MovieChat Forums > Dracula (1958) Discussion > Very disappointing...doesn 't hold a can...

Very disappointing...doesn 't hold a candle to Lugosi


I'm a big fan of Dracula (moreso the novel than any of the films) but until today I had yet to see any of Lee's films. I have heard so many good things about Lee as Dracula, how he's better than Lugosi, etc. While I'm not exactly a fan of Lee, from what little I've seen of him elsewhere, I've found him to be very effective, menacing and IMO ideal for the character.

So I finally saw Horror of Dracula today, and I felt...that's it? Really? I found it to be very disappointing and boring even (and no, not because it's "old"--I love Nosferatu, for example).

The story felt really bowdlerized. Where was Renfield, for example? Such a great character. Or the three brides being narrowed down to one bride? And while I thought the concept of Harker being onto Dracula from the getgo to be interesting at first (definitely didn't expect that), that really took away the creeping sense of dread in the novel and in the Lugosi film. The earlier scenes where Harker slowly pieces together that he's trapped and that Dracula isn't human are some of the best scenes in the original story, but they're altogether glossed over. I get that there's only so much you can show in a film, but some of the most iconic elements were completely discarded with. And given that Hammer is apparently famous for lots of blood in their films, I found the film to be pretty tame.

The fact that Lee appeared so little didn't help at all. Now, in the book, Dracula only appears in the beginning and then disappears only to pop up sporadically until the end, but his presence was still felt throughout the story. Here I almost forgot he was in the film.

IMO, the Universal Dracula is fairly disappointing by today's standards (can't be helped though given the censors back then) but Lugosi makes the film worth watching. He is Dracula. To me, Lee doesn't come close. And maybe this is more due to his old age, but I've found Lee's deeper voice today to be much more threatening and melodious than how he sounded here (when he spoke at all). He was much more scarier and imposing as Saruman in LOTR.

reply

agree, the 1931 version blows this out of the water




so many movies, so little time

reply

The first minutes or so of Lugosi's Dracula is fantastic, pretty much up to the point where he goes to the theatre and encounters Lucy and Mina, then it turns into a drawing room play. It appears the Karl Freund, the cinematographer, who would later direct The Mummy, had much more input on the creepy Transylvania scenes than the later parts and it shows, Once the movie gets to England it isnt nearly as interesting. Christopher Lee's Dracula is much better paced, holds its mood better, has a score (not 1931's fault really that synching scores wasn't possible yet.) and has an on the whole superior cast. Even if you call it a draw betw Lugosi and Lee, Peter Cushing is the best Van Helsing ever, and Michael Gough is a far cry from the usual wimpy husband/lover type.


It is not our abilities that show who we truly are...it is our choices

reply

Incorrect opinion.

reply