Drácula (1931)

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Whilst Universal films toiled during the days, Director George Melford and his team of Spanish film-makers worked through the nights using the same sets and adapting their own version of the story via the 1924 stage version.It is irresistible to compare this version with the Bela Lugosi-headed version, but I'll also try to review this film in its own right. Spanish Dracula is played by Carlos Villarias, the only member of the crew allowed to see the rushes of the Universal rushes so he could imitate Lugosi's mannerisms. This might do Villarias a disservice – there could only ever be one Lugosi performance, which is a very singular, much-copied affair that caused such a sensation that he was cursed (or blessed) to play horror characters for most of his career. Villarias could be seen as a tribute act – lots of grimacing and lizard-like movements, but little of the presence. He succeeds over Lugosi during the second half, where The Count is required to mingle with high society. Whereas Lugosi's mannerisms were so extreme, the polite responses around him were rendered ridiculous, the Spanish Conde makes some effort to ingratiate himself with the company. Villarias should not be criticised for not being Lugosi in my view, and he is perfectly fine in the role.Pablo Alvarez Rubio's Renfield is possibly more manic than was Dwight Frye's (but lacks the subtle fragility), and it is reassuring to know that Renfield's warden, Martin (Manuel Arbó), behaves just as inappropriately as his 'cockney' counterpart. Of course, it is difficult to appreciate the performances fully as I cannot speak Spanish, but it seems also that Eduardo Arozamena as Van Helsing, whilst authoritative, is not as stuffy as Edward Van Sloan's fastidious version. Kudos to Barry Norton for at least turning up to play the unrewarding and forgettable role of Juan Harker.The biggest contrast might well be the character of the main female victim. Helen Chandler's character Mina is a fragile, delicate creature – Lupita Tovar's Eva is more full-blooded, more sensual. Both versions of this character are excellent to my mind (Tovar died in 2016 aged 106).Whereas Melford's version doesn't quite measure up to the saturation levels of spooky atmosphere the American version displayed, it enjoys a far more watchable second half. The Direction is more assured, more filmic and less like a stage play. Villarias' first meeting with Renfield, after several lingering distant shots earlier on, is quite spectacular. The camera leaps from Renfield's viewpoint and rapidly tracks up the huge staircase to find El Conde perched and waiting, just in front of an equally impressive spider's web. The Castle remains a tremendous set, and is explored beautifully by Melford's camera, its huge scale revealed by some terrific camera angles. Even Dracula's rising from the coffin is handled imaginatively: always an awkward moment (we never see Dracula's undignified stepping out), here he merely rises from behind the open casket, framed by billowing smoke (clearly standing behind the coffin, not in it), as the lid slowly closes. Also, the welcome inclusion of the 'woman in white' is brief, but chilling.Is this 'better' than Tod Browning's version? Who cares? It is stagey, talky and brilliant. That's all the matters.

Carlos Villarias was a better actor than Bela Lugosi, but Villarias was campy at times and had zero sex appeal. He was also less creepy than Lugosi. Instead, Villarias made Dracula more lonely and and relatable. I feel that made Villarias the better Dracula by leaps and bounds. Villarias was the Dracula that Bram Stoker described. To make up for Villarias's lack of sensuality, Lupita Tovar oozed lust. At times, her hair was messy, tousled, and maybe even a little frizzy. Her outfits were tighter, showed more skin, and her body type was curvy and voluptuous. When she dove in to bite Mr. Harker, she looked like a flesh-crazed beast/a sex-crazed nymph and it's the most sexual moment I've seen in any 1930s movie. Dracula's harem girls were also more sensual than those in the American version. As for the camera work, the camera actually moves and there are more camera angles. As a result, you see more of the small details of the set design and more of the disorienting, unnatural shapes that the stairs, archs, etc. make.

This is great movie. It the same script has the one with Bela Lugosi with s.p.a.n.i.s.h actors. In not as good as the Bela Lugosi version. But still this is a great movie. It has a great story line. It is very scary. It is one of the scariest horror movie of all time. It based one of the the best horror stories ever told. The acting is not as good has the Bela Lugosi version. But still it is good acting. If you like scary movies then you need to see this movie. It is a a true horror classic. This movie is a must see. I need more lines. And I am running out things to say. This one of the best vampire movies ever made. Great movie.

Spanish-language version of Dracula filmed at the same time as the English-language version. While Tod Browning directed that one during the day, George Melford would direct this one at night using the same script and sets. Many consider this to be the superior version of the two, at least from a directing perspective. This film has a more polished look in most scenes than its English-language counterpart. The direction isn't as stiff or stagey as it often is with Tod Browning's Dracula. To be fair, however, director George Melford had the benefit of watching Browning's footage so he had a template with which to work and improve upon. This version is also longer by almost half an hour. There are no added scenes but each scene plays out longer with added dialogue. Often it's just a case of an extra shot or two per scene, with Melford taking his time and building tension. The added length is good and bad . Good because it allows for scenes to play out properly without feeling rushed, as sometimes was the case with Browning's film. Bad because the added time is mostly added dialogue, which makes the long stretches with little action seem interminable. There are also more sound effects in this one as well as bits of music. It helps things considerably, especially in the creepy castle scenes.The ultimate shortcoming with the Spanish version of Dracula is the cast, particularly the lead actor. Bela Lugosi, for all his hamminess, was an undeniably menacing presence in his film. Comical-looking Carlos Villarías seems a poor imitation, with his constant crazy eyes and goofy smile. It's hard to take him seriously, let alone find him a threatening or alluring character. Pablo Álvarez Rubio is good and probably a better actor than Dwight Frye, but somehow his Renfield is less memorable in comparison to Frye's over-the-top performance. Eduardo Arozamena is decent as Van Helsing but he lacks Edward Van Sloan's screen presence. The guy looks like Eugene Levy! The only solid improvements in the cast are in the romantic pair of Juan and Eva (John and Mina in the other). Barry Norton is a more grounded actor than the theatrically-inclined David Manners. Lupita Tovar is much sexier and livelier than Helen Chandler's pallid Mina.It's certainly a great movie and not just a curio. Stronger in some ways than Browning's Dracula but weaker in others. I would say they're both about even, with a slight edge to the Browning version simply because of the iconic performances of Lugosi, Van Sloan, and Frye.