Dracula (1931)
 

! :D !


Just watched this, Tod Browning is a genius.

And how ace is Bela Lugosi!

No matter how many other "Dracula"s there are Lugosi will always BE THE Dracula. This one is one of the true great classics of film. I love it.

I consider this easily the best horror film of all time. The performances, the sets, Tod Browning's directing...everything. Im not very partial to the recently scored version...one of the coolest things about the orignial film was the lack of music in certain [AKA most] scenes. It gave it a sort of unnatural feel, made it all the more eerie. Oh well, I have both versions on DVD + the score-less version on VHS:D

I'm sorry I think I have to disagree. It is regarded as one of the earliest Dracula stories but as we all know, 'Nosferatu' pre-dated it and has a much more foreboding atmosphere and also a better conception of what a moster is. Browning did better with 'Freaks' and much as I love Lugosi I wouldn't think too many folk seriously consider him an excellent actor/performer. I have nostalgic sentiment for 'Dracula' 1931 but it's more based on watching the film as a small child and loving it rather than thinking it's still a brilliant film now. I would recommend the Spanish language version, filmed at the same time, it uses the camera much better although it's not as iconic a titular performance as Lugosi's.

agreed - the spanish version is much more interesting in terms of cinematography - of course the story goes that the spanish crew shot at night and got to see the english crew's dailies - therefore they could repeat the shots they liked and innovate where things didn't work in the english version.

still, historically speaking, the 1931 Dracula is the beginning of the american horror film

Shreck's performance relied 100% on makeup. He basically just stood there the whole movie...and you say he's better than Lugosi? Sure, he usually isnt exactly a quality actor, but he certainly polished his shoes and pulled up his socks for this one. Every gesture, every word, every facial expression...wow. Absolutly amazing.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that Max Schreck was a better actor than Lugosi nor that Schreck's performance in 'Nosferatu' is better than Lugosi's in Dracula. I don't think Lugosi has ever been better than he was in 1931 but Schreck in 'Nosferatu' certainly has a lot of presence, I think that may be more than just make-up. Nosferatu just seems a much more 'adult' film than 'Dracula' 1931 but granted it's not nearly as much fun. Richard Dyer (I think) has an excellent essay on gay images and stereotypes in 'Nosferatu', for anyone interested in gay readings of horror films I'd recommend Dyer hugely.

I love the '31 version of Dracula. I remember reading about the film in elementary school. I got a slight crush on Lugosi. When I finally saw the film a few years later (late elementary school or early middle school), I was glued to the screen. My mum even thought it was cool that I was experiencing this film for the first time.

This is a cardinal sin in horror fandom, but I have not seen Nosferatu all the way through, but I really want to. My b-day is coming up, and I think I'll request some of the classics I have not seen ever or in a long time, and some of the Italian films I'm dying to see.

I LOVE Nosferatu. I think it is amazing, in my top 10 movies of all time.

You guys are gonna shooty me for saying this, but I have yet to see Dracula (1931).

I own the Legacy Collection, but I'm halfway through the book (which is the best book I've EVER read) and don't want to watch it 'til I'm done.

But boy am I looking forward to it.

It strays a fair bit from the novel, just so you're warned. While nowhere as good a film, Coppola's 1992 version is much more faithful.