Dracula (1931)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Zach B

  
  To look at this film with the eyes of someone who has grown up with horror films that had the advantage of hitting more nerves than a doctor, it is difficult to look at this film as a horror film. But, that should not suggest that this is a terrible film. Oh, no. No. No. In fact, to… More
  To look at this film with the eyes of someone who has grown up with horror films that had the advantage of hitting more nerves than a doctor, it is difficult to look at this film as a horror film. But, that should not suggest that this is a terrible film. Oh, no. No. No. In fact, to put it mildly, this is a great film and one that proves again that the time for great horror films was in the thirties to sixties and by Universal. The story of this film every living person knows of and that is a reason why this film does not have the punch it could have had. This film is one of pure influence on pop culture from the stander of a vampire to the way the character of Dracula is presented. As such, the images that made this film great have been bastardize over time. However, if you are able to block out the ways in which this film has been ruined, what you are left with is a film the is eerie, creepy, and sort of like watching a Nightmarish stage play. Tod Browning is probably the best man at the time to do this film. With the rise of horror films and Hollywood wanting to make an official version of Dracula (already in existence at the time was F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu), a typical director would have made a straight adaption which would be good, but would be compared to Nosferatu (granted, in the 1990's Francis Ford Coppola would go on to make another straight adaption). Basing this film on the stage play, what we get is a version of the tale that flows more easily, gives the impression that this is real, and provides people with a feel of eeriness. Granted, by today's standards, something like rubber bats being flown around the screen are aggravating and just ridiculous. But that is all part of the magic of the film: to make it seem more like it is on stage. With that in mind, Browning does a wonderful job with this film. Now, there is one thing I must talk about: Bela Lugosi's performance as the evil Count Dracula. Like with the direction, I am glad Lugosi did not have himself look like Max Shrek at all. While that look worked for Shrek, this Dracula works because he is presented as a typical man. Just like the random guy you will meet while walking down the road. Then you have Lugosi's voice that as now become a staple for all Dracula's: thick accent, slow speech, very charming. It is rumored and is a myth that Lugosi could not speak English during the making of this film. Well, that is kind of false seeing as how he lived in America for about a bloody decade. So, why did he make Dracula speak in the way he does? Simple: Dracula has spent years studying English, but rarely gets a chance to use it. Seeing as how he lives in Romania, he has to speak the native tongue in that area to get around. Same thing with his movements: creepy, a little nerve racking, and always disturbing. Even more when he fixes his eyes and the penlight shines in them. It is quite sad that I rarely hear anything about Dwight Frye's performance as Renfield. Next to Lugosi's, Frye's is the best in the entire film. The reason is due to how he changes on a dime from being insane to being completely normal. If anything, he is more disturbing than Dracula. Mainly with his cracked voice, his laugh, and the way he acts when describing what Dracula has offered him. Watching his performance is like meeting something of a real lunatic in today's age. As I said: pity he is not recognized enough anymore. This being a horror film, is it scary? No. Not at all. But is it a great film? Yes, due to the accomplishments it created in the horror genre, the impact it has left on people, and the way it set the stander for all Vampire films. Granted, this film is heavily outdated with some of the most overacting I have ever seen, but come on. This was made in the 1930's and most of these people (mainly the extras) were probably taken from the Broadway show. So, this was to be expected. But if this film has proven anything, it is that Bela Lugosi is still the true modern Dracula.

• Tim S

  
  As with Boris Karloff's role in Frankenstein, Dracula forever-defined Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula - something that brought him great fame and fortune yet haunted him through all of his career. Tod Browning's 1931 adaptation of the stage play was a big hit in the U.S.,… More
  As with Boris Karloff's role in Frankenstein, Dracula forever-defined Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula - something that brought him great fame and fortune yet haunted him through all of his career. Tod Browning's 1931 adaptation of the stage play was a big hit in the U.S., despite there being a superior version shot simultaneously in Spanish for the foreign market. Dwight Frye's portrayal of Renfield has never been more creepy and Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing has rarely been beaten. This film is so beautiful to look at despite its age, and it's one that continues to play regularly in my home every Halloween.

• Lee ?

