Customer Reviews

Dracula

5 star:		(73)
4 star:		(32)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

While I fully understand the urge to swap this older release for one of the new Universal sets (Dracula or the deluxe Monster Legacy box), I implore you not to do it. Not only is the sound much better on this earlier release, but the new set contains the censored print that was originally released in 1931 in which Dracula's "death groans" are highly abbreviated. The contents of the two disks seem to be identical but the quality isn't. If you can put up with the very real possibility of having to repeatedly return sets in order to obtain one that performs perfectly, the Monster Legacy box is a good deal (especially at Amazon's price) and its transfers of the other films in the Universal series are very good, but this film is the exception. THIS ONE'S A KEEPER!

I love all of the old Universal Monster Movies and I love all the DVD versions that Universal has issued. They have done it right, giving us deluxe editions of The Wolf Man and The Mummy with all the bells and whistles. Of all of these, my favorite is Todd Browning's Dracula. Dracula may not be considered the best of the Universal films (that title usually goes to Bride of Frankenstein) but it certainly is the best DVD.

EVERYTHING is on this DVD. There is a wonderful DOCUMENTARY, The Road to Dracula. Amazingly, this is hosted by Carla Laemmle - the niece of the producer who actually ACTED in the movie. (She is the girl in the stagecoach who had the first line of dialogue in the film - indeed, in any sound horror film.) Clive Barker also adds valuable commentary. Although Barker is at the cutting edge (pun not intended) of hard-core horror, he still has great appreciation and insight about the classics.

FEATURE COMMENTARY: This is provided by David J. Skal, the noted Dracula/Vampire expert. Along with the documentary, this should tell you everything you ever wanted to learn about Dracula.

SPANISH LANGUAGE VERSION: It is now a famous story that, after Browning and his crew finished work for the day, a Spanish cast and crew would come in at night to film the same movie for the Spanish-speaking markets. The Spanish crew was very competitive and many critics say that the Spanish version is actually better. I do not agree with this. True, there are more interesting camera moves, but most of what we come to Dracula for is the Bela Lugosi performance - not to mention Dwight Frye as Renfeild with his inimitable laugh. The Spanish version is also great because it is a more accurate realization of the shooting script.

NEW SCORE: The old Universal movies did not yet have scored music. A few years ago, Philip Glass and the Kronos Quartet were commissioned to write a full score. It is excellent and it is also included on the disc. You can watch it with or without. I usually prefer without - I'll always think of the opening set to Swan Lake.

Bram Stoker's vampire novel has been remade dozens of times, but perhaps the best adaptation is the classic Bela Lugosi version. Fairly faithful to the novel and dripping with gothic atmosphere, what really makes "Dracula" stand out is the bone-chillingly charming performance by Lugosi.

A solicitor, Renfield (Dwight Frye), is travelling to Count Dracula's castle for a real estate deal, despite the locals freaking out and crossing themselves whenever Dracula's mentioned. He soon finds out why -- the Count (Lugosi) is a vampire, who enslaves a mad Renfield to his will. Soon after, a ship with a dead crew (and Renfield and Dracula in the hold) arrives in England.

Soon Dracula has moved into his new home, Carfax Abbey, and is insinuating himself with the Seward family -- and especially with pretty Lucy Westenra, who dies of blood loss and is reborn as a vampire. Only the intervention of the mysterious Dr. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) can stop Dracula's attacks in London.

Then there's the Spanish-language one, which is virtually identical and was filmed on the exact same sets, during the hours when the English-language one was not being shot. Same settings, same marks, same cinematography, many of the same scenes -- although it's much longer. It's excellent, and although it lacks that iconic intensity that Lugosi brought the English-language film, it's full of atmosphere and good acting.

Technically "Dracula" wasn't the first adaptation of "Dracula" -- that honor belongs to "Nosferatu" -- but it was the first to actually tackle the storyline in Stoker's book. And to date, it's perhaps the only to portray everyone's favorite vampire with the necessary atmosphere -- ominous, dignified and creepy.

