Compared to Browning's tedious version of DRACULA, I found Medford's much more engaging. Let's face it, in both films, Count Dracula is so ill-conceived and played so hammily that to debate whose performance is better, Lugosi's or Villarias', is pointless.
And David Manners and Helen Chandler act better than their counterparts in the Medford work? That I simply will not accept--both played their English language parts as if they had sticks up their bums.
As for continuity, I was thrown a few times by Medford's film, but, for me, it just added to the overall strangeness of an already strange story.
Ultimately, the richer tone of the film was established during its opening credit sequence which contained elements of gothicism--a melting candle, cobwebs, etc.--as opposed to Browning's silly art-deco bat silhouette.
Musidora
And David Manners and Helen Chandler act better than their counterparts in the Medford work? That I simply will not accept--both played their English language parts as if they had sticks up their bums.
As for continuity, I was thrown a few times by Medford's film, but, for me, it just added to the overall strangeness of an already strange story.
Ultimately, the richer tone of the film was established during its opening credit sequence which contained elements of gothicism--a melting candle, cobwebs, etc.--as opposed to Browning's silly art-deco bat silhouette.
Musidora