Just watched dracula, and I must say...

[BawonSamedi]

There are 30s horror films with genuine chills to be had. Vampyr is one of those, The Black Cat, Island of Lost Souls and White Zombie all bring about a sense of profound disquiet at times and the psychosexual content of The Raven is really intense. Freaks is also a good example of legitimately scary 30s horror as well.

[phantomstranger]

Don't forget the original"Nosferatu"(1922)and "Phantom Of The Opera". True classics.

[metternich1815]

Max Schrek as Count Orlok from Nosferatu looks creepy, even by today's standards. As for Dracula (1931), it is an all-around great film. A brilliant classic. Definitely one of my favorite films from the 1930s.

[Frank Lefanu]

Max Schrek as Count Orlok from Nosferatu looks creepy, even by today's standards. As for Dracula (1931), it is an all-around great film. A brilliant classic. Definitely one of my favorite films from the 1930s.

I find Nosferatu to be the scariest looking Dracula of all.

[Jesse K]

I find Nosferatu to be the scariest looking Dracula of all.

I found it to be the creepiest thing in film history. IMO

[FryeDwight]

There are 30s horror films with genuine chills to be had. Vampyr is one of those, The Black Cat, Island of Lost Souls and White Zombie all bring about a sense of profound disquiet at times and the psychosexual content of The Raven is really intense. Freaks is also a good example of legitimately scary 30s horror as well.
So....I take it that you were less than impressed with DRACULA?
Love Bela Lugosi and his scenes in Transylvania with Dwight Frye are great, but it goes down quick after that...SO MANY missed opportunities. Check out the spanish version for a more complete story.

[Nihilove]

There are 30s horror films with genuine chills to be had. Vampyr is one of those, The Black Cat, Island of Lost Souls and White Zombie all bring about a sense of profound disquiet at times and the psychosexual content of The Raven is really intense. Freaks is also a good example of legitimately scary 30s horror as well.

Yes, there was something about the early 30s specifically that spawned some of the most haunting and memorable horror films.

1931 alone had Vampyr, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with Frederic March, and of course, both Frankenstein and Dracula.

There's something particularly disturbing about Island of Lost Souls, which hot of the heels of Freaks, also uses people with real physical deformities. I believe that many of the animal men in the film were microcephalic or 'pinheads'.

These films were some of the last before the censorship code in Hollywood was strictly enforced, which might explain the particular perversity and fearlessness that seemed to permeate around that time.

[horcrux2007]

There's a 30's horror film that I liked that had something about cats in the title? I can't remember it, but I'm pretty sure the word "Cat" was in the title. It wasn't The Black Cat.

[Nihilove]

The Cat and the Canary?

[Nihilove]

Oh, I forgot about The Old Dark House (1932) !

That is a very strange, underrated film by James Whale right after Frankenstein.

[horcrux2007]

The Cat and the Canary?

That's not it. I think it's called Cat People? Does that ring a bell?

[Nihilove]

Yes!

That was made in 1942 by Val Lewton.

It's been a long time since I saw it. It was remade in the 80s.

[idoneus1957]

Are vampires supposed to be scary? I like a vampire movie where the theme is more like Seduction. Slaughter of the Vampires is kind of "the vampire as homewrecker."

Hammer films knew perfectly well how to be erotic in "Horror of Dracula" but they seem to have eventually forgotten. I hated it when the girl kept waking up screaming in The Vampire Lovers. I mean, I like it more when the vampire's victim seems to be having a good time, like, when the vampire bite her, her facial expression changes from fear and surprise to "Ooh,I really dig this."

If you notice, in the later Hammer movies, the vampire's hypnotic powers are strangely unreliable. The victim keeps falling out of hypnosis at the wrong time (i.e., before the vampire's bite.)

[fudgetusk]

Oh, I forgot about The Old Dark House (1932) !

That is a very strange, underrated film by James Whale right after Frankenstein.

Flames are really cold, my friend, and they cut, like knives!

[idoneus1957]

Yes, the old dark house is certainly the original "old dark house" movie! I especially like the pyromaniac brother...what was his name?
Boris Karloff's part in small but I am always greatful for a Karloff appearance. Even in a cheap crummy movie, Karloff's presence gives it a touch of class.

Frustratingly, when my cable lists The Old Dark House it always turns out to be the crummy remake from the 1960s.

[idoneus1957]

Mentions of The Cat People often ignite an endless debate on whether it's better to show or suggest in horror movies. Stephen King's answer in his book Danse Macabre is basically "it depends on the circumstances."
I think that showing the demon adds a lot to Curse of the Demon even though Jacques Tourneur didn't want to do it.

[idoneus1957]

Maybe it was The Cat People. That movie has a heavy rep.
Or Curse of the Cat People. That isn't really a sequel to the Cat people at all. It wasn't even a horror movie. But it's a charming movie.
And there's Cat Girl, starring Barbara Shelley.

[Sculpt]

Mentions of The Cat People often ignite an endless debate on whether it's better to show or suggest in horror movies. Stephen King's answer in his book Danse Macabre is basically "it depends on the circumstances."
I think that showing the demon adds a lot to Curse of the Demon even though Jacques Tourneur didn't want to do it.
Agreed on both accounts. What a shot in Curse of the Demon! Cat People and The Thing both work.

[idoneus1957]

Yes, I agree that Dracula, where movie direction is concerned, can't be called a classic. It's just part of horror film history. Did you know? David Manners got paid 4 times as much for playing Harker as Lugosi did for playing Dracula, because at the time Manners was much better know.

For a vintage horror movie that really is a classic, try Frankenstein, and then The Bride of Frankenstein.

[Sculpt]

Yes, I agree that Dracula, where movie direction is concerned, can't be called a classic. It's just part of horror film history. Did you know? David Manners got paid 4 times as much for playing Harker as Lugosi did for playing Dracula, because at the time Manners was much better know.

For a vintage horror movie that really is a classic, try Frankenstein, and then The Bride of Frankenstein.
Dracula (1931) has it's defects, it can be slow and stagey in places. But if you look at the beginning of the film, with the incredible sets of Dracula's castle, all of those scenes, then throughout the film, add the scenes with Lugosi/Dracula, Edward Van Sloan/Van Helsing and Dwight Frye/Renfield, I think you have a true classic.

I think the first two Frankenstein's aren't without similar issues, including in one case, some silliness.