IMDb user comments for
Dracula (1931) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 22:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

219 reviews in total

---

45 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
I am Dracula....I Bid You Welcome, 2 May 2004

Author: (bsmith5552@rogers.com) from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

"Dracula" is a true cinematic classic that still hold up well today more than 70 years after its initial release. Bram Stoker's novel had been filmed before, most notably the 1922 German masterpiece "Nosferatu" with Max Schrenk playing the vampire as a monstrous rat like creature with no redeeming qualities.

Bela Lugosi rose to instant fame with his portrayal of Dracula, a part he had been playing on stage for several years. Lugosi's interpretation is that of a suave and sophisticated nobleman with a hypnotic stare and a cultured Hungarian accent. This made the character more appealing to the ladies while at the same time terrifying to the audience when we see the monster revealed beneath.

The story has the tragic Renfield (Dwight Frye) arriving in Transylvania to complete a transaction with the Count which will allow him to lease a English castle. Before they leave for England by ship, Dracula turns Renfield into a quasi-vampire who obeys his master's every command. Upon arriving in England it is discovered that all of the ship's crew have been murdered and only a raving lunatic of a Renfield remain alive.

Renfield is committed to a sanitarium run by Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston). Dracula seeks him out and discovers Seward's comely daughter Mina (Helen Chandler) and her friend Lucy. Dracula quickly "kills" Lucy and sets his sights upon Mina whose fiance Jonathon Harker (David Manners) is baffled by her sudden change in health and personality. Seward consults with a colleague Dr. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) who quickly identifies the source of the problem as a vampire. They soon expose Dracula for what he is and......

The atmospheric sets of this movie set the tone for the story. Dracula's castle is dark, damp and web filled and his cellar is positively scary. So too is his English manor with the classic winding stair case leading to the cellar. The opening theme I found to be equally foreboding and frightening. I wonder how many of those early film goers realized that it was adapted from the classic ballet "Swan Lake".

Bela Lugosi should have become a major star after this film, but did not. His first mistake was the turning down the role of the monster in "Frankenstein" (1931). He did enjoy moderate success in the first half of the 30s playing various mad scientists and criminal masterminds. But he also accepted roles in several "poverty row" quickies which did little to advance his career. He had a brief return to glory in 1939 when he played "Ygor" in "The Son of Frankenstein" and again in 1948 again as Dracula in "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein". With his well documented personal demons, Lugosi wound up his career in cheap "B' movies ultimately becoming the "star" in some of Ed Wood's "classics". Oddly enough, though he was forever identified with the Dracula character, he only played him on screen twice, in 1931 and 1948 as noted. He did play "Dracula like" characters in MGM's "Mark of the Vampire" (1935) and in Columbia's "Return of the Vampire" (1943).

Dwight Frye almost steals "Dracula" from Lugosi with his portrayal of Renfield. He takes him from a young ambitious businessman to a half crazed lunatic and back again. After this and his role of Fritz the hunchback in "Frankenstein", this great character actor never again achieved such heights. A real tragedy. Oddly enough, Stoker's book portrays Renfield as a minor character and it is Jonathon Harker who makes the unfortunate trip to Transylvania.

Also filmed in a Spanish language version.

---

40 out of 42 people found the following review useful:
How can it not be a classic?, 17 March 2003
Author: meyers480 from Mesa, AZ

This is the movie that set the horror genre into action. Sure there may be a few campy scenes that look like they might be out of some high school play production (the rubber bats and armadillos in Dracula's castle come to mind), but there is an unmistakable suspense and eerieness about the film. If you are lucky enough to find the DVD reissue from 1999, you have three great versions: the original 1931 version with basically no background music, the 1999 rescoring of the movie by composer Philip Glass, and the extremely interesting Spanish version, made at the same time as the original (with totally different actors). If you have this DVD, watch the movie twice: once with no soundtrack and once with the Glass rescoring.... totally different movie. Glass' score is great, but it doesn't really help the movie at all (it actually hurts it in many cases). But the utter silence in Browning's original just makes my skin crawl! The acting is actually quite great (Lugosi is, of course, phenomenal as is Dwight Frye as Renfield). The fear, the suspense, and, believe it or not, the sexuality, combines for a great movie that was an unbelievable success in its first release ($700,000 in it first US release, $1.2 million worldwide). Not bad for a movie made 72 years ago!

---

29 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Bela Lugosi Flies High In Legendary Classic Chiller, 31 December 2004

Author: Hal-900 from WA, USA

In terms of influence and lasting appeal, this early talkie has no equal in the horror canon. I consider Tod Browning's "Dracula" to be excitingly eerie if a bit simple and often creaky. But its somewhat antiquated, oxidized qualities are part of what makes the film compelling, and so much fun to watch. The wilting pace also proves to be an asset not a deficiency. I love the way Tod Browning does everything he can in order to make sure we don't forget Dracula when he is off the screen. Browning achieves this by allowing his star Bela Lugosi to set the tempo with his peculiar - and weird - speech affectations. The immediate result of this approach is that one feels Dracula's presence even when we cannot see him; character and story are invariably connected. It all works great because Lugosi is indeed a very original thespian. He was born to play the role. The way Lugosi walks, his strange mannerisms, his slow speech pattern; all these elements are part of the 'Lugosi style.' In direct contrast with what film elitists think, Lugosi's theatrical performance is as good as any great naturalistic work. We now live in an era in which we demand actors to become a character but Lugosi belongs to a time when actors were encouraged to dominate a film. This is why supporters of the auteur theory tend to resent old Hollywood, and why this film has gotten a lot of criticism recently. Lugosi's Dracula is one of the best examples of how effective star quality can be under the right circumstances. The rest of the cast is no match for Lugosi but some of the actors give the star a bit of competition. David Manners is awfully bland, but Dwight Frye and Edward Van Sloan are memorable in supporting roles. The script is mostly based on the famous Broadway play, not Bram Stoker's novel. I don't have a problem with that. The scenes inside the Castle are considered the best in the film, but I disagree with the critical mass. I actually think the film gets better and better. Strangely, the stagier the film gets, the more claustrophobic and spookier it becomes. During its second half, I love the way the film coveys the notion that time is not moving fast enough. I think this film is more than a milestone in the horror genre; it is an effective study in the macabre. Purists, don't hate me, but I actually prefer the version with Philip Glass' magnificent music score. Either version will remain among my favorite chillers of all time.

---

29 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
A horror classic that still thrills and enchants! The most important and influential vampire movie ever made., 12 April 2003
Author: Infofreak from Perth, Australia

It's almost impossible not to love 'Dracula', a horror milestone that is the most important and influential vampire movie ever made. Bela Lugosi became a cinematic legend after this movie, and his portrayal of Dracula basically invented the modern vampire as we know it. Murnau's silent classic 'Nosferatu' was an obvious influence on Todd Browning, but while Browning was no James Whale (the innovative British director who made 'Frankenstein' for Universal a few months after this) he added a lot of his own style and ideas to the project, and Counts Orloff and Dracula are completely different kinds of creatures. Lugosi made his Count sophisticated, attractive and sexy, and this is what made this movie such a sensation at the time, and what helps make it still a wonderful viewing experience. Lugosi's performance is one of the greatest in horror history. Some of the other actors in the cast are a bit shaky but Edward Van Sloan as Van Hesling is excellent and Dwight Frye's Renfield (a different character from the book) is also memorable. Both actors would reappear in 'Frankenstein'. 'Dracula' is an important landmark horror movie, but even better, is still a fantastic viewing experience seventy years later. Don't just watch it because it's a classic, watch it because it's wonderful entertainment!

---

25 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
For my money,the scariest movie ever., 31 October 2001

Author: SmileysWorld from United States

I suppose we all have differing opinions on what is scary and what isn't.For my money though,this film tops my list.I have seen many a horror film,but few have made me shiver as this one did.The creepy silence virtually throughout the movie,coupled with Bela Lugosi's intimidating presence and Dwight Frye's chilling performance as Renfield(remember the eyes and the laughter?)give me chill bumps on top of chill bumps just thinking about it.Yes,the movie has flaws, but they are few and far between.Hey,it was 1931 after all,and movie making was still in it's infancy.I have seen the various opinions on this film,good and bad,and while it may not top a lot of people's list when it comes to scariest movie ever,it sure tops mine.Bone chilling!

