Watch
Dracula

Dracula

1931
Drama
Fantasy
1h 15m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 54.17% from 1519 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(1519)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 27 Feb 2010
2
33rd
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.
Rated 08 Oct 2023
85
63rd
Lugosi is iconic, but the movie overall is OK at best. They should have ripped off Nosferatu's cinematic ideas the way that movie ripped off the original novel.
Rated 28 Oct 2019
60
50th
Before starring in such Ed Wood classics such as "Bride of the Monster"(1955) and "Plan 9 from Outer Space"(1959), Bela Lugosi was busy creating a legendary name for himself with his iconic performance as Count Dracula. Like the Sean Connery of the 'Bond' films, Lugosi's Dracula has inspired everything from Muppets to cereal mascots. However while the film's place in cinema history and the iconic performance are worth a watch from film fans, much of the movie unfortunately doesn't quite hold up.
Rated 23 May 2010
52
30th
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.
Rated 15 Oct 2009
50
10th
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.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
2
15th
Badly dated and stagey. Lugosi's performance holds up, but the rest of it falls flat instead of being creepy. Great locations, though.
Rated 13 Jul 2015
72
64th
Came across as a bit hammy, its stage play origins are obvious, and despite this being a "talkie", it often looks like a silent film. Despite that, there is a lot to like here - the direction and setting often work, some of the performances are decent, and occasionally it is genuinely creepy. I really enjoyed Lugosi's performance, Frye's facial expressions were a hoot, and Van Sloan's accent was barmy. This film's main problem is that Murnau's Nosferatu came out 9 years earlier.
Rated 04 Jan 2021
70
76th
Ingrained into pop culture enough that I haven't watched it until now. Not as creepy as Nosferatu. There's a bit more tension because of the dialogue. Renfield is anemic. The sets are great. Amazing shadows on Lugosi's eyes. Helen Chandler is captivating. The ending was a letdown---wouldn't Dracula, who's that old, take precautions to guard his single weakness? I'm looking forward to comparing the Spanish version. Fav scenes: iconic shots zooming in on Lugosi; him turning away from the crucifix.
Rated 25 Oct 2009
50
26th
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.
Rated 23 Dec 2013
72
72nd
If Nosferatu is the grandfather of vampire films, then Dracula is it's richest uncle. Not necessarily a great patriarch but definitely the trend setter. Lugosi delights in what was supposed to be Lon Chaney Sr.'s umpteenth collaboration with Browning.
Rated 24 Oct 2020
80
77th
There is a tiny little vampire bee that has its own little coffin. Some people were absolutely terrified of this movie and also giving women the right to vote. In all honesty though, Renfield’s sucked in manic laughter on the boat, hoooooboy.
Rated 27 Mar 2010
45
40th
Besides some great sets and Lugosi's stare, this is 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 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.
Rated 16 Apr 2008
88
87th
Dracula is such a timeless and extremely well crafted film, that even though it is a bit outdated, it is just too fuckin sweet and memorable to care. It definitely and well, obviously, created some of the most well known scenes in film history and has nestled it's way into the hearts of all movie watchers. Everyone must watch this film.
Rated 16 Dec 2010
66
41st
Dated as hell, badly acted, and all over the place at times, but it does maintain some level of tension, is super iconic, and Lugosi steals the show. No wonder he's considered to be Dracula - even 90 years later his stage presence is stunning. Overall a mix of good and bad attributes so I have trouble giving this a score, but this will do for now. Nosferatu does tell the same story better, though.
Rated 06 Apr 2008
45
4th
Does a good job being creepy but it's all undermined by the acting and silliness of the entire production. Still kind of fun in its own way.
Rated 17 Feb 2012
50
44th
Flawed but enjoyable, Dracula captures a creepy Gothic style and Lugosi's enduring, unforgettable performance, but suffers from its dated techniques and is outdone by its contemporaries like Frankenstein and its predecessor like Nosferatu.
Rated 20 Feb 2012
66
24th
I had no idea how much every subsequent dracula and, for that matter, vampire movie had been a derivation of this crappy movie. Pretty much every scene in this movie has been recycled over and over again only better and more interestingly.
