Dracula (1931)

Probable Score

Not Enough Info

Rate It

Your Score

(0 - 100)

The ancient vampire Count Dracula arrives in England and begins to prey upon the virtuous young Mina

More Information and Actions

Cast and Information

Directed By: Tod Browning

Written By: Bram Stoker, Garrett Fort, John L. Balderston, Hamilton Deane

Starring: Bela Lugosi, Edward Van Sloan, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Helen Chandler, Barry Norton, Herbert Bunston, Carla Laemmle

Genres: Drama, Fantasy, Horror

Franchise: Dracula (Universal)

Country: USA

Where to Stream

Ratings

Collections

Stats

Loading...
loading

Dracula belongs to 62 collections

1. 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (collaborative: moderated by kozan26 - 234 stars)

2. Roger Ebert: Great Movies (collaborative: moderated by PeaceAnarchy - 80 stars)

3. Features under 91 minutes (collaborative: moderated by epiphany - 56 stars)

4. Psychotronic Film and Video Guides (collaborative: moderated by Gregzilla - 40 stars)

5. New York Times' The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made (collaborative: moderated by theficionado - 32 stars)

6. They Shoot Pictures 1,000 Greatest Films (2010 revision) (collaborative: moderated by MMAlpha - 32 stars)

7. National Film Registry (collaborative: moderated by PeaceAnarchy - 30 stars)

8. Netflix Instant (collaborative: moderated by somnivore - 29 stars)

9. Passed the Bechdel Test (collaborative: moderated by geohawk - 29 stars)

10. They Shoot Pictures 1,000 Greatest Films (2012 revision) (collaborative: moderated by PeaceAnarchy - 25 stars)

11. AAA: Empire's five star movies (collaborative: moderated by KasperL - 24 stars)

12. They Shoot Pictures' Recommended Viewing (collaborative: moderated by Cinephile - 19 stars)

13. Women+ (collaborative: moderated by paulofilmo - 18 stars)

14. Edgar Wright 1000 Favorite Movies (Aug 2016) (collaborative: moderated by Aron Ericson - 17 stars)

15. They Shoot Pictures 1,000 Greatest Films (2011 revision) (collaborative: moderated by PeaceAnarchy - 14 stars)

16. Vampire (collaborative: moderated by td888 - 13 stars)

17. Adapted from a play/based on a play (collaborative: moderated by djross - 13 stars)

18. Films available in HD (collaborative: moderated by kubricksucks - 13 stars)

19. Doubling The Canon (collaborative - 13 stars)

20. films101.com's 5 star films (collaborative: moderated by ppinocchio - 11 stars)

21. International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers (collaborative: moderated by PeaceAnarchy - 11 stars)

22. Cinema Discusso Yearly Consensus (2008) (public: PeaceAnarchy - 10 stars)

23. Universal Horror (collaborative: moderated by von krogh - 8 stars)

24. David Thomson's 1000 Films (collaborative: moderated by MMAlpha - 7 stars)

25. Pre-Code (collaborative: moderated by edsu - 7 stars)

26. List: Taschen (collaborative: moderated by KasperL - 6 stars)

27. Gothic horror (collaborative: moderated by edkrak - 5 stars)

28. Films referenced in Histoire(s) du cinéma (collaborative: moderated by PeaceAnarchy - 5 stars)

29. Filmsite.org - Sex in the Movies, An Illustrated History (collaborative: moderated by afx237vi - 5 stars)

30. retroCRUSH 100 Scariest Movie Scenes (collaborative: moderated by somnivore - 4 stars)

31. Capsules, guest reviews, list candidates... (366weirdmovies) (collaborative: moderated by sesito71 - 4 stars)

32. AFI 100 Years... 100 Thrills (collaborative: moderated by iceblox - 3 stars)

33. Dracula (collaborative: moderated by td888 - 3 stars)

34. The Films Mentioned In American Grindhouse (2010) (collaborative: moderated by Coheed - 3 stars)

35. Roger Ebert's 4-Star Movies (collaborative: moderated by KirkJiggler - 3 stars)

36. A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss (public: kylie - 3 stars)

37. Character name in title (collaborative: moderated by Pickpocket - 2 stars)

38. Big-time Hollywood horror (public: djross - 2 stars)

39. Netflix Watch Instantly (public: dgeiser13 - 2 stars)

40. AFI 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains (collaborative: moderated by iceblox - 1 star)

41. criticker's underrated (collaborative: moderated by avgcrtckr - 1 star)

