Dracula

Rating:
Summary: Lugosi IS Dracula, period.
Review: As early as ten years old, I sat mesmerized in front of the tv--- on those Saturday nights when Chiller Theater ruled--- watching Lugosi go through "it." I knew then that he was the consumate Dracula--- I could feel it. The first 15 minutes are worth the entire film; unfortunately, the film does become a tad slow, postured and dull. BUT, there is Lugosi. When he's on screen, the film is magic. Ed Van Sloan and Dwight Frye and Helen Chandler.... all.... give the movie more than it is actually worth. Most non-horror types find the movie virtually impossible to sit through (like my fiancee), especially the Universal lot. But, for me, DRACULA, like THE WOLFMAN, FRANKENSTEIN, THE MUMMY, et. al., are classics that will never age, and the people who watch them probably never will, either. DRACULA is a classic for damned good reasons. It's not a perfect film [hardly], but still a classic. "Listen to them.... children of the night.... what music... they... make." DRACULA is in my blood, and will remain forever there.... if for Lugosi, alone. I strongly advise viewing Karloff's THE MUMMY, the quintessential "Mummy" flick. And, of course, the original FRANKENSTEIN. These films, all, are what Jung might call "archetypes," and with firm reason. Indulge yourself. Sure: HORROR OF DRACULA, Hammer's color re-make, is wonderful, and, so, is Chris Lee as Dracula; but..... something is missing. Atmosphere. And Lugosi. Immerse yourself in black & white, kitsch and illusion. DRACULA is it. "The spider... spinning his web for the unwary fly.... eh, Mr.Renfield?" Good evening.

Rating:
Summary: A Great Viedo!
Review: Bela Lugosi truly does great in his part for Dracula. It has never been challeneged by any new versions. It has an errie silence and atmosphere to it. If you are a horror fan, this one is for you!

Rating:
Summary: A classic, yes! A masterpiece, no!
Review: No one who has seen this movie can forget the haunting first half. Dwight Frye does an excellent job as the sensible Renfield, and Bela Lugosi is frightening as Dracula. The atmosphere is perhaps one of the spookiest in film history. Unfortunately, this film is brought down by an inferior and slow second half. A must for Lugosi fans, Dracula fans, and classic horror fans. All others, bevare!!

Rating:
Summary: A beautifully crafted chiller
Review: DRACULA is defenetly one of the greatest horror films ever made in it's decade. It has creative sets, good acting and fine direction that you will never find in any of today's horror films. Nobody plays Dracula like Bela Lugosi and his famous line ("I never drink, er, wine") is a highlight. Some people nowadays say that this film is dated and too talky: it isn't really, it still just manages to send a chill or two down particular people's spines. Take note that DRACULA is better than James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN which was made the same year. Followed by DRACULA'S DAUGHTER in 1936.

Rating:
Summary: One of the Finest DVD Presentations I've Ever Encountered
Review: This DVD is the "Jewel in the Crown" of the classic Universal horror films released in that format. It includes a quality print of the Bella Lugosi DRACULA, with options to play the film with Philip Glass' recent soundtrack; the so-called "Spanish" DRACULA starring Carlos Villarias; and a fascinating documentary hosted by Carla Laemmle, who has a bit role in the Lugosi DRACULA and who was niece to Universal studio head Carl Laemmle. There is also an audio track by David J. Skal, production notes, and the like.

The Lugosi DRACULA is somewhat problematic. DRACULA had been previously (and illegally) filmed as the silent NOSFERATU, and a later stage adaptation proved a staple of the British theatre. When the stage play at last arrived in New York, the title role fell to Bela Lugosi. Although Universal optioned the material, studio head Carl Laemmle was not enthusiastic about it; although European films were comfortable with the supernatural, American films were not, and Laemmle did not believe the public would accept such an irrational story. Nor was Laemmle interested in Lugosi; if DRACULA was to be filmed, it would be filmed with Lon Chaney.

When Chaney died the screen role went to Lugosi by default, but there were further issues. Originally planned as a big-budget production, the deeping Great Depression made the film's box office possibilities seem even slighter than before and its budget was cut to the bone. And Todd Browning, who had been such a successful director of the macabre in the silent era, proved clumsy with sound. The resulting film was more than a little clunky--but it had two things going for it: a superior first thirty minutes and Lugosi. Although Lugosi's performance may seem excessively mannered by today's standards, audiences of the 1930s found it terrifying--and even today, when the character of Dracula comes to mind, we are more likely to think of Lugosi than other actor that later played the role.

For a brief time after the advent of sound, several studios made foreign language versions of their productions. The "Spanish" DRACULA was one such film, and when the English language company wrapped for the day the Spanish speaking cast arrived and filmed through the night using the same sets. This gave the Spanish company the benefit of hindsight: they were perfectly aware of what the English language company was doing, and they deliberately set out to best it. The result is a somewhat longer, more cohesive film with some of the most arresting visuals and camera work of the early sound era. But unfortunately, star Carlos Villarias was no Bella Lugosi: although much of his performance was more subtle than Lugosi's, it was also less intimidating, and where today Lugosi seems mannered, Villarias seems unfortunately comic. In a perfect world, we would be able to insert the Lugosi performance into the "Spanish" Dracula. As it is, we are left with two deeply flawed but nonetheless fascinating films.

