skywalking997 Although it is somewhat less an adaptation of original Stoker novel, than it is an adaptation of the stage play, itself based on the novel, the 1931 version of "Dracula" does manage to create its own distinctive take on the story. It is also, of course, visibly dated, both in terms of its stylistic choices and (especially) in its use of music, but the film is compelling, nevertheless, and succeeds largely on the strength of its casting. Bela Lugosi never quite escaped the shadow of "Dracula", and Dracula never quite escaped the shadow of Lugosi. Regardless of how many others might play the role, there is still something intrinsically identifiable about this version of the character and, even though much of the horror and sexuality of later cinematic incarnations is muted, here, this version does remain one of the most iconic landmarks of vampire cinema.

Art Vandelay Like so many early talkies, Dracula plays like a stiff amateur stage play that happens to get captured on film. The more movies I see from the early talkie years the more I'm amazed Hollywood survived. It certainly went about 12 steps backward from the height of the silent era, in terms of camera movement, photography and even acting. Lugosi's goofy stare is creepy at first, but each time Browning trots it out it gets closer and closer to camp. Henfield over-acting his craziness, Harkar immediately grating on my nerves, the dames being indistinguishable from one another. And the talking, the talking, the talking. Dracula doesn't hold a candle to Nosferatu. It's not even in the same league.

kennykip Interesting movie, loaded with little details that are easily missed if you are not paying very close attention to them. i was first introduced to Dracula while watching Abbott and Costello. it was funny to see that the original Dracula had reprises his role in the Abbott and Costello movie. the Dracula in this movie however is a little darker and truly encompasses the meaning of being a monster film.

JohnHowardReid Copyright Universal A Tod Browning Production, presented by Carl Laemmle. New York opening at 12 February 1931. U.S. release: 14 February 1931. 75 minutes. NOTES: The stage play opened on Broadway at the Fulton on 5 October 1927 and ran for a smash-hit 265 performances before hitting the road. Lugosi, of course, played Dracula, and Edward Van Sloan was Van Helsing. Others in the cast included Dorothy Peterson, Nedda Harrison and Terrence Neill. Ira Hards directed for producer Horace Liveright. Filming began 29 September 1930 and wrapped 15 November 1930. Negative cost: approx. $355,000. COMMENT: At times, this version of Dracula seems very much like a filmed stage play. An engrossing play, but a work of theatre nonetheless. Other than skilful glass work enhancing some sets, there are no special photographic effects to speak of. The bat does not turn into Dracula before our eyes. Instead the inanimate creature dangles around very obviously on wires. Worse, the dialogue-especially in the less capable mouths of Manners and Bunston-tends to be stiff and stilted. Other critics have rightly objected to the considerable alterations made to Stoker's novel. Only the principal characters and the basic outline of the plot itself (plus of course all the legendary vampire lore) have been retained. However, production values are otherwise first-class and the movie actually looks much younger than its age. Browning's direction has tremendous drive and force, thanks in part to the powerful performances delivered by Lugosi, Chandler, Van Sloan, Frye and Dade; and thanks also to Freund's frighteningly atmospheric photography and Hall's superlatively moody, gothic sets. Astute film editing helps increase an already sharp pace, and it's a tribute to Browning's concentrated direction (and some forceful sound effects) that the absence of background music is not particularly noticed. AVAILABLE on DVD through Universal. Quality rating: eight out of ten (I thought some of the scenes were printed a bit too dark. It's sometimes hard to see what's going on).