Rate It
|
||||||||||||||||
Rating Averages
My Friends |
Not rated. () |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
All Flixster |
(9034) |
4506 |
18163 |
Female |
(3795) |
1893 |
7629 |
Male |
(5239) |
2613 |
10534 |
More Like This
If you liked this, then you'll also probably like...
Got another recommendation for someone who liked this movie? Add it to the list!
Got an opinion? Use the buttons to vote on all the suggestions people have added.
If lots of people vote, the best suggestions will rise to the top.
| Bram Stoker's Dracula (79%) |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| The Corpse Vanishes (25%) |
|
|
| Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (50%) |
|
|
| Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (25%) |
|
|
| The Mummy (40%) |
|
|
Plot:
After a harrowing ride through the Carpathian mountains in eastern Europe, Renfield enters castle Dracula to finalize the transferral of Carfax Abbey in London to Count Dracula, who is in actuality a ...( read more 
)
Meet Other Fans
ONLINE NOW
Recent Reviews
-
MCT:July 28, 2008NOTE: This is a review of the original print from the "Universal Monsters Classic Collection" that was released on VHS years ago.
"Renfield" (Dwight Frey) has traveled from London to Transylvania on business at "Castle Dracula," a run-down castle owned by the mysterious "Count Dracula" (Bela Lugosi in his most famous role which he first performed on stage). The "Count" has decided to leave his native country for London, where he has rented property, to which "Renfield" is bringing him the lease to sign, despite being warned not to go to the castle by fellow passengers on the coach he is riding to the village "Castle Dracula" looks over, and the villagers -- all of which believe that Castle Dracula is home to vampires.
The "Count," who indeed is a vampire, quick;y gains "Renfield's" trust and offers him something to eat. He then places "Renfield" under his power. "Renfield" becomes "Dracula's" maniacal servant who craves the blood of small insects.
"Dracula," with "Renfield" in tow, then travels on the "Schooner Vesta" to London. The ship drifts into Whitby Harbor following a violent storm -- with the crew dead, and the captain tied to the wheel. Those who come on board to investigate, heard only in voice-over, then discover "Renfield" down in in the ship's hold. A newspaper report, written after the ship drifted into the harbor, then reports that "Renfield," the reported sole survivor, has been admitted to "Seward Sanitarium," run by "Dr. Jack Seward" (Herbert Bunston).
"Dr. Seward," who lives at the sanitarium with his daughter "Mina" (Helen Chandler), calls upon "Prof. Van Helsing" (Edward Van Sloan) to consult on the "Renfield" case and study "Mina's" friend "Lucy" (Frances Dade), who has become one of the vampire's first British victims.
Now, "Van Helsing," "Dr. Seward," and "Mina's" fiance, "John Harker (David Manners) must race to save "Mina," whom "Dracula" has targeted as his next victim, from the world of the undead.
Based on the Broadway play, which itself was based on Bram Stoker's famed novel, the movie has wonderful sets, eerie lighting, a few good performances and some really campy performances.
Two performances which really stand out from the rest are Frey and Lugosi himself. Both make their characters really freaky which really helps set the tone of the film. Van Sloan also brings a pretty strong performance. On the other hand, most of the minor supporting cast bring laughable performances, which I do not think was intended.
Light and shadow help set the mood of this film. When "Dracula" is hypnotizing his intended victim, everything except his eyes are in shadow. Because of the topic of the film, which was released on Valentine's Day 1931, many of the outdoor scenes, which are obviously on a soundstage, are foggy nights. With dim light, and fog, this also helps set the tone of the film.
Because of the time of the movie's release, there is absolutely no blood, nor is "Dracula's" attacks violent. However, in your mind, you will know what happens -- and that helps make this movie scary. Another thing that helps make this film scary is that there is no music, except from a music box in one scene and an orchestra in another.
One problem with this movie is sound. In a few scenes, it is painfully obvious that there is only one microphone recording the sound. In these scenes, the performers are far from the microphone and are barely audible. Another problem is that some subplots are not resolved, and leaves some questions.
The special effects are very cheap compared to today's standards. It is very obvious that some animals, including the bat which "Dracula" turns into, are fake. Another special effect is the distant sound of a howling wolf, that is established by the dialogue as one of the creatures "Dracula" turns into.
Much of the dialogue, like many of the performances, are pretty laughable. However, these lines are forgettable. There are also some scenes which will drag a little.
One thing I suggest you do when watching the original print, which has no soundtrack, unlike a special 1999 print that has a soundtrack added in, is watch this movie at night, with the lights off and either nobody else in the house or asleep. This situation will help play the mind games you will need to help scare you. -
MCT:July 26, 2008
One of the best free adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel, and arguably, the film that started universal pictures' famous and significant monster series. Bela Lugosi renders the mythical Transylvanian vampire Count Dracula with unnerving distinction, making his incarnation the best known for any human being.
-
MCT:July 4, 2008
Honestly, I didn't go for the horror kick. I'm not the biggest horror fan in the world. It just so happened that I have to knock out all the stuff I bought, which happened to be a horror box set. Then, to break up the set, I watched my copy of Dracula, which I haven't watched before.
My biggest issue is that I bought the original Legacy Edition of this movie. I didn't think about that when I opened that can of worms. There's two other movies on the disc: Dracula's Daughter and Son of Dracula. Yeah, I should have planned better because I imagine that those aren't very good. This one wasn't even the greatest movie in the world. But it is classic in itself. Hopefully, I can stay objective and review it the way it should be reviewed. The bigger issue is that this is another one of the movies that my parents let me watch over and over as a child. God, it just makes sense why I'm f*cked up to write tomes about every movie I see.
Here's the thing that I really like about this movie. I think the Renfield stuff is some really good stuff. Dwight Frye plays this really over-the-top, but creepy as hell character. Honestly, after memorizing this storyline backwards and forwards, my favorite aspect is Renfield. He's just this really normal guy who goes absolutely berserk. Not only that, but on top of his insanity, he starts to show vampire like tendencies. As far as I know, Dracula never feeds on him or shares his blood with Renfield. The character is simply the slave of Dracula. All the stuff with eating bugs, or "small lives," all comes from him. He still shares in some of Dracula's weaknesses too. The one thing that I think that Browning really touched on well with this character is his dual nature in his insanity. He worships Dracula and would die for him in a second, yet begs for freedom, betraying him time and time again. He has this mixed fear and love for his master within the story. He is afraid of his wrath and wishes to hold onto life, but will take chances to help Mina Harker in the story. That strange duality is what makes his story extremely compelling and I really dig that stuff.
But the rest of the movie is a bit rough for me. Tod Browning really impressed me with Freaks. He showed off his directing chops, mixing the respectful and the exploitive at the same time. Freaks was made a year later, so maybe Browning learned from this movie, but this movie suffers from the problems a lot of early talkies do. There's this very "silent movie" pacing, where information is slow to come by and there's not a lot of blocking because camera movement is always problematic. Instead of making the movie scary, there's just moments of boredom. I also understand that special effects were different at the time, but I think that there are some movies that shouldn't be made because the effects woun't work like they should. Now, I'm not saying all special effects are terrible, but there's bad and then there's silly. I think the bat effects are just silly. The titular character repeatedly turns into a bat. Now, I've seen animation on top of film and I think that is far more convincing than a bat on a string bobbing up and down and not moving in any direction. It's not like basic science has changed in the past eighty years. Bats still flew in a direction. I don't know why these decisions were made, but apparently it is hard to critique an 80-year-old movie's special effects. I have the same complaint about early comic book art, but that's not appropriate for Flixster.
Yes, this movie is a classic and I think everyone should see it. The reason I can justify it is the slightly over 70 minute runtime. I always have to respect Mr. Browning for that. He knows ow to make his movies short and to the point. Like I mentioned with the Renfield character, there's some good stuff. (Renfield looking out of the holds of the ship...creepy as hell.) But realize that it doesn't necessarily hold up and I'm amazed how many Universal Monster movies were made that were in league with Dracula. -
MCT:June 19, 2008I don't care what any of you might think of the old Count, Dracula is still the original gangsta of bloodsuckers, suckas.
If it weren't for him, Count Chocula cereal would just be called Chocolate Flavored Cereal Wit' Chocolate Flavored Marshmellows In It.
So pay 'em his due propers.
Suckas. -
MCT:June 13, 2008Not very true to the book, but then, technically, it's not based on the book. So all you purists, shut the fuck up. It's based on two different plays that were based on the book, good luck keeeping that all together as close as you can. Bela Lugosi is captivating. A very great film.
-
MCT:May 29, 2008
Tod Browning's 1931 classic still holds up very nicely today. Bella Legosi's performance is still one of the greatest I've ever seen in a horror film.
-
Cheesy, classic, but cheesy. A sort of disregard for historical Dracula & traditional vampires of Eastern Europe.
-
MCT:April 29, 2008
Sure, by today's standards it's really cheesy, but Bela Lugosi is one creepy dude, plus it isn't that bad a movie (even if they did butcher the novel) PLUS, it's a classic horror film and a classic Vampire film. Still, if you don't like old movies, don't even bother.
-
MCT:April 27, 2008Ive been told, and looked around on the interent, that Bela Lugosi is the best Dracula ever so i really want to see this.
