Drácula (Dracula, Spanish Version) (1931)

73% of users liked it
(3,300 ratings)

Filmed simultaneously (and on the same sets) as the Bela Lugosi version of Dracula, this Spanish-language version is in many ways an improvement upon the original. Whereas the English-language version (directed by Tod Browning), is stylish and atmospheric only in its first two reels, the Spanish… More Filmed simultaneously (and on the same sets) as the Bela Lugosi version of Dracula, this Spanish-language version is in many ways an improvement upon the original. Whereas the English-language version (directed by Tod Browning), is stylish and atmospheric only in its first two reels, the Spanish Dracula sustains its eeriness throughout. The latter version is also more effective in emphasizing the eroticism inherent in the Stoker novel; the leading ladies, notably Lupita Tovar, are dressed (or undressed) far more provocatively than their American counterparts, while their facial expressions upon making contact with the charismatic Dracula betray a carnal yearning that the American actresses only hinted at. Moreover, the Spanish Dracula fills in several continuity gaps in the American film, especially in its detailing of the Count's journey from Transylvania to England. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi

Rating, Runtime: Unrated, 1 hr. 44 min.
Directed By: George Melford
Written By: Garrett Fort, Baltasar Fernández Cué
Genres: Drama, Horror, Art House & International

In Theaters: Mar 20, 1931 Wide
On DVD: Sep 10, 1992

Critic Reviews

Tim Brayton, Antagony & Ecstasy
The quick cash-in proves to be a much more mature and comprehensible work... even as it makes a couple of mistakes that Browning was able to avoid.
Tim Dirks, Tim Dirks' The Greatest Films
Dracula (1931) is one of the earliest classic American horror films from Carl Laemmle's Universal Pictures - an acclaimed masterpiece directed by Tod Browning...
David Cornelius, eFilmCritic.com
An impressive curiosity.

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

Featured Audience Ratings

Randy T

Although the cinematography is more atmospheric than the Tod Browning version, it's obvious that Carlos Villarias is no Bela Lugosi.
Wahida K

As said before there are a lot of Dracula Movies out there from Blockbusters to B ones. Its the old same thing, just tiny bits difference sometimes.
Greg S

Filmed at night using Spanish-speaking actors on the same sets the Tod Browning/Bela Lugosi crew used in the day, this is an alternate version of the Dracula story. Melford's variation is more eerie and atmospheric than the English language version, and less stagebound; if… More
Filmed at night using Spanish-speaking actors on the same sets the Tod Browning/Bela Lugosi crew used in the day, this is an alternate version of the Dracula story. Melford's variation is more eerie and atmospheric than the English language version, and less stagebound; if Lugosi had starred in this one, it could have been the greatest horror movie ever made.
Byron B

Very interesting seeing the same sets and most of the same scenes from the Bela Lugosi Dracula of the same year given extra life in this Spanish language version. Universal had the English speaking cast and crew shooting on the sets in the day and the Spanish speaking cast and crew… More
Very interesting seeing the same sets and most of the same scenes from the Bela Lugosi Dracula of the same year given extra life in this Spanish language version. Universal had the English speaking cast and crew shooting on the sets in the day and the Spanish speaking cast and crew shooting over night, with the Spanish version to be released in their Latin market at the same time as the American version was released. An anecdote shared on a special feature doc was that the Hispanic crew would arrive early to see the dailies that the Americans had shot and then try to do better. I believe it in most cases. The script, costumes, blocking, and framing of shots were not exactly the same as in the more well known version. When compared next to the classic version it is a mixed bag with some elements coming across stronger and some weaker. Other people here on Flixster have stated it before, however I'll repeat that Carlos Villarias as Count Dracula is not as strong of a performer. Though I didn't realize until I saw this version with a very toothy Dracula that neither Villarias or Lugosi wear prominent fangs. Lupita Tovar as Eva instead of Mina wears flimsier outfits and gives a good performance, except that the scene when she tries to bite her fiancee does not seem as lustful as the Americans were able to pull off. Norton as Juan Harker, which makes me giggle, seemed more concerned for Eva and physically willing to confront the Count. Similarly Arozamena (Van Helsing) portrays a bulkier, slightly younger, and more physically able force against Dracula's evil. Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield overall gives a more nuanced and believable portrayal of madness. Renfield has surely been bitten by Dracula. But he is not fully a vampire. He must do Dracula's will and needs to drink blood, but is too squeamish to feed on humans. Also several of the additional scenes in this version of the script, which I do not regret add length to the story, involve Renfield being fearful about his soul, knowing he has done evil, and not being ready to die. Harker, Seward, and Van Helsing confront Renfield a couple extra times as he repeatedly breaks out of his cell in the sanitarium and Dracula pays extra visits to Eva to further her transformation into one of his brides. The effects, particularly with Dracula's coffin opening on its own with smoke rising out of it and then Dracula appearing out of the smoke, instead of cut-aways were noticeably improved. I'll go along with the opinion that this version is better, though only by half a star, than the iconic Tod Browning version and that Lugosi should have appeared in this production.
Matthew Y

During the early part of the sound era studio's would film their English versions during the daytime and at night an entirely different cast and crew would film a foreign language version for overseas. Although using the same sets and scripts many of these secondary films were… More
During the early part of the sound era studio's would film their English versions during the daytime and at night an entirely different cast and crew would film a foreign language version for overseas. Although using the same sets and scripts many of these secondary films were far weaker from their high billed English language versions but Drácula remains as quite possibly the only exception. A better directing job and far better lighting and cinematography work really elevate the feel of the film and the actor playing Renfield portrays a much more demented character then the one in the English version. Bela Lugosi's Dracula is of course legendary and probably the only thing that the English version has over the Spanish one, although Carlos Villarías does a more then decent job in his own right.
MJS M

Some call it superior to the English version, and I can see why. Still, the old version feel more like a classic to me. This is like a cover version of a classic song, it may have more sophisticated instrumentation, but it's just not the original.