himself!). Really, Bela was spooky; this count was cheezy.

My 4/10 is not in relation to the Browning version. I'm rating it as a film independent of it's English cousin. Because it was slightly dull & overacted, I can't really seriously recommend seeing it. (The Browning/Lugosi version would get an 8/10.)

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

The Latino Dracula

7/10
Author: Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States
31 August 2004

Shot the same time as the English version of Dracula, this Spanish version was shot on the same sets during the night. Some people consider this superior to the English version. In SOME ways it is.

The English version was badly directed by Tod Browning...but it was Browning's first sound film. His direction (which was great in the silents) suffers from having to have the actors speak into concealed microphones. Also the camera seems rooted to the spot. The Spanish version however was exceptionally well-directed. The camera moves and the director seems very at ease with using sound. Also the first appearance of Dracula in the English version was badly handled--in the Spanish one it's actually very good and a little frightening! Also we find out the fate of Lucia (Lucy) in this one. And the plots with Renfield and Eva (Mina) are more fleshed out . And Pablo Alvarez Rubio gives a good performance as Reinfield. AND the girls wear more revealing nightgowns:) But that's about it.

This film is VERY slow (it runs 25 minutes longer than the other) and the acting isn't that good. The man playing van Helsing overacts (badly) and Barry Norton and Lupita Tovar are just OK as Eva and Juan. But Carlos Villatias is all wrong as Dracula. He tries but he can't carry the role. His villainous looks are actually rather silly and he totally lacks the screen presence of Lugosi. If that had teamed this director with the English cast there might have been a GREAT movie. But, unfortunately, it didn't happen. I do give this a 7 though.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

I Vant To Suk Your ... SANGRE!

5/10
Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls
16 October 2007

The most interesting thing about the Spanish version of Dracula is the modest & informative introduction of main actress Lupita Tovar. I don't know when exactly this brief interview with her was shot, but it can't be too long ago judging by the picture quality, which makes it all the more impressive that she still looks relatively good! According to the IMDb, she's still alive and kicking, though nearly reaching the age of 100 and not having made any movies in more than 60 years. With great pride, Tovar explains how the Spanish crew exclusively worked during the nights, using the exact same sets of the English version, how the director didn't understood the language of his cast & crew and – most notably – how her costumes and wardrobes were a lot sexier and more revealing than those of her English speaking colleagues. Interesting! She also claims that the Spanish version is superior and that is, of course, debatable since many of the plot lines seem unnecessarily stretched and on the verge of being very tedious. The story is exactly the same, but this version pays more attention to the extended drawing of characters that are merely supportive, like Renfield for example. The film eventually runs half an hour longer than its English counterpart, 104 minutes in total, and that is simply too long for a horror movie of that era. Part of the Universal monster movies' charm is that they are short, straightforward and to the point. "Drácula" is the first, and to my knowledge, only contemporary Universal movie that features needless padding. Naturally Carlos Villarias is no patch on Bela Lugosi when it comes to depicting the legendary infamous Count. Lugosi literally owned the character; whereas Villarias is hardly menacing at all and most of the time he appears to pull funny grimaces and sneering expressions. There are so numberless versions of Bram Stoker's immortal novel available on the market, so I'm not entirely sure why Universal didn't simply dub the American version instead of producing yet another different film, but it still has many fans. And it made Mrs. Lupita Tovar proud to be an actress, which is a good thing as well, I guess.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history