No Idea Why This Is Considered a Classic - Very Bad Film - Dracula (1931) Discussion

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

agreed.

It's even worse if you've read the original bram stoker novel.

the characters in the book (those who are still included; Quincy Morris and Arthur Holmwood were spared a butchering) would be INSULTED to share their names with these characters.

The Spanish version of the movie is pretty good though, even though it uses the same dumbed down plot as this one.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] bill3-1 12 years ago

Disagree, Dracula is great and the mexican version blows chunks, I wish you would quit saying it's good, because its not, and the mex Dracula looks cheesy and can't act, he's a joke compared to Bela.

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

The OP is right. this film is a joke.

I concede that Carlos Villarias is not as good as Bela Lugosi.

But in the Spanish version, Lupita Tovar's "Eva" doesn't spend the whole movie crying like a baby like Helan Chandler does, nor does Barry Norton spend the whole movie saying his fiance's name every 5 seconds like David Manners.

add that onto the fact that the Spanish version was exempt from the moral gardians:

ergo, Lucy being staked is more directly referenced (an off screen scream is still better than the offhand MENTION by Van helsing in the English version.)

Renfield gets a more violent death in that Dracula THROWS him off the stairs instead of letting him roll comically in a way that makes the viewer want to go "A...E...I...O...U...Y?"

If you want more examples, I'll gladly post them.

The Spanish version IS better. it feels like a MOVIE, not a total Narm-fest where every character is a walking Meme.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] Void-face 12 years ago

Agreed, the spanish version is the better version...

reply

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 12 years ago

Just because a film is old does not make it a classic.

Exactly. What makes a film a classic can vary.

In this case, it's because of its cultural impact. Every single Dracula film since 1931 has roots in this film. Every single portrayal of a vampire since 1931 is rooted in this film. It's an icon.

This film is poorly shot, poorly edited, poorly acted, and a total bore. Not scary in the least. In short, Dracula sucks!

Perhaps you need to do a little research on how movies worked in the early 1930s. This was the style of filmmaking at the time. Based on your posting history, it's obvious that you have no interest in films before 2010. Therefore, you're measuring the style against modern film...which will bring disappointment.

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

"Horror of Dracula" (1958) was not based on this film; it was more in line with the tone of the novel (the plot in that one was heavily altered as well, but at least not every character [including Dracula Himself] was made into an idiot like in this film), and Christopher Lee is considered the definitive Dracula everywhere except most of America.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 12 years ago

Who mentioned Christopher Lee or Horror of Dracula?

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

you said "Every SINGLE Dracula Film" as in, every Dracula film ever made.

Horror of Dracula is a Dracula film, therefore it is included.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 12 years ago

Well, Christopher Lee was a romantic, good-looking Dracula. Stoker's Dracula is an ugly old man until he drinks blood.

They got that notion from somewhere.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jt-hix2112 12 years ago

"Well, Christopher Lee was a romantic, good-looking Dracula."

???

Christopher Lee was a feral, animalistic, vicious Dracula that barely spoke. His portrayal, however, did make him a metaphor for sexual liberation which was expanded upon by later portrayals of Dracula and vampires in general.

My short films: http://www.youtube.com/user/jthix2554/videos?flow=grid&view=0

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Naphthous 11 years ago

I'm with you guys pretty much, but I have to say the book is rather badly written. There is no change in tone no matter which character is supposedly writing, which completely ruined it for me...

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

Actually, the producers WANTED to do a faithful adaption of the novel, budget forced them to do the stage play instead. But that's still no excuse as to how bad the acting is and how STUPID all the characters (Including Dracula himself) are.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] dimsum73-1 12 years ago

Frankenstein isn't faithful to the novel either.

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

but at least it didn't butchur the characters and it still had a lot of the essance of the Novel.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] Skye_Reynolds 12 years ago

Bride of Frankenstein had a few similarities with the novel, but the first film basically took the concept of the novel and created something completely different. Victor Frankenstein becomes Henry Frankenstein. Justine Moritz and William Frankenstein are absent. Henry Clerval becomes Victor Moritz and is a rival suitor for Elizabeth's affections. Dr. Waldman goes from being a minor character to being the movie's rough equivalent of the film Dracula's Professor Van Helsing. Fritz is a completely original character. Henry's personality is completely different from that of Victor, aside from both having the same goals and ambitions. The monster doesn't seek vengeance by attacking Frankenstein's family. The climax and overall narrative are completely different.

The film and the novel are as different as night and day. It would be easier to count up all of the similarities than it would their differences. It's just that it's so well done that it actually has a better story and more likable characters than the novel. I still greatly respect Mary Shelley and her work though. Frankenstein was an incredible novel.

reply

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 12 years ago

Universal's Frankenstein was an adaptation of a play by Peggy Webling, not of Mary Shelley's novel. (Admittedly this becomes confusing in Bride of Frankenstein, which features a fictionalized version of the night Mary Shelley first thought of the idea for her story.)

Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you.

reply

[–] Skye_Reynolds 12 years ago

Universal's Dracula was also based on a stage play rather than the novel.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Brian Scott Mednick 12 years ago

Bravo!

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RHPSvegas 12 years ago

You want to know what sucks? Bram Stoker's novel. Talking about a yawner! The play adaptation, and what ultimately resulted in the film, are so much better. The characters are fleshed out, the story is made coherant, the gothic style is realized fully.

You want to know what makes this film a classic? It set the standard for the Dracula/vampire film. Poorly shot? Poorly edited? Poorly acted? Sounds like someone needs to enroll in a film class or read book by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Today's audiences are so uneducated...

Ignore Republicans; then you rob them of their lies having any influence. http://foxnewslies.net/

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

"The play adaptation, and what ultimately resulted in the film, are so much better. The characters are fleshed out, the story is made coherant, the gothic style is realized fully."

Please tell me you're joking.
even "Dracula: Dead and Loving it" was a more emotional version then this Narm-fest.

hell, even CASTLEVANIA has a better portrayal of Dracula.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] RHPSvegas 12 years ago

You think you know so damn much, yet you never reference the original Nosferatu, which is a direct rip off of Stoker's novel, but the studio couldn't get the rights to the name.

Universal's original Dracula film is known worldwide for setting the standard for vampire films: gothic, romantic, unsettling. Made by a major American studio. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it hasn't earned its place a bona-fide classic in film history. It's not going away, no matter how you try to discredit it.

Ignore Republicans; then you rob them of their lies having any influence. http://foxnewslies.net/

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

We're not talking about "Nosferatu" here. I only saw it once on a crappy bootleg quality DVD, I could barely see what the hell was going on and there weren't even any dialogue cards.

Have you even READ the original Dracula Novel?

I don't think so, because there is NO WAY any of the characters in this film are "fleshed out". EVERY. SINGLE. CHARACTER in this film is dumbed down BIGTIME compared to their novel counterparts. I'm going to list the biggest offenses:

Novel:

Mina:
An independent schoolmarm (who is NOT dr. seward's daughter), who travels to meet atnd marry her fiance Jonathon Harker and nurse him back to health after he's nearly driven insane from being imprisoned in Dracula's castle for almost two months. she's also the "team mom", keeping the men re-assured and calm, even as she's in danger of becoming a vampire.

Dracula:
Flees back to Transylvania after he is exposed, AND after the heroes hunted down every last one of his 50 earth boxes he had scattered around the countryside. In turn, the rest of the good guys are smart enough to pursue him.

The Climax:
There is a climactic struggle with Dracula's followers, resulting in the death of Quincy morris as he kills dracula with a bowie knife. all of this is told from Mina's point of view, and she and Harker name their first son after him.

The Film:

Mina: a pathetic, wimpering rich man's child who sits on her ass and cries all day.

Dracula: Lets himself be exposed IMMEDIATELY, and just stays where everyone knows he "Lives".

The Climax: The good guys apparently can't find their way around an abandoned abbey that they've lived next door to all their lives, so they need Renfield to lead them there, and wait until Mina's literally on her last pint of blood to follow Renfield on one of his many trips, and then they just hammer a stake through Dracula's heart while he sleeps in his coffin.

The ONLY time this film comes close to matching the tone of the novel are the opening scenes in Transylvania. it all goes downhill once we see the shadow of the captain tied to the wheel of the ship and the random narm-y "here NOW! here NOW!"

Universal was even too cheap to pay for costumes and retain the proper Victorian setting.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] RHPSvegas 12 years ago

I JUST REREAD DRACULA LAST MONTH AND I STAND BY WHAT I SAID - THE NOVEL IS BORING, TOLD IN JOURNAL ENTRIES AND LETTERS, THE CHARACTERS ARE NOT FULLY FLESHED OUT AND MOST OF THEIR DETAILS ARE ONLY ALLUDED TO. I WANTED TO SMACK MINA MOST OF THE TIME FOR BEING SUCH AN OVERZEALOUS, SIMPERING, PRIMADONNA B****.

The film visualized THE PLAY (which you keep overlooking as well). The play was critically acclaimed, even by Stoker himself. You obviously are purposely choosing to overlook the way films were made at the time period in film history simply because you don't like the way the film looks and plays out in regards to the novel. You're nitpicking things even the author was okay with.

You don't like it, fine, but you cannot deny its impact on the horror genre and film history in general. If you do, you're willfully ignorant. Check out Daniel Cohen's book "Horror Movies" that should explain things nicely.

Stick to the Coppola version; it's obvious you're looking for something completely stylized and overblown like that.

