Surprisingly, Dracula has never really been a favorite among critics. Like Frankenstein, the other Universal horror blockbuster from the same year, it wasn't nominated for any Academy Awards.
In the decades that followed, the influence of Dracula was obvious, from sets featuring immense, empty castles lined with dust and cobwebs, to actors imitating Bela Lugosi's curious diction. But the praise heaped on James Whale's Frankenstein rarely found its way to Dracula.
Criticism of the film takes many forms. It is not as good as the 1922 silent classic Nosferatu. Once the location shifts to London, it becomes as static as the Broadway play upon which it was based. The acting isn't that good. It is 'dated', meaning that it doesn't match the gore and violence expected from 'modern' horror films.
Such criticism ultimately reveals more about how today's Universal Studios would have made the film, than it exposes any 'weaknesses' in the original film itself. Today, the good doctor would be shown pounding the wooden stake into Dracula's heart, all the while with the vampire's fists clutching at the doctor's throat. Horror can be implied, or made obvious. There's room enough for both styles. Complaints about pacing or a lack of action are about expectations and not content. Dracula is only about 75 minutes long, and not one of them is boring.
Although Nosferatu is a good film, it is not at the same level as another German silent classic, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. While Dracula is not as great as that film, I believe it to be better than Nosferatu.
Of course, the characters are exaggerated. Dracula's thirst for blood seems mostly limited to attractive blonde Englishwomen, who are predictably demure, virginal, and defenseless. Our heroine Mina (Helen Chandler) has an excitable but clueless betrothed (David Manners).
Fortunately for them both, there is a doctor in the house. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) is an expert on vampires and is well stocked with wolfbane. The doctor is quite selfless, risking his life to save the throats of London, and he doesn't even ask a fee for his services. He's nearly as creepy as Dracula himself, but his pronouncements on vampires go remarkably unopposed. But then, everyone else in the cast is stupid, and in dire need of his judgment.
Meanwhile, Dwight Frye camps it up as Renfield, Dracula's wild-eyed slave. Renfield is present for comic relief, especially his speech about preferring juicy spiders over flies. (Never mind that insects are considered a delicacy in many cultures.)
But the stereotypes mostly work anyway, because they fit within the style of the film. Director Tod Browning creates suspense through the slow transformation of Mina from innocent socialite to Bride of Dracula, while always dangling hope that she can be returned from the ranks of the Undead. Dracula, through his special effects and mind control, has many tools at his disposal and seems to have little to fear from the know-it-all doctor.
Lugosi's performance was so memorable that he would be forever associated with it. Eventually, he would become a caricature of himself, his career finally reduced to Ed Wood's laughably dismal Plan 9 from Outer Space (1958). Lugosi had starred in the Broadway play, but was not the first choice for the role. Legendary horror actor Lon Chaney was originally cast, but he died before the production could begin.
The DVD for Dracula contains three different versions of the film. The first is the one that we are most familiar with, starring Lugosi and having almost no musical score. The second is the same film, but with a new score by much praised composer Philip Glass. It is repetitive and heavy on the violins, and performed by the Kronos Quartet.
My opinion is that adding a score to a talkie is as bad as colorizing a black and white film. Not only is it tampering, but the score interferes with the sounds of the original film. If this practice of 'improving' old classics continues, expect to see a subsequent DVD release of Dracula having Jim Carrey digitally inserted as the campy Renfield.
The third version of Dracula on the new DVD is the Spanish language production. It used the same sets on the Universal lot, and had the same basic story. However, this production had a completely different cast and crew. It was also some 25 minutes longer, and had many minor differences in the script and story.
The Spanish version is more lurid, making it more entertaining for those who cut their horror teeth on Jamie Lee Curtis or Jennifer Love Hewitt. However, George Melford simply was not as good a director as Tod Browning, while Carlos Villarias lacked Lugosi's distinctive style. Modern political correctness has exaggerated the quality of the Spanish language version of Dracula, at the expense of its more 'static' contemporary. (78/100)
Although there have been numerous screen versions of bramstoker s classic tale, none is more enduring than this 1931original with a masterful performa...More at Buy.com Marketplaces
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.