Tod Browning sets it in all the necssary places -- crumbling castles, savage mountainous villages, foggy London streets, and sumptuous Victorian drawing rooms with eerie noises from outside. Granted, a fair amount of stuff is changed -- Jonathan Harker is partially replaced by the mad Renfield -- but none of these really detract from the storyline.

And Browning pours the creepiness on thickly, such as Dracula's seduction of young women, which keeps up the whole idea of vampiric sexuality. But Browning also knows how to pour on the subtle horror, without blood or violence -- like any scene with Renfield.

The script is just as great as the direction, with some unspeakably good dialogue ("For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you're a wise man, Van Helsing"), usually from Dracula. But the best scenes and dialogue are made up of highlights from the novel (such as Dracula saying dreamily, "Listen to them, the children of the night. What music they make!").

But the star of all this is Lugosi himself, one of the two quintessential vampire actors (the other being Christopher Lee). While he doesn't resemble the book's Dracula, his hypnotic stare and charming, intense manner make him an ideal vampire count. And Frye deserves a nod for one of the nastiest, maddest, creepinest performances in cinema history. Sort of a nuttier, bug-eating Gollum ("Not when I can get nice fat spiders!").

The original "Dracula" is still the best, more than seventy years after it was made. Dripping with Gothic atmosphere and seductive charm, this is a magnificent piece of work.

Dracula(released Feb/31)stars now legendary Bela Lugosi as The Count himself.At the time Lugosi,a hit on the Great White Way with the show of the same name,was not even in the running for the part of Dracula as far as director Browning was concerned.Lon Chaney was originally pegged as the lead but he succumbed to throat cancer long before they could even think of putting the film into the can.They started auditioning many other stars at the time but through happenstance Lugosi and company happened to be on tour with the show in tinseltown and he auditioned for the part,eventually getting it.And the rest is show biz history.
The well known plot is loosely based on the Bram Stoker novel Nosferatu.The original silent version by Murnau was an unauthorized version and the Stoker estate successfully sued him and had all existing prints destroyed(thank goodness for collectors even then!).Universal obtained the rights to the novel legally to avoid a nasty lawsuit.Browning was not a happy camper during this shoot,speculation being that he didn't get the leading man and good friend he wanted and missed.The lead cameraman Freund was apparently the one who shot a good portion of the film in Brownings frequent absences;though the credits do not give that impression.
The story here is part Stoker,part Broadway play and part made up.A lawyer has come from Britain to get the good Count Dracula to sign a lease to stay at an old Abbey in London.Renfield(Dwight Frye)travelling in stagecoach has to make a forced stop at a local tavern.The locals upon learning of his destination implore him not to go at night,but instead during the day,but he rebuffs all offers.As he leaves a woman gives him a crucifix,and as the coach leaves for the Count's castle,the people can be seen crossing themselves and feeling much sorrow for someone they probably will never see again.
At castle Renfield is greeted cordially by the Count but something is definitely not kosher here.You can see the inner conflict the lawyer has as he is nervous on the one hand,but does not want the Count to see it on the other.After a dinner it is off to bed.During the night the Count flies into Renfields room as a bat,changes back to human and proceeds to bite his neck.Renfield is now a slave to the Count.
It`s a long and stormy voyage back to England and the Count gets the munchies.He kills the entire crew and upon arrival the only one seemingly alive is Renfield who,appearing quite mad,is taken and institutionalized.Dracula sets up shop in the Abbey he leased and some nights later he runs into a Dr Seward(at an opera)who runs the sanitarium Renfield is in, and who happens to live next door to the Count.One of the lady guests there that night gets bitten by the count as she lay in bed and dies the next day.
Professor Van Helsing,who also works at the Sanitarium,takes a great interest in Renfields increasingly strange behavior.During one of Renfields rants Van Helsing pulls out some wolf bane and Renfield withdraws away.Increasing Van Helsings suspicions as to what is taking place,during a meeting with the Count he pulls out a cigarette case with a mirror and happens to notice the Count has no reflection.When he shows the count the mirror the Count smashes it,makes some apologies and leaves for the night.
The Count by now has Sewards daughter in his power and every precaution that Van Helsing takes to protect her fails.There is a brief confrontation between Dracula and Van Helsing and the professor doesn`t mince his words.Dracula tries unsuccessfully to hypnotize Van Helsing eventually flees.
The professor and Sewards daughters boyfriend both converge on the Abbey loaded for bear.Renfield appears and Dracula kills him thinking he has betrayed him.Dracula withdraws to his coffin and while the boyfriend looks for his girl,Van Helsing,having found the coffin,drives a stake into Draculas heart.This breaks the spell and the girl comes back to her boyfriend.
The film does show its age both film-wise and in exection.This was 1931 and sound was barely three years in the mainstream at this time.In fact many theaters were yet to be wired for sound pictures and it shows its`silent film roots in this film with the intertitles,the soundtrack(or lack thereof),the sometimes stiff acting and those big closeups for dramatic effect.But this was still common in this period of time and it could either work for you or against you.
Technically speaking the film is clear and crisp but it does show many film defects,quite normal for a film of this age.There are two discs here,one with the original film and the other with the still existing Spanish version.You will find commentary on the film,three nice featurettes,optional interactive pop up factoids and also an optional but beautiful score by Phillip Glass,commissioned in 1999.It fits fantastically with the film and I recommend you turning on this option at least once to see for yourself.The only glitch I can tell you about is in regards to the packaging itself.The two discs sit in two plastic holders.You open this set up like a book and each holder is on either``page``.However the holder for the first disc,in my set,has come away from the underlining already!The only thing stopping the holders from dropping out of the set box completely is the fact that the second holder is so far still sticking!I think a bit more care and attention could have gone into its`making.
All in all,despite the aforementioned packaging problem,this two disc set is worth every penny.It is loaded with plenty of extras about the film.Now the film itself,as far as ratings go,gets around a 3-3 1/2 stars.It has a stop and go pace to it that is its major drawback,and it does show its silent roots.However the film does reek with atmosphere and you can almost feel the dampness,and hey,it is remastered.But what really rates this set higher are the wonderful extras included.If you want your Dracula straight up and full bodied,this is the one to get.

When I think of Dracula, there are two images in my mind. The first one is of BramStoker's literature classic "Dracula" and the second one is the 1931 Dracula movie. Many actors have played the role of Count Dracula but the image of Hungarian actor Bela Lugosi as Dracula is a striking one, he defined the image of the vampire many of us have with his voice, charm and looks. After all he IS the original Dracula and in my opinion does the best representation of the role; he accurately transfers the character to the screen. The first attempt at a Dracula film was the 1922 German Expressionist film Nosferatu (another masterpiece, the two are very different) but legal problems with Stoker's widow changed this.

Originally Lugosi's beliefs made it difficult for him to accept the role of Count Dracula This film made of actor Bela Lugosi a legend, Lugosi played some interesting roles afterwards and proved to be a very talented actor in such films as the independent White Zombie (1932), Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932), The Black Cat (1934) and The Raven (1935). In case you are wondering he could play much more than Dracula (and if you like his performance here you should definitely watch some of his other works). Lugosi had such a powerful presence as the count and it's hard to forget the classic lines he delivered such as "I never drink...Wine!"Dwight Frye is excellent as Renfield, delivering a fantastic performance full of emotion and all the actors were truly excellent in their respective roles.

Speaking of the DVD itself now, you have the option of also playing the film with Phillip Glass'1999 soundtrack, and the 75th Anniversary edition also has the Spanish Dracula. Personally I prefer the film without the soundtrack, as it was originally but it is nice to have that option. The Spanish version of Dracula (with different actors and all) is obviously not as good as the English one but it has its own charm and is interesting to see. There are other extras such as posters, galleries and a documentary. I'm not sure sound-wise quality but I think the 75th Anniversary edition has probably the best image and visual quality out of all the DVD editions available.

Regardless of which edition you buy, the 1931 Dracula is a classic and enchanting cinematic experience that should be experienced by those fascinated with the one we call "Dracula". The DVD, however is a little expensive but looks very neat with the cool case and it does have some extras. 5 stars for the movie itself, I'm not sure what fans expected with this 75th Anniversary edition but I love the movie even if some more extras would have been welcomed.

For all its considerable flaws, Universal's "Dracula" (1931) marks the birth of modern horror cinema. Technically, the famous Universal horror canon starts with early silent chillers like "The Phantom of the Opera" (1925) and "The Cat and the Canary" (1927) -- both films are in the public domain and freely available on the Internet Archive, for anyone interested. "Dracula" represents a refinement of these earlier films' techniques, showcasing the unique European flavour inherent in all subsequent Universal horror productions. It also builds upon these earlier successes by adding sound as an integral part of the experience.

Indeed, sound is a crucial element of "Dracula"'s success; imagine how diminished its impact would be without the exotic chill of Bela Lugosi's voice. Other, better "Dracula" adaptations exist, but they all lack the gravity of Lugosi's elegant, cadaverous performance. Here, the bats are on strings, opossums have taken over the crypts and the table lamps are shaded with ragged swatches of cardboard. You can either fall asleep or laugh at these flaws, but odds are good you'll never forget Lugosi's sonorous voice and piercing eyes.

Despite stories of a troubled production, the first half hour of "Dracula" is faithful to the spirit, if not the letter, of Bram Stoker's original 1897 novel. Creepy, shadowy, filled with ominous skies and crumbling piles of ancient stone, this portion of the film generates a menace that is purely cinematic. It's once the film hits London that the measured pacing slows to a trot while the film takes on the trappings of a stage-bound parlour drama, occasionally assuaged by Lugosi's vampiric presence. Only at the conclusion does the film finally return to its other strengths: really big, spooky stone staircases and crypts.

As with most Universal Monsters films, there are no fewer than three separate DVD editions available. Therefore, it's a buyer's market in judging which version you'll want to own. The 1999 DVD edition presents the film with fairly clean sound while the more recent 75th Anniversary Edition and Legacy Collection editions deliver improved picture quality and sequels, respectively. All editions enhance the viewing experience with documentaries, trailers and photo/poster galleries.

For those of us who grew up with this version of "Dracula," acquiring one of these sets is a no-brainer. You'll want to relive those joyful childhood moments of dread and unease, when the moonlight and roiling clouds of midnight threatened to part, revealing something unmentionable in their wake.

And so, after all these years, I've finally seen the 1931 Dracula.

I've actually read Bram Stoker's original novel near exactly twenty years ago. After I struggled some with some of the odd words within the old English prose I stuck with it and discovered a story that was genuinely eerie and quite atmospheric. I will say that I wouldn't advise reading this at 2 or 3AM as I did---it gave me weird dreams. Since then I've seen Francis Ford Coppola's version, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and the silent Nosferatu. Now I've finally seen the famed 1931 version.

I'm not a fan of silent films in general, but Nosferatu was effective in creating a genuine atmosphere and sense of unease on some level. In it's own way it's a more faithful adaptation of Stoker's novel than the 1931 film. And while Coppola's version suffers from some poor acting I do feel it visually brings the original novel to life. But while the silent film and Coppola's each have their strengths and flaws neither of them have had the enduring impact of the '31 film.

Watching Dracula I instantly recognized where so many cliches and conventions began in regards to horror films in general and vampire stories in particular. Knowing this allowed me to look past now familiar conventions and experience the film on its own terms.

