Seriously, this movie is nowhere near as creepy as Bram Stoker's original masterpiece. Lugosi's Dracula is practically laughable.
Take my hand, I'll lead you to salvation
Take my love, for love is everlasting
THERE SEEM TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LOT TO SAY WITHOUT REALIZING THIS MOVIE ISNT BASED ON THAT BOOK...SILLY.🙄
shareThis is not entirely true. The play--all versions of it before the 1931 movie, anyway--have no trip to Transylvania and nothing outside the English settings. So, even if the failings of the play excuse the failings of the film; the screenwriters went back to the novel and there was every opportunity to do a better job.
I like the 1931 film, but it is a weak adaptation of the novel, particularly when compared with an earlier effort like Nosferatu (which made it's own changes, but is a lot more effective as a horror film).
THE FILM IS BASED ON THE 1924 STAGE PLAY WITH A DASH OF THE NOVEL AND EVEN SOME STOLEN BITS FROM NOSFERATU.
shareI recall there being a dozen writers who worked on the screenplay, and the novel is the only reference that they could have had outside of the play. So I take it that they were using the novel as the secondary basis.
The advertising for the film always mentioned the play, because it was popular, but ads always mentioned the novel more prominently.
I think that even if the screenwriters were working from the play, criticizing the film for being so far from the novel is still quite reasonable.
I guess I'll be the one rube who confesses to preferring the film to the book. I can't argue with Stoker's novel for its literally worth or cultural importance, but as fiction I personally did not find it that engaging. This film is obviously very of its time but to me it is still entertaining. It is also far from the least faithful novel adaptation I've ever seen.
shareSeriously, this movie is nowhere near as creepy as Bram Stoker's original masterpiece. Lugosi's Dracula is practically laughable.
thats the idea