42. The Overlook Film Encyclopedia: Horror 1930s (collaborative: moderated by RoyalB - 1 star)

43. Vampires (collaborative: moderated by ForrestQ - 1 star)

44. 4k Ultra HD discs owned (collaborative: moderated by dumbjaw - 1 star)

45. James Rolfe's Top 50 Favorite Films (Cinemassacre) (public: saudade - 1 star)

46. Movies that are not the only film adaptation of a book/play (public: EbelC - 1 star)

47. Dead Meat: Kill Count (collaborative: moderated by delollio)

48. British Literature at the Movies (collaborative: moderated by Dunstan-xxx)

49. Favorites of Each Year (public: Actionberg)

50. October Horror Movie a Day (public: ABUNCHOFCATS)

51. To Watch (public: normalchaos)

52. Owned (BD) (public: bizarre_eye)

53. The DVD collection of sjostrand (public: sjostrand)

54. 1931: Year in Review (public: polanski28)

55. My DVD Collection (public: balseiros)

56. Owned Films (public: TheSaberfool)

57. Filmspotting Ratings Project: Week 32 (public: PeaceAnarchy)

58. Horror/Suspense Movies I Own (public: Lord Moe)

59. Movies I Own (public: Farzan)

60. New Beverly Cinema (public: xmoffx)

61. A Spook-a-doodle October (public: Tarnop)

62. Read the book and seen the film (public: ylajali)

Browse the full list of collections

Show:

All Ratings | With Reviews

Order by:

TCI | Percentile | Date Rated | # Stars (Reviews)

Stars	User	Rating
14	Shmendrek	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.
8	Barthalen	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.
7	ABUNCHOFCATS	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.
6	terrymac	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.
6	TimeCapsule	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.
5	Alex Watkins	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.
5	Frosty	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.
5	Paxton	72 _71st
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.
5	nobamba	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.
4	Farzan	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.
4	BillyShears	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.
4	overrated	45 _39th
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.
3	PeaceAnarchy	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.
3	caiman	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.
3	Anomaly	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.
3	Luna6ix	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.
3	Langelund (CinemaZone.dk)	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.
3	mwgerb	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.
3	Jimmy Suede	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).
2	Derekstar	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.
2	Nathan S	1 _6th
Apart from some occasionally brilliant cinematography, this has been ravaged by time. Lugosi's performance is silly.
2	Icarus	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.
2	KasperL	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).
2	INDYATMN	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.
2	TrixRabbi	80 _69th
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.
2	KramYessev	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".
2	Trooth	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.
2	Yiannos	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.
1	lockeender	70 _24th
good old horror flick, the spanish version is better paced
1	JohnnyZombie	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.
1	djross	70 _76th
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.
1	Pickpocket	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.
1	teknicolor	88 _88th
Bela's eyes are tres sexy.
1	coffee	91 _95th
Yetl the best vampire movie ever.
1	HalfJapanese	55 _17th
Ultimately, a really boring movie. See Nosferatu instead.
1	twincinema	60 _36th
Renfield is the only burst of life in this film. Good to put on during a Sunday afternoon snooze.
1	On_Target	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.
1	Mohko	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?
1	Dean Franz	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).
1	Ofterdingen	59 _48th
High historical value. Otherwise pretty sloppy.
1	SNAKEFOOD89	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.
1	EgbertSouse	65 _26th
Would be forgotten if it had not starred Bela Lugosi.
1	moraesfelipe	65 _62nd
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.
1	MsIndpndnt	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"
1	walkearth	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.
1	CosmicMonkey	73 _41st
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.
1	FrederikA	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.
1	Alon Reter	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.
1	???	79 _79th
Bela taught Gaga how to come out of a coffin!
1	Kowry	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.
1	DesertPunk	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.
1	talonmalon	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.
1	VengefulKBM	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.
1	DyanneThorne	61 _48th
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.
1	karamazov.	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.
1	Heliophage	68 _85th
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.
1	NathanBates	60 _34th
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).
1	jimmyp	80 _68th
I think that the Hammer version of Dracula is better. This film is way too slow and stiff.
1	PianoSama	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.

Average Percentile 54.2% from 1472 Ratings