Review of Dracula

Dracula (1931)
6/10
Dull and stagy, but essential viewing
6 November 2000
The film starts off extremely well with a visit to Dracula's castle in Transylvania. Then the movie moves to London and falls apart. For one thing, they changed the characters from the novel--Jonathan Harker went to Castle Dracula not Reinfield and everybody stands around talking about things. EVERYTHING is talked about, never shown. It's like watching a very static stage play. Also, a woman (Lucy) becomes a vampire early on. She's discussed...then ignored. It seems she's still wandering around after the movie ends! Also David Manners is very very good-looking as Harker, but his acting is bad. It's not entirely his fault--he has few lines and they're all pretty bad. Still, it should be seen for three reasons--Bela Lugosi, Dwight Frye and Edward Van Sloan. Lugosi is, of course, Dracula. He gives a great performance (hard to believe he was doing the lines phonetically) and his interpretation defined Dracula. Frye is really creepy (and funny) as Reinfeld--that laugh of his is REAL spooky! And Edward Van Sloan plays Van Helsing perfectly. Only Peter Cushing did a better job in the Hammer films. Also, Helen Chandler has one great moment playing Mina. She's under Dracula's spell and is hungrily looking at her boyfriend's neck! So, if you're a horror fan (like me) this is essential viewing, but expect lots of dull stretches when those three aren't on. Let's go listen to the children of the night...
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed