Universal Classic Monsters : The Essential Collection (Blu-ray)

[shootemindehead]

The 1931 'Dracula' is a pretty dreadful film and it only has a place in history because of its age really, and its charismatic star too, I suppose. It's completely blown out of the water by 'Frankenstein', which continues to surprise audiences even today. 'Dracula' had a somewhat troubled production, which accounts for its underwhelming effect. I also think that Browning disliked Lugosi, which didn't help. He wanted Lon Chaney to be the star, but Chaney was brown bread at that stage. It's also hampered by annoying silent era type acting.

[Mike70]

now if only someone would show "Son of Frankenstein", i could leave this world satisfied as far as movie viewing goes. that is probably my fav of the entire lot. as for "dracula", i'm rather meh about it. "Dracula's Daughter" is a much, much better movie. - - - Updated - - - The 1931 'Dracula' is a pretty dreadful film and it only has a place in history because of its age really, and its charismatic star too, I suppose. It's completely blown out of the water by 'Frankenstein', which continues to surprise audiences even today. Dracula is just creaky and and somewhere in this thread the "silent style" of acting is mentioned. i think that hits it right on the head. the movie has no punch to it, things move from one place to another much too fast for that sort of production and all in all, just has a rather empty feel to it. plus, it feels much too much like a play that was simply shot to film. Lugosi was much better as Igor in some of the Frankenstein sequels. your point about "Frankenstein" is dead on. i was blown away by seeing it on the big screen even after having watched it about a million times (The Frankenstein movies are things i never pass up a chance to watch - in my opinion the best series of movies that's been done). I think i said in my original post about seeing the double feature that Colin Clive and Boris Karloff's performances jump off the screen and their intensity is amazing. on another note: I've always been quite partial to "the mummy." the hammer version of that is one of their better movies.

[shootemindehead]

I've read that Browning just filmed the portions of the script that he liked and disregarded the rest. That may account for the choppy nature of 'Dracula'. In fact, I've read that Browning left much of the film to another person a lot of the time.

[kidgloves]

I've read that Browning just filmed the portions of the script that he liked and disregarded the rest. That may account for the choppy nature of 'Dracula'. In fact, I've read that Browning left much of the film to another person a lot of the time. The Spanish version is a much more coherent film. The star is no Bela Lugosi though and it stands out a lot after seeing Lugosi's performance in the English version.

[shootemindehead]

I've never seen the Spanish version Kid. I understand that it was all shot on the same sets. There were some clips on YouTube and you're right, he ain't no Bela.

[kidgloves]

I've never seen the Spanish version Kid. I understand that it was all shot on the same sets. There were some clips on YouTube and you're right, he ain't no Bela. Yeah. They shot the English version during the day and the Spanish one at night. Was common practice apparently those days as dubbing was considered to be "cheating". Its really interesting to watch one after the other and seeing the 2 different takes on the same scenes.