User reviews

(62%) It is without doubt a classic owing to the fact that it is so well made, and so memorable. The sets are some of the greatest ever to appear on any film, and Lugosi is great as the awful head vamp. It's more than a little dated of course, so there's no blood/biting or on-screen death or murder, plus the acting is very theatrical at times, and there's quite a few long drawn-out sections of total silence that highlight exactly how old and pioneering it is.With that said, all horror fans should watch this at least once, as it does make a great late-night Halloween movie that will live on - just like the old count himself - forever.

While Tod Browning's Dracula is not the definitive take on the most famous vampire of all time, it is possibly the most memorable one. This is not due to Browning's technical achievements or directorial wizardry, by ANY means. It is due to Bela Lugosi's career-defining portrayal of the title character. Born in what is now Lugoj, Romania, Lugosi brings to the part the flavor of his homeland, making him more believable as Dracula. This other-worldly aesthetic helped to make his performance what many consider the ultimate incarnation of Stoker's Dracula. Having played the Count in Hamilton Deane's Broadway version of Dracula, which started in 1927, Bela Lugosi was more than prepared for the role when it was time to commit it to film. Still struggling with the English language, however, he had to learn his lines phonetically. European accent in tact, he was able to deliver such memorable lines as, "I bid you welcome," "Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make," and, of course, "I am Dracula." His performance alone is reason enough to watch this monster movie classic. If only the rest of the film was as spectacular as Lugosi. Dwight Frye's Renfield, while perhaps a little too over-the-top, is still another highlight to the film, and even Edward Van Sloan's Van Helsing is enough to challenge the might of Count Dracula. The rest of the film is rather flat to me. Now, I know it was made in 1931, and that, at the time, it horrified audiences, but I still stand by my opinion that the overall movie pales in comparison to Bela Lugosi's performance. Everyone else just seemed to be going through the motions, and it seems especially evident while Helen Chandler and David Manners are on screen. They just aren't convincing. I'm not saying that their performances ruin the film. It is still a classic, and certainly worth a viewing, but if you are in the mood for a vampire movie that is worthy of Bram Stoker's name, look no further than F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu. It is much more convincing and even scarier than Tod Browning's Dracula, despite being nine years older and silent. All in all, though, one cannot overlook the stellar performance of Bela Lugosi in the role he was born to play!

... and that explains all of the differences, such as Renfield being the person to visit Dracula in Transylvania to seal a real estate deal rather than Jonathan Harker.

I imagine this was quite the spectacle in 1931. Visually it still is - sweeping staircases, ruined old castles covered in dust, moonlight illuminating giant spiderwebs, coffins with limbs hanging out of them, rats scurrying about. And Bela Lugosi, who starred in the Broadway play, was dying to play the lead. But director Tod Browning was set on Lon Chaney, a frequent collaborator, playing both Dracula and Van Helsiing.

It's not true that everybody is replaceable, but it IS true that eventually an irreplaceable person will no longer be around and a perhaps less than ideal work-around must be found. This was the situation with Chaney - a unique actor who could convince you he was anybody. He died before Dracula was filmed. Lugosi successfully lobbied for the part, although he did so at a cut rate. Today his old world hypnotic presence is synonymous with the role.

But I have to admit I have an unpopular opinion. To me Dracula seems very slow and very much "early talkie" in personality when compared to the film Frankenstein of just a year later. Also, like many early talking films that were not musicals, there is no score.

And I have to wonder about director Tod Browning. Although this was Browning's biggest hit, his other enduring works all starred Lon Chaney. He only directed a few more films and disappeared from the industry for a quarter of a century until his death. He had a disappearing act worthy of Universal Horror.

Things to watch for - Armadillos in Transylvania? Probably far too cold for them there. David Manners and Helen Chandler as young lovers Jonathan Harker and Mina - They have all of the chemistry of two cardboard boxes. Why did they keep pairing these two in films? Dwight Frye as Renfield - did Frye EVER get to play a normal person? And why would he want to be sent away? He gets to wander in and out of the lush living quarters of the superintendent f the mental facility. He wouldn't get that freedom anywhere else. And last but not least, Carla Laemmle, unrecognizable as a tourist, reading from a Transylvania tour guide.