Rated 25 Feb 2017
70
45th
Definitely worth watching for the timeless Bela Lugosi, and there was some creepy atmosphere and good sets. However some of the cheesiness, such as the fake bats and the ridiculously bad acting by Renfield (until he went crazy, thank goodness, when he became pretty great) and Harker were severe problems for me. The ending was unforgivably rushed and anticlimactic. Overall it was decent, but of course inferior to Nosferatu (1922).
Rated 05 Dec 2010
90
94th
Flawed and cliched for sure, but Legosi's performance is one of the truly iconographic characterizations of movie history. Count Dracula: "To die, to be REALLY dead, that must be glorious!" Mina Seward: "Why, Count Dracula?" Count Dracula: "There are far worse things awaiting man than death". Chills. 'Nuff said.
Rated 16 Feb 2012
80
70th
It's only real problem is that it isn't possible to watch from the point of view of a 1930s audience. So much time is spent on exposition or building up the mystery of the vampire, but it's all common knowledge to a modern day viewer. It still features excellent acting and excellent direction. Worth a look for sure.
Rated 18 Mar 2010
79
59th
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.
Rated 24 Feb 2013
64
16th
Classic monster horror movies tend 2 age very badly; they're lucky if they can induce a slight tension in a modern viewer, while anything resembling a scare is completely out of the question. But this 1's particularly hard 2 excuse. It's badly written 4 any decade w/ easily 1 of the most anti-climactic monster deaths ever. Drac is ridiculously indiscrete & obvious 2 the point of being foolhardy. If not 4 the occasional sparks caused by an overly worthy nemesis, Van Helsing, this is quite dull.
Rated 21 Oct 2008
87
69th
Not as good as Frankenstein or even Browning's Freaks, but deserves its classic status due to Bela Lugosi's iconic performance (he IS Dracula) and the influence it had on American horror.
Rated 12 Jul 2014
75
84th
(Rewatched on 17/07/21): Obviously dated in some respects, but it's hard not to appreciate the power of Browning's influential gothic-horror imagery, Freund's precise framing, and Lugosi's iconic performance, which are now the stuff of Hollywood legend and remain deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness of filmgoers everywhere.
Rated 16 Apr 2012
30
12th
Big pile of who gives a shit. Maybe if this were the first version I'd seen I would be on the edge of my seat...or something. Having seen Nosferatu from 1922 and Werner Herzog's 1979 remake, I found Dracula to be the worst of the three. Blasphemy, I know, but grotesque Nosferatu is so much more interesting to watch than stupid Lugosi. Perhaps it's a consequence of this film being a talkie, but the whole film is fairly uninteresting, visually.
Rated 17 Sep 2011
75
72nd
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".
Rated 02 Dec 2011
79
80th
Bela Lugosi definitely steals the show, and is pretty much considered the face of Dracula, even today. Has some really impressive sets, and Dwight Frye also does a great job as Renfield. The biggest downside I'd mark this movie for is the fake bat they dangle around. It looks so ridiculously fake, they might have been better off just using stock footage of bats flying around, or even having a bird flying around, since it could be hard to tell the difference in dark lighting or old 30s cameras.
Rated 12 May 2011
1
6th
Apart from some occasionally brilliant cinematography, this has been ravaged by time. Lugosi's performance is silly.
Rated 10 Jun 2014
70
65th
The film feels rushed and sloppy. But Bela Lugosi, awesome as Count Dracula, truly makes up for it, particular in his close-ups, aided by an infectious theme. The scene where he orders Van Helsing to "Come here!" was my favorite. The rest is underwhelming, to say the least, and the overzealous Dwight Frye, in a totally unrestrained performance, is straight up horrible as Servant Renfield (unfortunately not at all in the right way).
Rated 24 Oct 2009
80
58th
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.
Rated 16 Aug 2009
82
75th
Not a masterpiece, but it is creepily effective, and it features an absolute belter of a performance by Bela Lugosi.
Rated 10 Jun 2012
15
16th
Has some effective scenes and good atmosphere, but I can't help wondering why this is still so acclaimed. Has just too much stiff acting, cringeworthy dialogue and much of its time feels like a bad stage play. I can't say Lugosi isn't iconic here, though, and Dwight Frye is great as Renfield.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
88
88th
Bela's eyes are tres sexy.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
80
71st
Lugosi's one true hit; besides Plan 9, that is.