  
  You may chuckle at the sight of the fake looking bats and the over-theactrical acting, you may even nod off due to the slow-pacing, but this film is an undeniable classic and highly influencial on the horror genre. It may have lost its scare appeal but it does retain its eerie gothic… More
  You may chuckle at the sight of the fake looking bats and the over-theactrical acting, you may even nod off due to the slow-pacing, but this film is an undeniable classic and highly influencial on the horror genre. It may have lost its scare appeal but it does retain its eerie gothic atmosphere.

• Michael E

  
  bela lugosi did a fantastic job as dracula but this movie was such a disappointment. now ive read the book before and the whole movie just fell flat to me. Now it wasnt terrible ive seen worse but this movie is just not that entertaining to sit down and watch

• AJ V

  
  Lugosi's famous role, Dracula, will never be played this way again. He is brilliant, and this movie is spectacular. I love it.

• danny d

  
  this classic never gets old, and in fact seems to become even more charming with time. so simple, but highly entertaining, the film contains perfect characterizations and a short and manageable running time. this will forever be a horror staple.

• Chris W

  
  Ah yes, along with the two Frankenstein films by James Whale, this is one of the most important and influential horror films not only of its time, but all time. This is really Lugosi's show,providing the characterization that has basically become the definitive one any time… More
  Ah yes, along with the two Frankenstein films by James Whale, this is one of the most important and influential horror films not only of its time, but all time. This is really Lugosi's show,providing the characterization that has basically become the definitive one any time someone mentions or thinks of Dracula-from the look to the mannerisms, and voice. Dwight Frye is also very good as the maniacial Renfield, given the second best performance of the film. This is more of a chiller than a gruesome slasher type film. It's creepy, atmospheric, moody, and has a very ethereal quality about it. All of this is supported by great art direction, set design, lighting, and the absence of music. This was one of the first sound films, and, aside from the titles, there's no other music, and very little other sound, save for dialogue and some of the sound effects. This adds to the atmosphere, but also makes it hard to sit through. Indeed, considering its length, this is a slow film, and I'll admit i had a hard time getting through it. Despite all that though, this is one of those films that is required viewing hands down.

• Conner R

  
  For its time, it is great. While I am not a fan of Bela Lugosi's Dracula at all, the rest of the film is almost flawless. Renfield was always the creepiest character, his eyes and crazy make-up is just so bizarre. The look and style is still amazing to this day. It is perfectly… More
  For its time, it is great. While I am not a fan of Bela Lugosi's Dracula at all, the rest of the film is almost flawless. Renfield was always the creepiest character, his eyes and crazy make-up is just so bizarre. The look and style is still amazing to this day. It is perfectly outfitted in the gothic tone.

• Randy T

  
  The genesis of Universal's classic horror era, Todd Browning's <i>Dracula</i> has, sadly, not withstood the test of time quite as well as it's namesake. Even so, Lugosi's performance is nothing short of iconic and is still considered the definitive… More
  The genesis of Universal's classic horror era, Todd Browning's <i>Dracula</i> has, sadly, not withstood the test of time quite as well as it's namesake. Even so, Lugosi's performance is nothing short of iconic and is still considered the definitive personification of what a vampire is supposed to be. This might be the most influential film ever made.

• Phil H

  
  The original classic, this is beautiful stuff, Lugosi is awesome and the look is terrific. Its not really sexy as some Dracs are but the acting is just great. There's just something about the old black and white horror flicks.

• moon r

  
  one of a kind, genre producing, life affirming, low on calories, and good for your liver, what more could you ask for?

• Jason S

  
  A classic of horror. It still works after all these years and I think it comes off more frightening than a lot of modern day re hashes.

• Chris G

  
  The first great Universal monster movie Dracula stars Bela Lugosi as the Count in the classic Bram Stoker tale of his trip to England, seduction of women and confrontation with Van Helsing. Directed by Tod Browning, who would go on and direct the equally impressive Freaks, Dracula… More
  The first great Universal monster movie Dracula stars Bela Lugosi as the Count in the classic Bram Stoker tale of his trip to England, seduction of women and confrontation with Van Helsing. Directed by Tod Browning, who would go on and direct the equally impressive Freaks, Dracula is shot in such a style that it soon becomes its own entity. The film is its own style with shadow playing a huge role and the dank and dusty castles and caves soon becoming standard vampire movie fodder. The real greatness in Dracula comes from Bela Lugosi. I own a copy of Stokers novel and who does Dracula look like on the cover? That's right. He created the role for the stage and made it an icon on the screen. No one ever filled Lugosi's shoes in the 75 + years since the release of the film. It's easy to see how Dracula scared the hell out of audiences back in the '30's. Not only was he the walking dead, he was also an erotic character to a degree. Lugosi's presence was center stage in the film. Of the Universal monsters Dracula was the first and one of the best (I have to tie him with Frankenstein). A classic tale that never really had justice to it in the decades sine its original release.