"I bid you welcome," "I never drink wine," "Children of the night...what music they make," and of course "I am Dracula" are memorable lines that resonate throughout horror films, literature, art, etc... throughout the 20th century because of a landmark film made in 1931 starring Bela Lugosi and directed by Tom Browning. This film was the birth of the horror film as we know it. Its importance can not be underestimated. Dracula is a wonderful film for so many reasons, but first let's look at its many faults.

The film is by today standards very antiquated. It has almost no soundtrack, stage acting for the most part, limited special effects, and a slow pacing. It has long parts of little action and lots of chat. It shows little while leaving much to one's imagination(a plus for those like myself that are good at envisioning what is not shown). With all this not going for it, why is Dracula such a classic? Why is it considered to be such a great film and a great horror film?

The answer is that even with all these flaws (and bear in mind some of these flaws are not flaws for all) the film offers a rich story in an eerie, atmospheric way. Bela Lugosi was Dracula. He was the model for oh so many vampires to come. His gesturing, his deliberation in speech, his facial movements all created a vampire never to be forgotten. Despite Lugosi, however, is the real genius of the film....Tod Browning. Browning created a movie and a setting hitherto imagined and conjured on a screen. Browning was the man behind the camera that created the cob-webbed stairs of the Dracula castle and the squalid emptiness of the crypt. He created the ghoulish female vampires thirsting for blood. Dracula is not just a film to see, it is film history and should be viewed with that in mind and not put under a microscope of today's languishing tastes.

Tod Browning's film of the Stoker novel didn't so much eclipse Murnau's NOSFERATU (1922) as shove it into antiquity. One big reason was the technological advancement of sound. Roughly three years old by 1930, the public embraced the talking picture wholeheartedly over silents.

The other big reason for Dracula's success was that the star of the stage play had been cast as the star of the film. And movie history was made. Bela Lugosi's Count Dracula is now a eighty-one year old icon, outlasting all other interpretations before or since. The twist is that this Dracula looks nothing like Stoker's creation (read the book). Lugosi, either through his work with the playwrights or later at Universal with Browning, devised the most insidious form the character would ever take- a handsome, courtly, well-groomed, civilized aristocrat, so gracious and attractive that he projected an aura of well-being over the viewer. This was worlds away from the Murnau/Max Schreck approach of head-on abomination in NOSFERATU.

Sensibly, no one in their right mind would stay within viewing distance of Schreck (or Kinski in NOSFERATU, THE VAMPYRE and Dafoe in SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE) after the first glimpse. But Lugosi's Count would have you chatting and drinking wine- until he began to drink of you. That cape and those evening clothes are the perfect deception. Browning's Dracula is sometimes stagy and tentative in its continuity (it feels at times that the director was unsure where to go next in the progression of scenes). But Karl Freund's photography summons up a persistent mood of heavy gloom and enveloping dread.

Two other assets in the film are Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield. Van Sloan was Universal's resident Learned Man, appearing as an Egyptologist in THE MUMMY (1933), and perhaps most famously as Dr. Waldman in FRANKENSTEIN (1931). A career-long character actor, Dwight Frye was an eccentric talent who appears to have worked exclusively at Universal. He had his best role as Renfield, producing a still blood-curdling, sneering laugh that seemed to come from the depths of a hellish insanity. If you haven't seen this Dracula please do so. The Count awaits.

Dracula is a figure that is known by virtually all and can be credited in large part to this 1931 classic. Bela Lugosi who plays Count Dracula is horrifyingly creepy and finding a better Dracula would be nearly impossible. From the first encounter between Renfield and Dracula to the closing scene, the audience is on the edge of their seats and don't know what to expect, which is an essential part of most horror movies. I was a big fan of this film not only because it is an American classic but because it is a true horror film. In my opinion, too often in horror films today, the story itself isn't scary at all. The experience of going to the movie theatre with a huge screen and incredibly loud speakers help scare audiences by having things pop out when you are least expecting it. I believe that anyone can make a movie like that and is completely insignificant. The story behind Dracula is truly creepy and horrifying. A great story like this makes this one of the most significant horror films in history.

I suppose we all have differing opinions on what is scary and what isn't.For my money though,this film tops my list.I have seen many a horror film,but few have made me shiver as this one did.The creepy silence virtually throughout the movie,coupled with Bela Lugosi's intimidating presence and Dwight Frye's chilling performance as Renfield(remember the eyes and the laughter?)give me chill bumps on top of chill bumps just thinking about it.Yes,the movie has flaws, but they are few and far between.Hey,it was 1931 after all,and movie making was still in it's infancy.I have seen the various opinions on this film,good and bad,and while it may not top a lot of people's list when it comes to scariest movie ever,it sure tops mine.Bone chilling!

This movie has thrilled and chilled viewers for generations and also serves as a standard for vampire flicks. This is the role that Bela Lugosi was born to play, Count Dracula. His mannerisms and looks make the character masterful and commanding. Based on Bram Stoker's novel, a vampire terrorizes the English countryside searching for sustenance, human blood.

Glorious black and white. The lighting, scenery and mood music should share equal billing with the great direction of Tod Browning. This movie leaves an impression that lasts a lifetime.

Wonderful supporting cast includes: David Manners, Edward Van Sloan, Helen Chandler and Dwight Frye.

Tod Browning put on a complete show that didn't disappoint the least bit in this adaptation of the Dracula novel. It was faithful, had solid characters and a strong presence of Bela Lugosi to carry the way. What I liked about this Universal Picture was that it was fast paced and never really had any dull moments. Classic movies sometimes drag and don't hold my interest entirely but I never really seemed to hit pause. I was glued from the get go from the starting opening scene in Transylvania. Renfield, played by Dwight Frye was very sufficient and creepy. The characters of Van Helsing, Dr. Seward and Mina were terrific and casted perfectly. Bela Lugosi as Dracula was of course the star of the film and spawned a long list of Universal movies for himself. The role of John Harker was annoying at times and didn't have the best dialog written for him. It's obviously a classic that all horror fans have to watch. I would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't like 1931's Dracula despite its few flaws.

One of the most iconic and popular characters in film history, Dracula has taken many forms, in many genres, and performed to various quality. Although not the first film to feature the character of Count Dracula (a couple of lost silent films and F.W. Murnau's unauthorised version Nosferatu came before), Bela Lugosi's portrayal of the menacing and seductive Count is commonly seen as the definitive.

The story is known to most – solicitor Renfield (Dwight Frye) arrives at Count Dracula castle at night, despite prior warnings by the nearby locals. He is greeted by Dracula, who, unknown to Renfield, is a vampire. Upon arrival, he pricks his finger, causing it to bleed which visibly excites Dracula until he spies the crucifix hanging around Renfield's neck. Renfield is drugged by Dracula and the two travel to London the next day by boat. When the ship arrives, only Renfield remains on the boat, now seemingly a lunatic and a slave to the Count. He is hospitalised while Dracula becomes entranced by a woman named Mina (Helen Chandler), who is engaged to John Harker (David Manners). As circumstances grow stranger, Professor Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) becomes convinced that the Count is indeed a vampire, and that he must be destroyed.

The film would be the beginning of a long run of successful horror movies made by Universal, which would be hits critically and commercially, and many are nowadays considered classics of the genre. Although falling short of the outright perfection of James Whale's Frankenstein (also 1931) and its sequel Bride Of Frankenstein (1935), Dracula still proves a great adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. Lugosi's performance is the definitive Dracula, his minimal movements and slow, pronounced dialogue, spoken with his Hungarian accent proves an unnerving Count. I'm not forgetting Max Schrek's Nosferatu, while amazing for its sheer dedication, it was hardly the Dracula of the book.

Director Tod Browning, who up to the point of making Dracula had made over 50 feature films, controls the film superbly, and opts for slow, menacing darkness rather than loud jump scenes and special effects. It builds up the mood gradually, and with Lugosi's fantastic central performance, makes for an atmospheric experience. It's a pity that Browning would almost end his career the next year with the commercially disastrous Freaks, which I consider a true great of the horror genre.