Rated 30 Oct 2021
60
60th
My favourite version of the Dracula story remains the Dracula novel by Bram Stoker - the first 50 pages are chilling, with a couple of spectacular moments of true dread and horror present in the book altogether. Marvelous piece of writing. 1931's Dracula is a very entertaining piece of cinema though - Lugosi's Dracula is great, the supporting cast is awesome too, with Dwight Frye stealing the show with his interpretation of Renford. Worth watching.
Rated 03 Jun 2009
75
72nd
Watch it only if you're interested in an old classic. Acting so bad that it makes you laugh etc. It was made in the 30's so what did you expect?
Rated 08 Oct 2010
50
29th
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.
Rated 06 Nov 2015
73
40th
Definitely not scary by any means, but it still succeeds in building a creepy atmosphere, especially in the first third of the film. The Special effects are laughably dated and the pacing is awkward. It's decent, but obviously a lot less thought and artistry was put into this than say, Nosferatu or Frankenstein. Obviously, the only reason why this film is remembered is because of Bela Lugosi, who single-handedly created the Dracula character we know today, broken English and all.
Rated 23 Jan 2009
65
37th
Love old horror films, this one has some great cinematography and art design, but a bit wooden. Of course Lugosi is classic, but again sometimes a little over the top. But still got to love, "I don't drink.....wine"
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
24th
good old horror flick, the spanish version is better paced
Rated 09 Dec 2012
78
69th
Unlike its other Universal monster movie brethren, this flick has not aged very well at all from a technical standpoint. That being said, Lugosi is fantastic, and Dwight Frye proves himself as one of the most underrated actors in history.
Rated 05 Jul 2011
55
39th
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.
Rated 31 Dec 2007
55
17th
Ultimately, a really boring movie. See Nosferatu instead.
Rated 21 Aug 2017
80
68th
I think that the Hammer version of Dracula is better. This film is way too slow and stiff.
Rated 11 Apr 2020
60
35th
Renfield is the only burst of life in this film. Good to put on during a Sunday afternoon snooze.
Rated 09 Oct 2012
81
60th
Two words: Bela Lugosi. The quintessential Count Dracula of the ages, and one of the most iconic performances in all of cinema. He completely reinvented the character, so much so that many people aren't even familiar with the original image of the character. He truly makes this movie shine.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
77th
Rough around the edges for sure, but it is easy to imagine that this was very effective at the time it was released, with lots of memorable images, sequences and quotes. Still, hard to watch it now and not be reminded constantly of LOVE AT FIRST BITE.
Rated 29 Oct 2015
68
86th
The silent horror aesthetic marches along into the sound era with mixed results, though you can certainly spot out the strong elements that made it a hit. There's some first rate cinematography with great sets, mattes, etc. (especially towards the beginning) and you can see why everyone knows what Bela Legosi's performance in this film is like even if they've never seen it. On the other hand, there's no shortage of rubber bats or wooden performances to date things a bit, either.
Rated 06 Mar 2007
91
95th
Yetl the best vampire movie ever.
Rated 05 Jul 2017
60
35th
The first thirty minutes of this get pretty chilling at times, thanks to some beautiful cinematography from Karl Freund and Bela Lugosi's great performance. Unfortunately, after that point, the pace of the story slows to a crawl despite some good supporting performances, and builds to... well, not much. Watch the version with Philip Glass' score - at least when nothing's happening, the music is still good.
Rated 24 Jan 2013
65
61st
Truly a classic, a standard Hollywood product, packed with a strong gothic imagery -- oh, those close ups framing Bela's frozen face are not effective anymore, but still charming, and oh, those shots picturing an empty mirror --, but also a fragile studio genre exercise. Lugosi wasn't a good actor, but just a great physical presence, a perfect, but hardly seductive, model for evil. Browning would find a way to direct his creepy masterpiece the year after Dracula, with Freaks.
Rated 02 Nov 2010
81
55th
Was amazing until that damn Van Helsing and the Doctor's daughter gained prominence.. After that the movie lost a lot of its steam and macabre. I mean Dracula basically gave himself up running into his coffin to be stabbed by a lackadaisical Helsing. Not very spooky of him to give up so easily.