---

27 out of 33 people found the following review useful:
Bela Lugosi in the role he was born to play!, 4 January 2005

Author: ACitizenCalledKane from United States

While Tod Browning's Dracula is not the definitive take on the most famous vampire of all time, it is possibly the most memorable one. This is not due to Browning's technical achievements or directorial wizardry, by ANY means. It is due to Bela Lugosi's career-defining portrayal of the title character. Born in what is now Lugoj, Romania, Lugosi brings to the part the flavor of his homeland, making him more believable as Dracula. This other-worldly aesthetic helped to make his performance what many consider the ultimate incarnation of Stoker's Dracula. Having played the Count in Hamilton Deane's Broadway version of Dracula, which started in 1927, Bela Lugosi was more than prepared for the role when it was time to commit it to film. Still struggling with the English language, however, he had to learn his lines phonetically. European accent in tact, he was able to deliver such memorable lines as, "I bid you welcome," "Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make," and, of course, "I am Dracula." His performance alone is reason enough to watch this monster movie classic. If only the rest of the film was as spectacular as Lugosi. Dwight Frye's Renfield, while perhaps a little too over-the-top, is still another highlight to the film, and even Edward Van Sloan's Van Helsing is enough to challenge the might of Count Dracula. The rest of the film is rather flat to me. Now, I know it was made in 1931, and that, at the time, it horrified audiences, but I still stand by my opinion that the overall movie pales in comparison to Bela Lugosi's performance. Everyone else just seemed to be going through the motions, and it seems especially evident while Helen Chandler and David Manners are on screen. They just aren't convincing. I'm not saying that their performances ruin the film. It is still a classic, and certainly worth a viewing, but if you are in the mood for a vampire movie that is worthy of Bram Stoker's name, look no further than F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu. It is much more convincing and even scarier than Tod Browning's Dracula, despite being nine years older and silent. All in all, though, one cannot overlook the stellar performance of Bela Lugosi in the role he was born to play!

---

22 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Scary for it's time, not now. But still it's a classic., 10 January 2004

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois

I loved watching all the older scary movies, because I just think it's important part of history in movies, you see what the time was and the mood. What frightened people and why that was, despite Dracula being somewhat of a yawn to today's generation, this was completely new to the people of 1931, they had never seen anything like it.

This was the first actual taken from Bram Stroker's novel Dracula movie, despite Nosferatu that was silent, could not be brought into the accuracy of the original novel. Also this was the first vampire film with sound. Bela made a great Dracula, I always thought it was kind of funny that he had a fear of blood. He made Dracula into the type cast of today with the whole "Blah's" and "I never drink wine", etc.

1931's Dracula brought nightmares and fear into it's viewers. I hope my generation could understand that, because I think it's important to understand how much these movies frightened our grandparents or great grandparents and why. They don't make movies like this any more, there was no gore needed, just people's imaginations. Whatever happened to that? I would recommend Dracula any time, it's a classic and I hope it stays that way into future generations.

10/10

---

21 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
Still the champ, 11 March 2004
Author: hausrathman

Bela Lugosi forever captures the role of a certain undead Transylvanian count who takes a trip to London in the first legitimate version of the classic Bram Stoker novel. Despite many attempts by many talented film makers, I believe this version, directed by Tod Browning, remains the definitive take on the often-filmed novel. But why? Is it simply nostalgia? Granted, I do fondly remember staying up late as a child watching this film on Ghost Host theater and finding myself suitably frightened. However, if I were the same age today, would I find the film as effective? Would a steady diet of more modern and explicit horror films made me too jaded to enjoy the more subtle charms of this film? I hope not, but I could see how it might. The film is slow, and its slowness is further emphasized by the absence of an under score. It is stagey - being as it was more influenced by the stage play than the novel itself. Also, the story plays itself out too quickly. Van Helsing manages to figure everything out and dispatch the count in about two seconds. There simply isn't much suspense - and even less gore or violence. Yet it remains the champ. Why? The main reason is Lugosi himself. He gives the performance of a lifetime. He truly inhabits the role and is genuinely creepy. The rest of the cast, particularly Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield, support him admirably. However, when I watch the old Universal horror films nowadays, I find myself really enjoying the atmospheric sets and lighting. Yes, there is still much to love about Dracula today. (As long as you avoid the optional Philip Glass score on the DVD!)

---

16 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Lugosi's Triumph, 23 July 2004

Author: Arriflex1 from Beyond The Cosmos

Tod Browning's film of the Stoker novel didn't so much eclipse Murnau's NOSFERATU (1922) as shove it into antiquity. One big reason was the technological advancement of sound. Roughly three years old by 1930, the public embraced the talking picture wholeheartedly over silents.

The other big reason for Dracula's success was that the star of the stage play had been cast as the star of the film. And movie history was made. Bela Lugosi's Count Dracula is now a seventy-four year old icon, outlasting all other interpretations before or since. The twist is that this Dracula looks nothing like Stoker's creation (read the book). Lugosi, either through his work with the playwrights or later at Universal with Browning, devised the most insidious form the character would ever take- a handsome, courtly, well-groomed, civilized aristocrat, so gracious and attractive that he projected an aura of well-being over the viewer. This was worlds away from the Murnau/Max Schreck approach of head-on abomination in NOSFERATU.

Sensibly, no one in their right mind would stay within viewing distance of Schreck (or Kinski in NOSFERATU, THE VAMPYRE and Dafoe in SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE) after the first glimpse. But Lugosi's Count would have you chatting and drinking wine- until he began to drink of you. That cape and those evening clothes are the perfect deception. Browning's Dracula is sometimes stagy and tentative in its continuity (it feels at times that the director was unsure where to go next in the progression of scenes). But Karl Freund's photography summons up a persistent mood of heavy gloom and enveloping dread.

Two other assets in the film are Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield. Van Sloan was Universal's resident Learned Man, appearing as an Egyptologist in THE MUMMY (1933), and perhaps most famously as Dr. Waldman in FRANKENSTEIN (1931). A career-long character actor, Dwight Frye was an eccentric talent who appears to have worked exclusively at Universal. He had his best role as Renfield, producing a still blood-curdling, sneering laugh that seemed to come from the depths of a hellish insanity. If you haven't seen this Dracula please do so. The Count awaits.

---

23 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Classic Movie from Universal Studios, 16 February 2005

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

The real estate agent Remfield (Dwight Frye) travels to Transilvania for a business meeting with Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), who is interested in Carfax Abbey in London. Remfield is converted in a servant of Dracula and prepares his master's ship travel to his new a property. While navigating, Dracula sucks the blood and kills all the crew of the vessel. Once in London, Dracula sucks the blood of Lucy Weston (Frances Dade) and she becomes an undead. He feels also a kind of passion for Mina Seward (Helen Chandler), the daughter of Dr. Jack Seward (Herbert Bunston) and fiancée of Jonathan Harker (David Manners). Draculas sucks her blood, Mina has a weird behavior and health problem, and Dr. Seward calls a specialist, Prof. Abraham Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), to diagnose the mysterious problem with Mina. Although being a scientist, Van Helsing believes in supernatural, and tries to save Mina from becoming a vampire. "Dracula" is a spectacular well-known classic vampire story, with a magnificent transposition of the Bram Stoker's novel to the cinema. Although being a 1931 black and white movie, the photography and the camera work are excellent. There are at least two magnificent scenes: the long traveling of the camera in the sanatorium, from the yard to Remfield's room and the long stairway in the end of the movie to Dracula's tomb. The performances are quite theatrical, as usual in that period, and the film does not show any explicit violent scene. I dare to say that probably it is Bela Lugosi's best performance. "Universal Studios" released in Brazil a wonderful box, with the shape of a coffin, called "Classic Monster Collection" with eight classic horror movies on DVD. Maybe "Dracula" is may favorite one. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Drácula"

---

---

Page 1 of 22:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history