It's just a shame that the film's final scene is rather soft and anti- climatic, jarring with the brilliance that came before. However, it remains an excellent film overall, and the film that would spawn many memorable films for Universal studious.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

This is an immensely enjoyable version of 'Dracula'. It is not perfect, as I will explain in a minute, but the acting is excellent throughout. Lugosi, who of course plays the eponymous count, gives a performance that is equally cultured and creepy (as far as I know he pioneered this interpretation), and I also liked Helen Chandler as Mina, David Manners as Harker and Dwight Frye as Renfield. The story has been changed from Bram Stoker's novel, in part quite substantially so, but the changes work well. My one quibble in this context is that the ending of the film is abrupt and unconvincing. In want to avoid spoilers, so I won't tell, but at 1 hour 15 minutes I would have thought that a few minutes more to wrap up things and provide an explanation for one person's miraculous recovery/survival should have been possible. The photography is excellent, especially the scenes in Transylvania. I was initially startled to find an opossum and an armadillo in the Carpathians, but after all, vampire bats are from South America, too, so why not? Speaking of bats: director Tod Browning judiciously decided not to use special effects (for example to show how Dracula transforms into diverse creepy animals), but he did include bats flapping about, and they don't work. They really don't. They look like Tutulla the bat in 'Kleiner König Kalle Wirsch' by the 'Augsburger Puppenkiste' theatre that was on the TV when I was a kid (check it here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184133/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0; https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184133/mediaviewer/rm2171260161/). Bad idea, but still: Great acting, the plot works mostly well, and very good photography with a few limitations. In sum: a very good film.

Younger people who never saw the original here but have seen Dracula movies sometime in the past 30 years will be very disappointed with this original version. I'm not young, and I was disappointed, too, not that it was all bad.

The film does have an eerie feel to it in a primitive way, so kudos for that. Bela Lugosi, the first and most famous Dracula of them all, has eyes that penetrate and are unforgettable. Unfortunately, that's about it as the only things unforgettable about this film.

I said what I said in the first paragraph because there is no blood, not even one scene of Dracula biting anyone. Come on - this is Dracula!! The ending wasn't very dramatic, either: a most disappointing finish.

I did enjoy watching this for the "historical" value, however, because having only known Dracula movies since the '50s I learned a few truths from this film. "Truths," meaning that (1) Dracula had to return to the soil when he went to sleep at night, not particularly in a coffin, and Renfield was institutionalized when he arrived in America and stayed there until Dracula killed him in the end. You don't see these things in latter-day Dracula movies or in Dracula spoofs.

This is the movie that set the horror genre into action. Sure there may be a few campy scenes that look like they might be out of some high school play production (the rubber bats and armadillos in Dracula's castle come to mind), but there is an unmistakable suspense and eerieness about the film. If you are lucky enough to find the DVD reissue from 1999, you have three great versions: the original 1931 version with basically no background music, the 1999 rescoring of the movie by composer Philip Glass, and the extremely interesting Spanish version, made at the same time as the original (with totally different actors). If you have this DVD, watch the movie twice: once with no soundtrack and once with the Glass rescoring.... totally different movie. Glass' score is great, but it doesn't really help the movie at all (it actually hurts it in many cases). But the utter silence in Browning's original just makes my skin crawl! The acting is actually quite great (Lugosi is, of course, phenomenal as is Dwight Frye as Renfield). The fear, the suspense, and, believe it or not, the sexuality, combines for a great movie that was an unbelievable success in its first release ($700,000 in it first US release, $1.2 million worldwide). Not bad for a movie made 72 years ago!

Dracula(1931) mayn't be the definitive version of the brilliant Bram Stoker novel, but it is still a classic. My only complaints are the abrupt ending and David Manners as John, he tries his best but sometimes his line delivery is awkward and some of his lines are stilted.

I did also think that to a lesser extent the first half is better than the second. The opening scene is absolutely brilliant, but while there are still some compelling and well-done scenes the second half is rather talky. That said, there is a lot I loved about Dracula. The costumes, sets, photography and lighting are suitably atmospheric and grandiose, the story is still the timeless story even with the many changes I love and the screenplay apart from the odd stilted line from John is very good.