• Pierluigi P

  
  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… More
  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.

• Cassandra M

  
  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… More
  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!

• Cindy I

  
  A bit stagy and dated, but Bela Legosi is still the best Dracula.

• Morgan S

  
  Lugsi is really creepy his eyes just dig into you. in the movie the part fits him perfectly. he is the original vampire.great movie. renfield is creepy too with those phyco eyes and laugh! Bela Lugosi is way better than karloff. its funny how u can see the string on bat in that one… More
  Lugsi is really creepy his eyes just dig into you. in the movie the part fits him perfectly. he is the original vampire.great movie. renfield is creepy too with those phyco eyes and laugh! Bela Lugosi is way better than karloff. its funny how u can see the string on bat in that one part

• Antony S

  
  In my honest opinion, Browning's Dracula is highly overrated. It starts marvellously, with Lugosi making an iconic prescence as the titular sexual predator. The shots of his castle look excellent as well, the look inspired by German expressionism and offering up some striking… More
  In my honest opinion, Browning's Dracula is highly overrated. It starts marvellously, with Lugosi making an iconic prescence as the titular sexual predator. The shots of his castle look excellent as well, the look inspired by German expressionism and offering up some striking cinematography. The problem is, that with such a solid start, by the time the film gets round to the events in England, nearly all atmosphere and tension are drained by some highly wooden performances and stagey direction (the actor who plays Renfield is particularly iresome). This conspires to make the picture decidedly dull only half an hour into the proceedings, an unforgivable crime considering the consistent power of seminal pseudo-Dracula pic Nosferatu, not to mention it being far less scary. Some praise must be given to the influence of the film, Lugosi's performance sets the benchmark even now, and the set design still inspires seventy years on. And of course, just because a film paved the way doesn't make it a perfect film in itself, and lord knows Dracula isn't.

• Michael G

  
  The atmosphere is more creepy than the actual action. And to think there was a time when this movie would make people faint...

• Paris S

  
  This is a horror classic beyond critique; it begs to be watched. Turn out the lights and enter a sanguine dream saturated with sensual menace and enigmatic charm. This is the quintessential Dracula, the standard by which all others are measured. The film starts off in Dracula's… More
  This is a horror classic beyond critique; it begs to be watched. Turn out the lights and enter a sanguine dream saturated with sensual menace and enigmatic charm. This is the quintessential Dracula, the standard by which all others are measured. The film starts off in Dracula's Transylvanian haunt. The dilapidated Gothic architecture and scenery instantly covey a sense of foreboding and mystique. Many feel the film loses a bit of its vibe when the location changes, but ultimately we get to witness Lugosi let loose on London, and the desperation really sets in as the hapless townsfolk are powerless against his will. Lugosi's gaze defies explanation, and throughout the entire film you'll be hard pressed to ever see him so much as blink. In London, Dracula's very much an outsider, but strange and captivating as he is, the women he accosts are instantly absorbed, even at his most off kilter and conniving. But Dracula isn't the only reason to watch this film. Dwight Frye's Renfield is a jarring madman, capable of making women faint with his twisted laughter. He steals his scenes in all but his brief moments with Dracula. Van Helsing, played by Edward Van Sloan, has a great bit when confronted by Dracula. The two stand face to face, Helsing having deduced that Dracula is actually a vampire. Dracula commands him with his gaze, and you can see Van Helsing being manipulated as he fights against the compulsion, all without words exchanged between either of them. The film has some underlying themes of repressed sexuality, fear of the unknown, etc., but even without these, the film could still stand based on the performances of its actors and the moody vibe it presents. It's a certifiable classic and a wonderful piece of film history. It's one of the first films to feature sound, but the absence of any music throughout (aside from one scene taking place in a theater) enhances the captivating, dream like atmosphere. Watch it in the glow of your TV on a cold and stormy night.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings