drqshadow

4/10

Based on the stage adaptation, not the Bram Stoker novel, this campy dash of Halloween spookery spends very little time in the Count’s creepy Transylvania abode. Instead, after handling the requisite introductions (and gaining control over a lowly realtor), Dracula boards a ship bound for London and commences nibbling aristocratic necks in merry old England. There, after a brief flight of frolic, he bites off more than he can chew in pursuit of a lovely neighboring heiress and is soon revealed / chased by an old professor with a familiar surname. This one's a curious production, filmed like a silent picture, that leans on its dark, moody cinematography to lend color and atmosphere where the script lacks. The man responsible for that aspect, Karl Freund, was only a few years removed from Fritz Lang’s _Metropolis_ and would go on to further influence the Universal monster scene as director of 1934’s _The Mummy_. Legend holds that he served as unofficial co-director of this film, too, taking the reins during Tod Browning’s uncharacteristic absences during production. No matter the messy details, his visual language is one of _Dracula_’s strongest assets, all dense and dark and flooded with pulpy ink tones. He really nailed the target. Bela Lugosi is another boon, although he isn’t given much to do beyond speaking in an exotic accent and striking an attractive figure. Though he wasn’t the studio’s first choice, Lugosi’s familiarity with the role (as star of the aforementioned theatrical production) made him an easy plug-and-play casting and he did everything in his power to own the opportunity. It’s a shame he wasn’t given more meat to chew; Browning seems perfectly happy in relegating him to a string of intensely awkward, lingering, wordless close-ups. Beyond the factors of curiosity and influence, the heart of Hollywood’s very first vampire movie is awfully thin and silly. At once a film that’s ahead of its time and behind the curve, it’s loaded with cryptic, rambling dialogue, narrow plot developments and quaint special effects, particularly the omnipresent lifeless, dangling bats. It borrows liberally from 1922’s _Nosferatu_ and the ending is deeply anticlimactic, allegedly due to a set of eleventh-hour studio edicts. But hey, it still looks great and there’s no arguing with its legacy. Thousands of monster movies owe a large part of their identity to the work Browning, Freund and company put in with _Dracula_. Maybe watch one of those instead.

Martha

0/10

"The blood is the life, Mr. REINFIELD" At three years old this was my first horror movie. My great-grandmother is the one who sat me down and showed me great Bela Lugosi as Dracula. This entire movie is timeless and classic. The very best of all the Universal horrors. No one could be a more perfect Dracula than Bela Lugosi. To accomplish so much with just a stare. No special effects. No fangs... yet he chilled you to the bone and enthralled all. One of my all-time favorites. Classic Cinema perfection.

CinemaSerf

0/10

I saw this with a marvellous piano accompaniment that really did showcase the delights of silent cinema and the talents of a pianist who can play, non-stop, for seventy five minutes. Though Bela Lugosi takes top billing as the eponymous character, I felt the film really belonged to his assistant "Renfield" - enjoyably portrayed here by Dwight Frye. He is just an innocent estate agent who arrives at Castle Dracula only to find himself quickly enthralled to his new boss who is determined to come to "Carfax Abbey" in England with his trio of wives, and to wreak some good, old-fashioned, havoc! It's poor "Mina" (Helen Chandler) who is soon on his radar and it falls to her paramour "Harker" (David Manners) and accomplished vampire-hunter "Van Helsing" (Edward Van Sloan) to try and save the day before they are all transformed into blood-suckers. Lugosi is a wooden as a washboard in this film, but the constant shining of the light onto his eyes does manage to convey quite a potent sense of menace as his meticulously dressed count munches his way through the wee small hours. The flying bat on a string is not as daft as you might expect, indeed the whole visual impact of this film - though certainly basic - proves quite effective when the score does most of the heavy lifting. This is a story that has always benefitted from being shot monochrome, and ninety-odd years on, is still a cracking watch in a cinema.

Wuchak

0/10

**_A tall, dark and mesmerizing vampire comes to London from Transylvania_** “Dracula” (1931) was based on the play rather than the novel, but the basic Bram Stoker tale is there with alterations. In its time, this was great. Talkies had only been around for a handful of years. Don’t expect the nudity, violence or gore of Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992). If you want a modern take on the tale, I suggest that one (which adds a well-done love story). The focus here is on the handsome & intimidating Count’s calm charisma and hypnotic powers within a Victorian milieu and cobwebbed, crumbling Gothic architecture. It’s somehow relaxing despite the horror trappings. You have to accept this going in to appreciate it. There’s a Spanish-speaking version with a different actor in the eponymous role shot simultaneously, which many say is superior. Also, a score was added by Philip Glass in 1999. There’s also a colorized version. I viewed the original B&W film with Bela Lugosi. His iconic take on the king of vampires is worth the price of admission. The climax is weak though. The movie runs 1 hour, 15 minutes, and was shot at Universal Studios and Agua Dulce, which is in the desert high country north of there. GRADE: B-

alexspooky

8/10

A very amazing movie for something this old, figured I would be bored or something. There's not a whole lot of action but action movies weren't a thing until like decades later so it's not a negative, being one of if not the first horror sound picture, at least the most popular of the first wave, it's pretty great. Bela is great in this and I had no idea Van Helsing was in this or the original book, I thought he was the comic character; Also the Lego Batman director is making a solo Renfield movie so I'm hype for that. Also why doesn't Van Helsing have a trench coat or a cool hat and why isn't he Wolverine, lmaoooo. Helen is also very hot and such a queen! Bela is also a king too! If he was alive today and the same age I bet all the ladies and men would be in love with him like RDJ or Leo Dicapo. If the rubber bats make you rate this like less than 3 and a half stars bc it's not real bats or looks "cringe", that's cringe itself. People who complain about the bats the same who complain about marvel movies being "99% fake" like bruh all movies are fake unless it's a documentary, like if a book was fantasy would you say it's bad because it's not real? This has been my adhd review of 1931's Dracula thank you for reading my review of the movie that makes up 20% of this review and the other 80% about marvel and Van Helsing.