Candidly, and since I can't really escape the sum of my own experiences, I find aspects of this film rather stagey and theatrical. A little more nuance would be appreciated. Yet I also see that this film could also be watched pretty much as a silent film and this isn't surprising considering it was made still early after the introduction of sound in movies. With that perspective I can overlook much of the stage like and theatrical aspects.

It's easy to see how Legosi made such an impression. Whereas as some might call his performance uneven and a bit overdone in arts (and it is) I also appreciated aspects of it. His accent and particular speech pattern made him Dracula seem like someone not wholly comfortable with English, a language not his native tongue. And he certainly wasn't Hollywood handsome even though he's far removed from Max Shreck's otherworldly appearance in Nosferatu. But in an immigrant like way he managed to give his Dracula a measure of old world charm and presence. His performance is unusual and distinctive and it's easy to see how after so many years when you think of a vampire you instantly think of channeling Legosi's portrayal.

I will say that the film feels abbreviated and there are other aspects that make it feel like it was shot on a constrained budget, which apparently it was. It's too bad because it is a story that deserved a more lavish production which the resources of the time could have provided if they'd been willing to spend the time and money.

And finally I found the performances of the secondary characters better than those of Frankenstein, of which it's Karloff's performance that supports and elevates that film.

Overall I liked Dracula. And while it certainly isn't the best example of film making I've seen I can also recognize its importance and why it has made such an impression on generations of audiences.

I am Drac-u-la , I bid you welcome, I never drink ... Wine
The 3 lines that famoused (new word of mine) Bela Lugosi and made him The Infinitive Count Dracula

Mr Reinsfield travels to transylvania to sail sum property to Dracula in england
Dracula welcomes him in for a feast and wine
while reinsfield is collectin all of the papers he accidently paper cuts his finger (which he really did in real life!)
Dracula goes for his neck but notices the crucifix on reinsfield's neck so he waits until reinsfield goes to bed and he pulls the chain off
all of a sudden reinsfield feels faint and passes out
leaving a feast for dracula

The next part of the film is the part of the ship which is very short
all of the passengers on board perrish from the hurricane or whatever as it travels to england accept for a mad man named reinsfield and a undead freak in the coffin named dracula (haha)

so dracula arrives to england and start's puttin the bite on the british

a classic i tell u and every1 who loves horror movies should have this!!!!

Despite the greatness of Murnau's NOSFERATU before it and Guy Maddin's DRACULA: PAGES FROM A VIRGIN'S DIARY after it, Tod Browning's Universal classic (the centerpiece of this cd) remains the standard version of Bram Stoker's tale. In large part this is due to Browning's astonishing sets and the superbly textured deep focus cinematography of Karl Freund. The Castle Dracula, and later the vampuire's stronghold in the UK, Carfax Abbey, are masterfully conveyed with giant sets and superb matte paintings. Bela Lugosi's performance is nothing to compare with, say, Boris Karloff's sensitive rendition of Frankenstein's monster in a nearly contemporary Universal film, but you still will see why it made him a screen legend: he is wonderfully charismatic, and he uses his long hands to spectacular effect. The mise-en-scene is often quite static, but it's the tableaux from this fil one remembers: the brides of the vampire swooping down of Renfield in the castle from the foreground; Renfield (Dwight Frye, in a classic performance) staring up, grinning madly, from the belowdecks of the doomed Vesta; Dracula swooping up Mina (Helen Chandler) in the vertical slash of his cloak in the fogbound grounds of the Seward Asylum. The film provides the option of a beautiful, if incredibly obtrusive, contemporary Philip Glass score since the original film was also without music altogether (which to my mind only enhances its creepiness). There's also the full film of the alternative Spanish-language version filmed on the same sets at night (to save money). Although many cineastes consider the Spanish version actually better than Browning's version, thanks to its enhanced eroticism, greater use of mise-en-scene and greater scene-to-scene continuity, this reviewer felt it crucially lacks the creepier static qualities of the Browning version.