Ignore Republicans; then you rob them of their lies having any influence. http://foxnewslies.net/

reply

[–] reaseltbim 12 years ago

there were better movies at the time, Phantom of the Opera, Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari were WAY better movies than Dracula. Even Nosferatu was a better movie, movies that really did inspire. I think Dracula is as big as it was because it was not a silent film, the novelty of being a talkie probably helped it a lot.
I think the movie is overrated. Is like when they make a movie today and there is so much hype around it people don't even care if it is good or not, that happens to a lot of movies today, the hype builds up and builds up, This was probaby the case back in 1931.

There were better movies that came out even before Dracula, and after, Frankenstein is much much better. This movie lacked a good director and even the Spanish version of Dracula is better And more complete.

Your argument is invalid when they were silent films that were Much better than Dracula was.

One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

Bram Stoker died in 1912.

The play came out in 1924.

I don't know if the original play had more effort put into it, but I do think that if Stoker saw the 1931 film, his reaction would be akin to Roald Dahl and "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". Maybe that's for the best that he never saw it, as such he didn't bar any future film adaptations of his novel, and as such Terrance Fisher and Christopher Lee were able to do an adaptation Stoker would be pleased with.

EDIT: and let's not forget the BBC 1977 version, the most faithful adaptation of the novel to date)

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

Telling the story by means of journal entries and letters is just a means to allow a first person narrative without sticking to just one character's POV.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] liscarkat (19393) 5 months ago

To piss off a Democrat, tell the truth. It's their Kryptonite.

reply

[–] VinnieRattolle 11 years ago

Uh, without the silent Nosferatu, we wouldn't have the whole 'sunlight kills vampires' motif that's been prevalent in vampire mythology ever since. So again, saying THIS film is the one that impacted everything that followed isn't entirely accurate. And if you haven't seen the restored version of Nosferatu, it's worth seeking out -- virtually the same plot but it's vastly superior to this film.

reply

[–] gwnightscream 11 years ago

It definitely followed in the footsteps of Nosferatu which is
also a classic. I'll admit, the film does have flaws like the
rubber bats hanging from wires and such, but it worked for
the imagination and you have to remember it's a very old
film that didn't have the technology/resources we have
today. It does have some neat backgrounds and gothic
tones going for it. I guess they had to work with what
they had and imo Bela is what makes the film with his
creepy looks & movements.

reply

[–] fritzfassbender 11 years ago

I mean this as dismissive to no one, but I feel absolutely no need to apologize for this film or anything in it. It is in no way a 'guilty' pleasure.

For some reason fans of Dracula seem to think it's much more disliked than it actually is. It currently has a 7.6 rating on this website, which is higher than The Wolf Man, Creature From The Black Lagoon, The Mummy and, to be just a bit petty, Bram Stoker's Dracula. This movie is a genuine classic.

There may be a number of huffy posts with double exclamation points and oh so clever spacing of the words, but as is often with the internet those posters are the real life minority. They're entitled to their opinion, but they do not have to be catered to.

In two words, Dracula rocks(!!)

reply

[–] Darwinskid 11 years ago

This was made during the great depression so money had to be spent wisely and special effects were nowhere near as advanced as they are today so they had to make plenty of sacrifices to make the film. Movies also weren't as long either and couldn't be that graphic so they had to speed up the story and imply more of the Gothic imagery and violence by having the characters describe to the audience. Back when it was released Dracula was the first horror movie with sound and helped launch Universal's slew of monster movies that would later be recognized throughout the general public as the grandfathers of terror. Feel free to dislike it, but at least appreciate it's impact on the genre.

I have an unbelievably long ignore list.

reply

[–] kerrykop 11 years ago

This movie was not based on the novel but on Dracula (play) by Hamilton Deane & John L. Balderston

reply

[–] Blackjack254 11 years ago

NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER.

The Spanish Version was based on the play as well, but it was LOADS better. It wasn't censored nearly as much, and the acting was Much better (especially on the part of Lupita Tovar as Eva Over Helen Chandler's Mina)

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] kerrykop 11 years ago

Money constraints due to the depression. The fact that the director was a silent film director which explains the scenes with a lot of silence in them. Yeah i would call them perfect excuses to why THIS Dracula is the way it is.

reply

[–] Blackjack254 11 years ago

How does budget justify Mina being downgraded from a strong confidant woman who plays an active roll in Dracula's defeat into a crying baby in an adult's body, or Dracula being downgraded from a cunning villain who has 50 boxes of earth to hide in into an overly cocky villan who waits until a half hour before dawn to attack, or everybody else sitting around and twiddling their thumbs for two days while they KNOW THEIR ENEMY LIVES RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM?

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] kerrykop 11 years ago

Funny, I didn't think they KNEW their enemy was next door until Dr. Van Helsing told them. BUT I guess I was not paying too much attention to the film like you were.

reply