In their own ways, both films proved incredibly influential, and it is difficult to imagine the evolution of the classic-style horror film without reference to both the Lugosi and the "Spanish" DRACULA. The Lugosi film is not perfectly restored, but the print is very, very good, easily the best I have seen. The "Spanish" DRACULA has more problematic elements, partly due the fact that the film borrowed some scenic footage from the Lugosi version and snips of footage from earlier films (there even appears to be a brief clip of the ballet from the silent PHANTOM OF THE OPERA in the film); the film is sometimes dark, sometimes very spotted, but short of a cgi restoration this is probably as good as it gets.

The Philip Glass soundtrack, which is optional, tends to divide viewers. The Lugosi DRACULA had virtually nothing in the way of soundtrack; the "Spanish" DRACULA used music to a greater degree, but even so that degree is comparative. The Glass score is often quite interesting, but it is also as often intrusive as it is effective. Some feel it adds quite a bit to the film; others find it distracts. Whatever one's reaction to the film, either English or Spanish language, or with or without the Glass score, this is a remarkable DVD package, and fans of classic horror will find it an almost inexhaustible pleasure. I cannot recommend it too strongly.

Gary Taylor (gft)

Rating:
Summary: DON'T REPLACE YOUR COPY!
Review: While I fully understand the urge to swap this older release for one of the new Universal sets (Dracula or the deluxe Monster Legacy box), I implore you not to do it. Not only is the sound much better on this earlier release, but the new set contains the censored print that was originally released in 1931 in which Dracula's "death groans" are highly abbreviated. The contents of the two disks seem to be identical but the quality isn't. If you can put up with the very real possibility of having to repeatedly return sets in order to obtain one that performs perfectly, the Monster Legacy box is a good deal (especially at Amazon's price) and its transfers of the other films in the Universal series are very good, but this film is the exception. THIS ONE'S A KEEPER!

Rating:
Summary: Forget the movie and just buy the soundtrack...
Review: This movie is a dud, plain and simple. Many old movies created a wonderful atmosphere and in short were just well made (exmp. Birth of A Nation KKK praise beside the point.) That being said this is simply not a good film. Poor pacing even for the time period, wooden acting and worse of all huge plot gaps. For example one scean Lucy is simply sick, the next she's been dead for several months... am I the only one missing something here? Or perhaps hardly bothering to introduce Van Helsing and simply throwing him in. I don't care about the budget or the time period a gap is a gap and it was based on a play, so why didn't the play intoduce characters properly, or at the very least mention when someone dies? The only thing worth getting this for is the wonderful new score by Philip Glass. A lot of people have bashed this new score, mostly because they don't know what they're talking about and some because they don't like their "classic" improver... err tampered with. Someone mentioned that the score was repetitive... well Glass is a minimalist and in some ways one could say so is the film, it fits the comment is like saying that soprano's sing high in Wagner's operas. Contrary to what some have said the score is quite understated and not over bearing and is not blared over the poor diolog. As for the "modern drumming" someone mentioned... well Kronos is a well respected string quartet and last I checked don't use drums. However the one person who pointed out that the score is scarrier that the movie was dead on. In short skip the movie or watch it once since it's considered a classic, though a very poor one at that and instead just buy the soundtrack and enjoy the delicious and beautifully moody score on its own.


Rating:
Summary: Eat your heart out "Van Helsing"!
Review: I am a big fan of vampire mythology. I have always been a vampire fanatic for as long as I can remember (since high school). I have seen my fair share of vampire flicks, most have been good (for example "Nosferatu") and some have been horrendous (like "Queen of the Damned"). One of my all time favorite vampire films is the classic 1939 black and white film "Dracula" starring Bela Lugosi. What really makes this movie a classic to me is that despite the minimal effects and budget this movie had, it still captures a dark, sinister atmosphere. Bela Lugosi for me is Dracula. Forget Frank Langella or Gary Oldman. Bela's portrayal of "Dracula" is timeless. Based on the Bram Stoker nove, "Dracula" follows the book faithfully which is hardly what the Gary Oldman film is about. This "Dracula" does not show Dracula as this romantic monster that Gary Oldman portrayed him to be or like Brad Pitt's Louis in "Interview With the Vampire". Bela Lugosi's Dracula was seductive but more evil and sinister. Tragically Bela Lugosi's too convincing performance in this film forever typecasted him which he was never able to break free of. I still love watching this movie especially during this time of year of tricks or treats.

Rating:
Summary: bela at his best! !
Review: this is the one that started it all! ! a must for the true dracula fan! the black and white film only enhances the true fear and terror the director and actors were trying to achieve. nothing beats the classics! !

Rating:
Summary: Dracula
Review: There is no finer film for this horror genre than Bela Lugosi' version of Dracula. In its primative style Black and white, poor quality sound and film aged by many decades, this is the ultimate scare film of its type...Lugosi' famous words at hearing the wolves howling "Ah, the children of the night...what sweet music they make!" will forever stay etched in my mind...dont settle for any other version of this film...to thoroughly enjoy Dracula..it has to be the 1931 original.....