-
MCT:April 26, 2008
Hello BELA LUGOSI.. The Man was (suppose) to have been Burrined in his Dracula cape!!! Now THAT's Dedication
-
MCT:March 22, 2008
Well this is a wonderful movie and creepy as all at the same time. Watching it at night really scared me more than any other modern "horror" movie. The filming of it was beautiful with a great eye of execution and the lighting was done perfectly to bring the gaze and atmosphere of the audiance into the story. The acting brought it all together - it just isn't what you see anymore.
-
MCT:March 8, 2008
Dracula is one of my least favorite of the Universal horror movies, but it still makes a great movie. Some scenes are very disturbing and scary, and some are just boring.
-
MCT:March 7, 2008
One of horror cinema's most sacared classics, nicely adapted from Bram Stoker's novel. Bella Lugosi gives the performance as a lifetime as the greatest Dracula of them all.
-
MCT:March 4, 2008
It was such a great experience watching this film. Seeing the "special effects" nowadays is hilarious of course. But except for that, the movie has perfectly survived in time. The performances are good, the film never fails to entertain and the atmosphere that they created is fabulous, so dark and gloomy, with those castles and those outfits. I really liked it!!
-
MCT:February 5, 2008
I love everything about this classic, but boy do I ever love Renfield. Lugosi is iconic in his role and the movie has a great sense of atmospherd. Browning did an amazing job, I'm still looking forward to see the Spanish version shot on the same set though, which I hear tell is even more atmospheric. Also, the new Kronos Quartet score is fantastic.
-
MCT:December 30, 2007
When many people think of the movie Dracula today, most people automatically think Bela Lugosi. And Bela Lugosi was phenomenal as dracula, but how anyone can forget Dwight Frye as Renfield is beyond me as it was Dwight Frye who really stole the show. Sure it si outdated, but this stil has a bit of a creepiness and a sexuality to it.
-
MCT:November 29, 2007
Classic Universal horror with Bela Lugosi unforgetable as the Count.....although not as good as FRANKENSTEIN or THE WOLF MAN, IMO....this movie is still up there as a classic.
-
MCT:November 15, 2007
Another brilliant novel that gave way to an equally brilliant movie. This is in the top five of my personal favorite list. Bela is the one true Dracula, no one will ever do it better. Not even Brad Pitt.
-
MCT:November 4, 2007
Plot Outline:
After a harrowing ride through the Carpathian mountains in eastern Europe, Renfield enters castle Dracula to finalize the transferral of Carfax Abbey in London to Count Dracula, who is in actuality a vampire. Renfield is drugged by the eerily hypnotic count, and turned into one of his thralls, protecting him during his sea voyage to London. After sucking the blood and turning the young Lucy Weston into a vampire, Dracula turns his attention to her friend Mina Seward, daughter of Dr. Seward who then calls in a specialist, Dr. Van Helsing, to diagnose the sudden deterioration of Mina's health. Van Helsing, realizing that Dracula is indeed a vampire, tries to prepare Mina's fiance, John Harker, and Dr. Seward for what is to come and the measures that will have to be taken to prevent Mina from becoming one of the undead. -
MCT:October 30, 2007As old as this movie is, you'd still think it had a scary or maybe even gory element to it; it doesn't. lt's completely boring.
-
MCT:September 26, 2007
I don't think any other movie has made me feel as cold as this one. The dark atmosphere of this film completely gives me chills each time I watch it... Bela gives off an impressive performance as his one and only role as Dracula.
-
MCT:September 11, 2007Solidly iconic but as a film profesor once said "Its so bleedjin slow." How could such a short film seem so dull for such long stretches.
-
MCT:August 29, 2007
A classic that paved the way for all that came after it. While many heap praise onto Frankenstein as the premiere monster movie of the Universal era, it isn't often noted that Dracula came first- that, in fact, it was Dracula's success that encouraged Universal to make Frankenstein in the first place. Of course, Dracula is not without its flaws: it had no score to speak of, as director Tod Browning was unused to the sound equipment needed to create one; it becomes abysmally slow in the middle of the film, as we trade the vast and ominous sets of the Count's castles for a Victorian drawing-room for one third of the picture; and actor David Manners is about as expressive as a Ken Doll in the role of Jonathan Harker. But the main draw of the film lies in its eponymous main character, and Bela Lugosi does not disappoint. Every movement, every look, every pause in speech- all come across as coldly calculated, even as the Count oozes charm and behaves almost annoyingly polite. The distanced eeriness of Lugosi's portrayal is starkly contrasted by Dwight Frye's Renfield, a role played with such gleeful relish that he can't help but steal every scene he's in. While it has it's problems, Dracula is a landmark in cinema history, and a genuinely entertaining voyage through the superstitious, shadowy places where brave men fear to tread.
My Friends Said...
Dracula Recent Reviews
Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !
Comments
-
Aritosgoldposted 293 days ago
