I thought only the new movies of vampires were bad, but I was wrong. The film is horrible, with any destacked point, excepting the great acting of Bela Lugosi. Nosferatu is way better.

Only worth a watch because of Lugosi, who dominates every scene he's in. The pacing is tedious, the acting is hokey and there is no suspense to speak of. And that ending... nice work in killing Dracula off-screen, ya bums.

Is it wrong to fall in love with the Mina character?

If nothing else, it made me appreciate the 1992 Coppola version more than I did previously. It just seemed stale, artificial and too staged and of course it's dated, as others have mentioned. The pacing is terrible, a 71 minute long movie felt like 150. I would say skip this and just see the Coppola version instead but if you really want to experience Dracula then just read the book.

Besides some great sets and Lugosi's stare, this is absolutely worthless as a conventional horror film. On the other hand it's a treasure trove of camp, ranging from Van Helsing's phlegmy Scottish accent to the hilariously abrupt ending. I would have much preferred to have seen a movie based on the day-to-day relationship between Renfield and his Cockney cell guard. "They're awl crazy! They're awl crazy except yew and me! Sometimes I 'ave my doubts about yew!"

Lugosi is, of course, iconic and unforgettable. But the movie suffers from too many scenes of people standing around explaining things, rather than actually showing the things. The lack of music is pretty cool though. Overall, not the best Dracula adaptation (that title belongs to Nosferatu). Still worth watching, however, to see the origins of many Dracula cliches to come.

It's astounding how appalling slow this movie is. It probably doesn't help that there is no background music at any time during the entire film, meaning many of the scenes are composed of dead silence. The characters are not terribly compelling; I really didn't care one way or the other if Mina lived or died. Even the death of Dracula is boring; they drive a stake through his heart off-screen. About the only entertainment to be had from this movie is watching Renfield chew the scenery.

not scary in the least, though of course this is from someone who saw it maybe 55 years after it's original release. still, bela is the ONLY dracula.

Browning's version of the film is certainly iconic with Lugosi in the central role, the actor's performance being perfectly enjoyable throughout. However, Dwight Frye as Renfield, the raving, fly-eating maniac had a fantastic creepiness to his performance, while Browning made excellent, atmospheric use of the sets and lighting at both the beginning and end of the film. This is just a good time all around, even if the climax is a bit limp.

I wanted to enjoy this movie out of love for everything it inspired. Unfortunately beyond Lugosi as Dracula himself the film is poor. It doesn't wash to say "It was the 30s, what do you expect?" when you consider that James Whale made Frankenstein in the same year, and Nosferatu, which predates it by 9 years, is a far better telling of the same story.

Badly directed, badly edited and bad acting with the extremely notable exceptions of Frye and Lugosi, who saved this film from being a disaster. The set design is also worth a mention as the castle set is fantastic However, the film suffers from huge plotholes, fifty shots of just Dracula's face and one of the most anti-climactic climaxes I've yet seen. Worth a watch if only for how influential it was and the aforementioned acting and early sets, but it's not a good movie.

I would prefer ''Nosferatu: Eine...'' in any condition.

Let's be honest; aside from some funny moments involving Renfield and Martin,as well as a decent performance by Lugosi,this film is nowhere near as good as the classic Frankenstein released the same year. It's horribly slow, with numerous plot holes and mistakes (how does Renfield get bitten when he has a crucifix on the whole time?What is with the random Van Helsing science experiment?),and lots of repetition.Mediocre,unfaithful adaptation,with less significant action or dialogue than the book.

Not a masterpiece, but it is creepily effective, and it features an absolute belter of a performance by Bela Lugosi.

that's years beyond 1931. lugosi is perfect. but, I must say that it's still far less greater than Nosferatu.

Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye stand the test of time. Early horror classic which still can send chills down one's spine. Climax leaves a lot to be desired.

826

After seeing a few of these adaptations, I'm convinced that the Dracula mythos has an anti-Semitic subtext. Dracula is an Eastern or Central European Slav who immigrates to England, bringing pestilence in his wake. He parasitically feeds off the "life force" of the Western European bourgeoisie. And he's repulsed by Christian symbols like crucifixes. Fuck, Max Schreck in Nosferatu even has a giant, hooked nose. Interesting. As to this adaptation: good atmosphere, awful pacing.

i think bela lagosi dose an exallant job as dracula spot on

The eerie atmosphere of the film conveys a strong sense of dread, and Lugosi plays his role with hypnotic conviction. The static camerawork is an asset; there is very little movement to disturb the Transylvanian mist or the London fog, and the becalmed style suits the subject perfectly.

Lugosi's performance and that of Frye as the spider-eating Renfield still impress even though this early talkie seems somewhat dated today.

When Freund isn't heavily involved with a scene, you feel the lack.

The first of the classic UMM's in sound, who'd of guessed a film about rubber bats and Bela Lugosi glaring at people would be so inspirational. Everything about the 1931 "Dracula" is great and seeing Lugosi in the role that set the image and folklore of the character is mesmerizing, although I personally prefer the original silent "Nosferatu" and the Coppola remake.

bela lugosi.

I'm not entirely sure why I enjoyed this more than Frankenstein. There's simply a tension, an *intensity* to some scenes - and quite a few excellent lines.

Bela thought Gaga how to come out of a coffin!

#852

Worth for discovering that Bela Lugosi teached Lady Gaga how to get out of a coffin (they do it in the same manner). And for other pop moments.

I associated this and Frankenstein with Universal horror, whether or not they are actually regarded as the two big films. Anyway, on a whole this is worse than Frankenstein, but Lugosi's performance is much less silly, so I slightly prefer this.