Rated 22 Apr 2018
60
35th
One of the horror classics, but now dated. The characters have very little to do, and there's a lot of standing around reciting lines. It's hard to believe audiences were terrified of this, although Lugosi does give a hypnotizing performance (helped by the impressive lighting).
Rated 23 Mar 2010
1
12th
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.
Rated 09 Sep 2019
65
45th
Lugosi's iconic performance, a creepy atmosphere & fine work by the whole cast combine to create one of the earliest Universal Monster films, one that has stood the test of time for a number of reasons. That being said, it sadly wasn't quite my cup of tea, though it's worth watching for any horror fan or classic film lover.
Rated 27 Mar 2015
61
47th
As iconic as it is dated. Seeing this is like watching someone spin their own yarn. Sure you appreciate the craft, but you're glad that it doesn't have to be done this way any more.
Rated 21 Aug 2008
88
87th
My score reflects equal parts nostalgia, guilty pleasure and earnest admiration- Especially for Lugosi, who caries this picture all the way, with overacting of epic proportions (and I mean that in the best possible way).
Rated 16 Dec 2008
65
26th
Would be forgotten if it had not starred Bela Lugosi.
Rated 28 Sep 2018
75
80th
Although much of the film would be considered corny or hokey today, it does manage to create a creepy atmosphere with it's production and characters.
Rated 17 Dec 2011
79
78th
Bela taught Gaga how to come out of a coffin!
Rated 04 Jul 2013
59
78th
ok, so, this is thoroughly flawed, but for me when it works the tone and atmosphere is almost unparalleled, and the whole thing is awesomely cheesy.
Rated 22 May 2013
59
48th
High historical value. Otherwise pretty sloppy.
Rated 19 Nov 2019
70
67th
Horribly dated for sure, but still mandatory viewing for anyone interested in not just the horror genre, but also the early evolution of cinematic language in general.
Rated 28 Nov 2015
55
11th
Could't get through it.
Rated 22 Oct 2020
65
42nd
A lot of classic Hollywood performances build their reputation off one scene or line, but every second of Lugosi is oozing atmosphere and flavor. The quintessential Dracula without a doubt. Conversely, for a film this iconic, everything else is pretty underwhelming and forgettable.
Rated 01 Nov 2015
5
42nd
A moody opening and some killer set design can't save the narrative, which is edited in a slapdash fashion and commits the greatest cinematic sin of all: It's boring as shit.
Rated 30 Sep 2011
72
43rd
When Freund isn't heavily involved with a scene, you feel the lack.
Rated 02 Nov 2014
88
84th
As a film, it may suffer from its age. The predictable storyline and lack of non-vocal audio are perhaps its two chief weaknesses. That said, this is a hallmark of Hollywood cinema and of American culture. The film, and Bela Lugosi himself, deserve our utmost respect for that reason. Foundational elements of the vampire cultural meme are portrayed here, and anyone with even a casual interest in the subject owes it to him or herself to witness it in the making.
Rated 23 Sep 2021
85
75th
Iconic (and influential) horror film is still great fun, albeit inevitably dated and suffering by comparison to the FRANKENSTEIN films. Lugosi is perfect as the quintessential Count and seems most at home with the film's straddling of silent and "talkie" sensibilities, with Frye's giggling Renfield not far behind. Remaining cast are mediocre to fine, suffering somewhat from slapdash and rushed pacing (with a disappointingly halting ending). With caveats noted, still an essential genre film.
Rated 07 Feb 2015
65
56th
This is a really classic film, and was great fun to watch. It wasn't great: it was a bit 'breakneck,' but there are some monumental scenes, and Béla Lugosi has scary, scary eyes.
Rated 22 Oct 2012
70
43rd
Amazing movie...in 1931 (how would I know?). Still pretty interesting watch.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
63rd
Iconic.
Rated 08 Mar 2009
3
0th
"The opening scenes, set in Dracula's castle, are magnificent--grave, stately, and severe. But the film becomes unbearably static once the action moves to England."
Rated 23 Feb 2011
38
12th
Utterly laughable.
Rated 03 Oct 2012
60
10th
Not really a fan. Beyond Bela Lugosi's inspired, iconic performances and strong cinematography, there's nothing I really like. And honestly, it's just plain boring.
Rated 20 Sep 2009
75
67th
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.
Rated 28 Aug 2022
60
44th
Establishing the Count's look as we know it, 1931's "Dracula" (the book's first sound film adaptation and the earliest Universal Monsters entry) is doubtlessly significant. It might not be scary and, at 75 minutes, it's far too short to achieve maximum impact, but the material is appealing, the setpieces memorable, the atmosphere occasionally quite menacing, Van Sloan a fine choice for Van Helsing and Lugosi an imposing presence, though he doesn't give the tour-de-force performance one expects.
Rated 10 Apr 2024
68
34th
audiovisual 74 acting 70 overall feeling 60 avg 68
Rated 02 Jun 2009
81
73rd
At times it's genuinely creepy but sometimes it's unintentionally funny. Great performances by Lugosi and Frye. An old horror classic.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
84
84th
Truth be told I was a little cautious about seeing this giant again, could it live up to my past expectations? YES! Bela Lugosi kicked ass. The direction was also quite good, and I noticed quite a few things I missed as a small lad but also remembered quite a few things more I had forgotten.
Rated 30 Jan 2012
74
66th
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.
Rated 10 Jan 2013
45
13th
As far as old vampire films are concerned, Nosferatu is way, way better... Dracula has aged quite stunningly badly, it's pure cheese..
Rated 04 Jan 2021
77
72nd
Kind of rushed script with pacing that always feels too fast or too slow. To a modern viewer it seems to deliberately take away from the immidiate surface level tension of the plot (familiarity of the story & the dated narrative style makes that nearly impossible to achieve). Thanks to some expert production design, moody cinematography & Lugosi's hypnotic presence however, it manages to tap into some other kind of tension more uncanny & primal in nature. The supporting cast is a bit uneven.
Rated 23 Mar 2009
75
54th
What can I add? While sometimes static and stage-bound, this is still perverse and powerful after all these years, with a groundbreaking performance by Bela (reprising his long-running Broadway role) as Stoker's thirsty count and manic work by Frye as his insect-starved slave, Renfield.
Rated 06 Nov 2010
69
34th
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.
Rated 13 Nov 2009
95
33rd
i think bela lagosi dose an exallant job as dracula spot on
Rated 07 Jul 2009
68
57th
I would prefer ''Nosferatu: Eine...'' in any condition.
Rated 03 Nov 2014
62
33rd
Loses some juice once he gets to London.
Rated 17 Feb 2018
30
1st
Count Dracula: "I never drink... wine."
Rated 21 Jan 2010
7
65th
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.
Rated 02 Aug 2009
90
91st
that's years beyond 1931. lugosi is perfect. but, I must say that it's still far less greater than Nosferatu.
Rated 16 Jun 2012
98
95th
Awesome
Rated 07 Apr 2007
80
68th
Has aged well. Lugosi's stiffness and unfamiliarity with English actually add to the mystique of the role. A classic case of a limited actor being given exactly the right role
Rated 28 Oct 2011
7
60th
bela lugosi.
Rated 24 Nov 2021
75
69th
Best Renfield up until Hoult’s. Lugosi surprisingly not the hottest Dracula, but fabulously iconic with his creepy hands & deadpan cold war eyes. Super amusing how little fuss anyone makes over Mina’s fate.
Rated 03 Dec 2014
78
69th
Being only 75 minutes it does slow down at times, while simultaneous parts of it feel underdeveloped (like Reinfelds relationship to Mina). Still this time I liked it much more cause of the well done creepy gothic setting and a stellar performance by Bela Lugosi, that rightfully became an icon in horror movie history.
Rated 17 Nov 2014
60
32nd
Ble ikke superimponert over denne, men kult å ha sett den originale klassikeren med Bela Lugosi.
Rated 22 Feb 2019
86
40th
86.00
Rated 29 Sep 2007
90
91st
The imagery is so incredible in this, and of course Bela steals the show. Is it scary? Not really. Is it chilling? At times, hell yes. Sure it has some of that campy MGM horror movie aspect to it (which is a good thing), but besides that it's a really well told horror story.
Rated 21 Feb 2018
75
44th
Has a lot of things working to its advantage in the performances and the cinematography but there are large segments that are overly dialogue-heavy and "stagey" in a bad way.

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...