Dracula

... and that explains all of the differences, such as Renfield being the person to visit Dracula in Transylvania to seal a real estate deal rather than Jonathan Harker.

I imagine this was quite the spectacle in 1931. Visually it still is - sweeping staircases, ruined old castles covered in dust, moonlight illuminating giant spiderwebs, coffins with limbs hanging out of them, rats scurrying about. And Bela Lugosi, who starred in the Broadway play, was dying to play the lead. But director Tod Browning was set on Lon Chaney, a frequent collaborator, playing both Dracula and Van Helsiing.

It's not true that everybody is replaceable, but it IS true that eventually an irreplaceable person will no longer be around and a perhaps less than ideal work-around must be found. This was the situation with Chaney - a unique actor who could convince you he was anybody. He died before Dracula was filmed. Lugosi successfully lobbied for the part, although he did so at a cut rate. Today his old world hypnotic presence is synonymous with the role.

But I have to admit I have an unpopular opinion. To me Dracula seems very slow and very much "early talkie" in personality when compared to the film Frankenstein of just a year later. Also, like many early talking films that were not musicals, there is no score.

And I have to wonder about director Tod Browning. Although this was Browning's biggest hit, his other enduring works all starred Lon Chaney. He only directed a few more films and disappeared from the industry for a quarter of a century until his death. He had a disappearing act worthy of Universal Horror.

Things to watch for - Armadillos in Transylvania? Probably far too cold for them there. David Manners and Helen Chandler as young lovers Jonathan Harker and Mina - They have all of the chemistry of two cardboard boxes. Why did they keep pairing these two in films? Dwight Frye as Renfield - did Frye EVER get to play a normal person? And why would he want to be sent away? He gets to wander in and out of the lush living quarters of the superintendent f the mental facility. He wouldn't get that freedom anywhere else. And last but not least, Carla Laemmle, unrecognizable as a tourist, reading from a Transylvania tour guide.

It's almost impossible not to love 'Dracula', a horror milestone that is the most important and influential vampire movie ever made. Bela Lugosi became a cinematic legend after this movie, and his portrayal of Dracula basically invented the modern vampire as we know it. Murnau's silent classic 'Nosferatu' was an obvious influence on Todd Browning, but while Browning was no James Whale (the innovative British director who made 'Frankenstein' for Universal a few months after this) he added a lot of his own style and ideas to the project, and Counts Orloff and Dracula are completely different kinds of creatures. Lugosi made his Count sophisticated, attractive and sexy, and this is what made this movie such a sensation at the time, and what helps make it still a wonderful viewing experience. Lugosi's performance is one of the greatest in horror history. Some of the other actors in the cast are a bit shaky but Edward Van Sloan as Van Hesling is excellent and Dwight Frye's Renfield (a different character from the book) is also memorable. Both actors would reappear in 'Frankenstein'. 'Dracula' is an important landmark horror movie, but even better, is still a fantastic viewing experience seventy years later. Don't just watch it because it's a classic, watch it because it's wonderful entertainment!

Bela Lugosi forever captures the role of a certain undead Transylvanian count who takes a trip to London in the first legitimate version of the classic Bram Stoker novel. Despite many attempts by many talented film makers, I believe this version, directed by Tod Browning, remains the definitive take on the often-filmed novel. But why? Is it simply nostalgia? Granted, I do fondly remember staying up late as a child watching this film on Ghost Host theater and finding myself suitably frightened. However, if I were the same age today, would I find the film as effective? Would a steady diet of more modern and explicit horror films made me too jaded to enjoy the more subtle charms of this film? I hope not, but I could see how it might. The film is slow, and its slowness is further emphasized by the absence of an under score. It is stagey - being as it was more influenced by the stage play than the novel itself. Also, the story plays itself out too quickly. Van Helsing manages to figure everything out and dispatch the count in about two seconds. There simply isn't much suspense - and even less gore or violence. Yet it remains the champ. Why? The main reason is Lugosi himself. He gives the performance of a lifetime. He truly inhabits the role and is genuinely creepy. The rest of the cast, particularly Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield, support him admirably. However, when I watch the old Universal horror films nowadays, I find myself really enjoying the atmospheric sets and lighting. Yes, there is still much to love about Dracula today. (As long as you avoid the optional Philip Glass score on the DVD!)

This is an immensely enjoyable version of 'Dracula'. It is not perfect, as I will explain in a minute, but the acting is excellent throughout. Lugosi, who of course plays the eponymous count, gives a performance that is equally cultured and creepy (as far as I know he pioneered this interpretation), and I also liked Helen Chandler as Mina, David Manners as Harker and Dwight Frye as Renfield. The story has been changed from Bram Stoker's novel, in part quite substantially so, but the changes work well. My one quibble in this context is that the ending of the film is abrupt and unconvincing. In want to avoid spoilers, so I won't tell, but at 1 hour 15 minutes I would have thought that a few minutes more to wrap up things and provide an explanation for one person's miraculous recovery/survival should have been possible. The photography is excellent, especially the scenes in Transylvania. I was initially startled to find an opossum and an armadillo in the Carpathians, but after all, vampire bats are from South America, too, so why not? Speaking of bats: director Tod Browning judiciously decided not to use special effects (for example to show how Dracula transforms into diverse creepy animals), but he did include bats flapping about, and they don't work. They really don't. They look like Tutulla the bat in 'Kleiner König Kalle Wirsch' by the 'Augsburger Puppenkiste' theatre that was on the TV when I was a kid (check it here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184133/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0; https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184133/mediaviewer/rm2171260161/). Bad idea, but still: Great acting, the plot works mostly well, and very good photography with a few limitations. In sum: a very good film.

(62%) It is without doubt a classic owing to the fact that it is so well made, and so memorable. The sets are some of the greatest ever to appear on any film, and Lugosi is great as the awful head vamp. It's more than a little dated of course, so there's no blood/biting or on-screen death or murder, plus the acting is very theatrical at times, and there's quite a few long drawn-out sections of total silence that highlight exactly how old and pioneering it is.With that said, all horror fans should watch this at least once, as it does make a great late-night Halloween movie that will live on - just like the old count himself - forever.