Mini Rant on Dracula (1931)
 

After reading several enthusiastic threads on the Monster Legacy dvd's I though I would Tivo some of the Universal Monster movies on TCM to watch before purchasing the dvd's.

The first one I watched was Dracula. Now, understand that I went into this with the best possible attitude, saying things to myself like, "This is a very old movie, keep in mind the historical significance, etc." I have to say it was pretty bad. The editing (cut to still shot of Drac's face) was jarring, the pacing was off and the long periods of silence were awful. I am not unfarmiliar with movies of this era either, heck, Freaks is one of my favorite dvd's/movies.

I would like to hear some other's thoughts on this movie. Will I dislike th rest of the Universal Monster series?

Re: Mini Rant on Dracula (1931)
 

Interesting, since they share the same director.

It's hard to say if you'll like the other movies based on this one. The best horror movie from that period (hands down) is Bride of Frankenstein, and it's very very different than Dracula.

Last night on Bravo's 100 scariest movie moments they talked about how there's a lot of 'There's a large dog crossing the yard' kind of exposition instead of actually showing it because the movie was actually based on the play. Perhaps viewed in that context helps?

I'm not a big fan of the 1931 version of Dracula either. I actually prefer the Spanish version also present on the Monster Legacy disk which I think is a much better film. I've been slowly making my way through the rest of the films on the Dracula disk and really enjoyed Son of Dracula although I thought Dracula's Daughter was pretty unexciting. I haven't seen House of Dracula yet so I can't comment on that.

The Frankenstein disk is great just for Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein which are incredible. The remaining movies are fair to bad with the House of Frankenstein being campy fun!

I've only seen the Wolfman on the Wolfman disk so far and can't comment on the other films.

I also just received the Invisible Man/Mummy/Creature sets from Amazon a couple of days ago. I've seen several of the films on each disk including the first of each series but it has been so long since I've seen them (20 years or more) that I don't remember them too well besides vague impessions. I remember thinking that the Creature from Black Lagoon and Return of the Creature were very good films. A good friend of mine whose opinion on films I really respect, recently commented on seeing Creature for the first time and really liking it.

Overall, I think the Legacy sets are a great buy. The way I look at it is that each disk has at least 2 good movies and I consider the rest of the series nice throw-ins. To me, that is worth $18 price tag per set. Hope that helps in some small way.

One thing you need to remember while watching Dracula is that Tod Browning was used to making movies during the Silent era and had a difficult transition into sound. Plus, the use of effective soundtracks to evoke mood hadn't fully developed in early talkies which may be why you specifically noticed the long periods of silence in Dracula.

I, personally, love the film but can see why it might be jarring for others. I still have the first couple monster sets (though none of the dual film releases)...haven't upgraded to the latest legacy sets yet. It's been a long time since I've seen any of the lesser sequels.

Michael

Yes, I remember this same comment from the documentary on Freaks. Ironically I noticed the lack of sound a lot more on Dracula than Freaks.

What did you like about it? Just curious.

It's definitely a dull film but Bela makes it worth watching. There's many other Universal monster flicks that are much better than this.

I was going to suggest the Spanish version also. I think I read somewhere, (or it's on the DVD) that the Spanish crew would watch the English version dailies, then shoot their version at night. They learned from the mistakes of the English crew and it's a tad longer too.

Yes, the Spanish version is much better (shot set ups, editing, etc). The only thing that's better about the English version is Lugosi. That's interesting about the Spanish crew watching the English dailies. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

Part of the problem with DRACULA is that it's a early talkie. Studios weren't really sure how to effectively handle soundtracks yet, and the film looks too stagebound due to limited camera movements, because of worries about the microphones.

wordtoyamotha, maybe you should watch newer movies instead? "Word." As you kids like to say nowadays.

LOL......well said. Lugosi was great in this role and had it not been for THIS movie Dracula would not be a household name. In it's time audiences were literally fainting in the theaters. That we are a bit more sophisticated (numb) to the horror genre 73 years later plays a part in some people's disregard this movie.

yo yo yo, I don't know what some of you peeps are bitchin about. this movie's a goddamn classic, Bela Lugosi...that's my boy right there. anyone who disagrees are wack in my book so vacate the area.

Word to ya motha and latez muthafuckas

To wordtoyamotha:

Thanks for immortalizing me in the quote! When I said that, it was heartfelt (still is). I'm honored you liked it so much.

Most people today (critics included) consider Dracula to be a pretty mediocre film.

Try Frankenstein or The Invisible Man for a more enjoyable experience.

fuck critics

I also was disappointed by Dracula the first time I saw it. It's better on the second viewing.

I think the best one to start with is Frankenstein. I was immediately impressed by it.

I haven't seen it in awhile, but I remember The Mummy being deadly dull.

I don't think it'll live up to one's expectations if they're seeing it for the first time now. Even with an open mind, it can't possibly have the same effect on someone like it did when it first debuted.

On that note, I think the first act is incredible, but think it slows down too much once they head back to England. The ending picks up a bit, but the first act is where everything that's been immortalized is.

In regards to the lack of soundtrack, I prefer it that way. The lack of sound makes the trip to Dracula's castle that much creepier. I doubt it would've had the same impact had there been music playing in the background.

Also, I think it was Browning who noted his disdain for talkie pictures. Something about people feeling the need to use sound ALL the time just because they could.

Wow. There's a thread on this.

I just finished watching the DVD for the first time and like the original poster, I'm not all that impressed. I have yet to see Frankenstien, but did see Wolf Man and that was better than Dracula. The era just isn't for me I guess, but I still appreciate the movies they spawned later on.

Nor was I ever that fond of 1931's Dracula.

A few of you are being very unfair to Wordtoyamotha... he never says he doesn't respect the films, as some of you imply... he simply said he didn't like Dracula. That's not so hard to believe!

I have always liked the creepy atmosphere that Dracula exudes, that was a great Carfax Abbey set (considering when it was made). I have always seen this movie as a great one to play during Halloween because it is so creepy. I LOVE the close ups, hammy going by today's standards but I can see how people were freaked out by it 73 years ago. My 9 year old son was creeped out by it as wel as by Frankenstein. Old age (subjectively speaking) kinda gets rid of that feeling, unfortunately. I miss those days (hell, I used to get creeped out by the TV ad for Halloween when I was 7).

I've always liked the Lugosi Dracula. But, it is a rather stiff production. It comes off more like a stage play that has been filmed.

The Spanish version of Dracula is a superior production. The only problem with the Spanish version is the actor playing Dracula, Carlos Villarías. He is very bad in the role. It's too bad Bela Lugosi wasn't cast to play Dracula in the Spanish verision. It would have been fantastic.