come on. noone beats lugosi. this film still holds up after almost 100 years! can you believe that? and lugosis performance is truly awsome and cool. how anyone can say this is a bad film is beyond me. it just shows the lack of taste these idiots on imdb have.
shareI totally agree LaPfieffer92 and very well put subject post here too by the way . I'm watching this one tonight on MeTV on the Svengoolie show . I thought Bela Lugosi was excellent in this one as well as the other past films I have seen him in . Thanks LaPfieffer92 for your subject post .
shareoh yes. a heavily censored and dumbed down plot and characters who can't find their way around a ruined abbey they've lived next door to their whole lives and a villain who lets him self be exposed immediately and doesn't hide makes for a great film.
How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.
I dunno, Lugosi never apparently was much of an actor and despite his perfectly evil-count´ish looks, he does appear kinda awkward, wooden at times. Nothing beats Klaus Kinski (just like the Herzog film remains quite clearly the best Dracula/Nosferatu dramatization) and Schreck was also more effective, I think. However, Lugosi easily shoves aside the bizarre goofball Gary Oldman made of himself for the silly, unhinged mess FFC made of things in the 1992 adaptation that´s just, well, outright crappy. No question about it.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I agree, but I do like that Christopher Lee has fangs in his portrayals of Dracula. Lugosi`s Dracula remains one of my favorite films.
shareFranz, you couldn't be more wrong about Gary Oldman's performance. Some thought it was Oscar worthy.
Bela Legosi certainly had the stare down. I would say he is the best Dracula, and who immediately comes to everyone's mind, when you think of Dracula.
I agree with you. This is one of my favorite horror films of all time and Bela Lugosi is truly legendary as Dracula. Some have come close to making the character as terrifying as Bela did, but none of them have quite reached that level except for maybe Christopher Lee. But this movie does recieve tons of criticism on these message boards and I, too, fail to understand why. It is a Gothic, suspenseful, atmospheric masterpiece in my opinion.
Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.
I agree also. I think Lugosi's portrayal is definitive. And the sets, the atmosphere, are excellent. Some say Lugosi was a bit wooden; but he was, after all, portraying a sort of "walking dead" character. Thus the slow, stiff gait and measured style of speech, etc. I thought he did a marvelous portrayal. And those eyes, when he's putting someone under his spell, are inimitable.
A person's a person, no matter how small. -- Dr. Seuss
Lugosi will always be my favorite Dracula, with Lee on a good 2nd place.
shareI don't know, Lugosi was pretty wooden, sometimes he felt like a Statue, maybe that was intentional and maybe it helped the character but I really didn't see why people praise him so much for the role. He was cool as Dracula but I think another actor could have done more with the role, felt very lifeless and wooden, more than it needed to be.
Also I never really felt that Lugosi got angry when the character was supposed to be angry. Like in the mirror scene, felt like Dracula did not have emotions either.
IS that how the character in the book is supposed to be? almost zombie like?
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
To me there are only two great Draculas. Bela Lugosi & Christopher Lee. I give Lugosi a slight edge because he came first.
"America isn't ready for a gay, mexican chicken sandwich"