Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Jarvis
Dracula:
Most of the compliments here should go to Bela Lugosi. He does have a charismatic presence that immediatley fills the screen with his intimidating look and his iconic voice. Making him into the Dracula that is still known and imitated to this date, often by people not even knowing Lugosi or his work.
Granted, for the more ADD prone among us, the close-ups on Lugosi's face may linger on a bit long. By today's standards, some of the descriptions look a bit silly (Oh my God, there is a big dog running by - surely they could have shown THAT back in 1931) and the end is a bit abrupt. But when you open yourself up and let yourself be immersed in the story, the 75 minutes fly by.
|
Well said!
Yep, the Dracula 1931 script is directly from the stage play, and it shows. It's both its weakness and its strength. There's some really good stage scenes!
And the castle sets are great! And then Dwight Frye just brings the house down with a totally bizarre and unique performance.
There's a lot a quiet, and so you can fall asleep to it. It's almost a bit of a slow burn. The young people are a total bore, so that's too bad. Should have cast those characters better and rewrote those scenes. And the end is very abrupt. Not perfect, but very immersive.
There's been a lot of other good Drac films: Nosferatu (1922), Vampyr (1932), Horror of Dracula (1958). Dracula (1992) has some inspiring cinematography especially early in the castle. I wasn't crazy about anything in London, but I guess it's a matter of taste.