Bela Lugosi simply is Count Dracula; his brilliant performance in this 1931 classic, the first supernatural-based "talkie," defined the role, and - somewhat unfortunately - the role defined him for the rest of his career. Lugosi was born to play Dracula, and the influence he and this film continue to have in the movie business is really amazing. When you go back and watch the film today, though, a number of problems pop up for those with a discerning eye - these do not lessen the impact of the film, but they do make you conscious of the fact that Dracula could actually have been an even greater film than it was. This fact is brought home even more forcefully when you watch the Spanish version of the film, for it really is a much better film than its English counterpart. If only Paul Kohner had been allowed to produce the English version, combining the virtuoso performances of Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye with the superior story quality and atmospheric powers of the Spanish version, Dracula might well still be in theaters today, enjoying a 73-year run.

Dracula was blessed with a top-notch group of actors and actresses. It's hard to believe that Bela Lugosi was not the first choice for the role of the Count, but at the time he was a relatively unknown immigrant actor. His accent, mannerisms, and unparalleled, unquantifiable presence made him perfect for the role. He had already played Dracula hundreds of times on stage, but Lon Chaney, Sr., would have played the part had he not died of cancer a few months before Dracula started production. By that time, the movie budget was down to almost nothing, and almost nothing is basically what Lugosi got paid for his amazing work. Dwight Frye is superb as poor Renfield, Dracula's reluctant henchman and servant eventually torn between serving his master and saving the life of Mina (Helen Chandler), the damsel in distress. Frye's ability to vividly project the manic madness of Renfield stands as the best supporting acting job I've ever seen; Renfield constantly steals the show from everyone but Dracula himself.

Since this film basically defines Dracula and vampires themselves in the realm of popular culture, it's amazing to go back and see just how big a difference there is between Bram Stoker's novel and this 1931 production (the movie doesn't even begin to compare with the novel). The very opening, for example, wanders far afield from Stoker's vision - here we see Renfield rather than Jonathan Harker making the trip to Dracula's castle in Transylvania in order to finalize the Count's move to jolly old England. This major switch does much to further endear Renfield to our hearts, but it does tend to make Jonathan Harker into an ineffective character. Then you have the very appearance of the villain - Bela Lugosi's suave, hypnotically charming Count Dracula is a far cry from the hideous vampire of Stoker's novel. The film has a few continuity problems and really quite silly gaffes here and there, although these do not get in the way of the story, but there were obvious problems with direction and budgeting. The economic burdens of the Great Depression took a chunk out of the Dracula budget, and you end up with a film of one hour fifteen minutes that should have run a good deal longer. There are minor continuity problems, a few scenes that seem to be cut off prematurely, and several questions and ideas not adequately answered or resolved.

The Spanish version of Dracula is a real treat indeed. Running a half hour longer than the English version, this movie did not leave nearly as many gaps in the storyline and actually added much insight into the work as a whole. The Spanish cast and crew shot their own version of the movie on the same sets, working through the nights to produce their own very different version of Dracula. Lupita Tovar is wonderful as Eva Seward, and the cast and crew really come together to outperform most of their English-speaking counterparts. The men playing Dracula and Van Helsing tend to overact a bit at times (and Carlos Villarias had the misfortune to be someone other than Bela Lugosi attempting to play Count Dracula), but the Spanish version is a superior film that possesses a warmth and sense of humanity somewhat lacking in the rather cold and calculated atmosphere of the American version.

In a sense, you get three versions of 1931's Dracula here: the standard English language version, that same version featuring a new musical score composed by Philip Glass (and played by the Kronos Quartet), and the Spanish language version. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Many fans are not enamored with the Glass score, but I think it works very well at times, particularly in those silent moments when we watch Dracula creeping up to the bed of his next female victim. If you could combine the best of all three versions of the film, you would get not only the ultimate Dracula film but the ultimate horror film of all time. Each version is well worth watching.