I saw Dracula in two versions, one without background music which added to the genuine atmosphere, and one with a suitably hypnotic and haunting score from minimalist composer Phillip Glass. While I loved Glass' score, I do prefer slightly the one without the scoring, the silence further added to the atmosphere I feel. The whole film is beautifully directed too, and while the film is very short at about an hour and a quarter the pace is just right.

The acting is very good, perhaps theatrical in a way but I think it worked. Bela Lugosi has such a magnetic presence in the title role, Edward Van Sloan is perfect as Van Helsing but in a sinister and funny performance Dwight Frye steals the film.

In conclusion, excellent film and a classic. 9/10 Bethany Cox

This incarnation of Dracula is quite a bit different from the previous Dracula (NOSFERATU). In the previous film, the names were changed in a cheesy attempt to get past copyrights, but Dracula (called "Orlock") was much as he was described in Tod Browning's novel--and probably back in 1922 was the scariest version of Dracula to date. This 1931 Dracula isn't nearly as viscerally scary--gone are the rats climbing about his feet, the excessively long and pointy fingernails and the bat-like face. In its place is a pretty sophisticated and cultured Bela Lugosi. While not exactly a "sex symbol", but by comparison to Orlock, he was quite the stud! Lugosi's performance, with its heavy Hungarian accent, is wonderful and measured. However, I think the biggest star of the film is the wonderful cinematography--with gauzy filters and a delicate touch when the action moves to Britain. A great horror film sure to please everyone.

UPDATE: I just saw the restored version on TCM and was totally shocked at the cinematography. The film was simply gorgeous...one of the best films of the era simply from an artistic standpoint. So gorgeous that it really deserved a 10 (I had originally given it a 9).

Time changes everything. Once upon a time Dracula, the stage play, was a sensation that starred BELA LUGOSI as the blood-thirsty man in the cape who thrilled theater audiences with his chilling portrayal. He's still chilling in the screen version Tod Browning directed and there's plenty of creepy atmosphere to keep you riveted to the story.

But there are also plenty of faults. The opening scenes are a lot more cinematic than what follows once we leave the castle and the story starts dealing with Mina (HELEN CHANDLER) and Jonathan Harker (DAVID MANNERS) at their residence. It then becomes almost completely stagebound, with static movement of story and characters so that you know you're watching a museum piece from the '30s. The horror is so diluted by the stagey slow-talking dialog (sound was new and actors were told to keep their speeches slow so every word could be heard). It's an almost silent acting approach to the whole thing.

BELA LUGOSI is very menacing in his huge close-ups but is guilty of stage acting all the way through. DWIGHT FRYE makes a very intense and enjoyable Renfield, although he too is guilty of extravagant overacting by today's standards.

The cobweb atmosphere is dark and appropriately scary and the B&W lensing of the story is very impressive. But, as stated above, you have to take it for what it is--a primitive telling of the great story handicapped by its faithfulness to the stage version.

It ends rather abruptly as Harker and Mina ascend the stairs and Van Helsing tells them he'll be along soon. Fadeout. The End. Much too abrupt. Modern audiences are bound to feel cheated by the less than thrilling ending.

Summing up: Flaws and all, still an interesting experience mainly because Lugosi and Frye keep it watchable.

I do have to rewatch Nosferatu, which I think is a bit ... well better than this all things considering. Still the performance of Bela Lugosi as Dracula is as Iconic as anything can get. The very first shot we see him ... his introduction ... what a movement of the camera, what a great shot.

The spanish language version shot at the same time opted for a different approach. More on that on the other page - but I understand if some may like the other version more than this one. It is longer and has certain things that may work better than they are here. This has aged quite well all things considered though. They couldn't show violence or nudity - something that some may find essential especially when you think of bloodsucking.

Bela did not speak english that well ... but that almost can be a charme when you see and listen to him. A sort of authenticity one may even say. Black and White but with sound - and camera movement. Which elevates this even more ... a classic for more than one reason, but Bela being the main one of course.

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...

The real estate agent Renfield (Dwight Frye) travels to Transilvania for a business meeting with Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), who is interested in Carfax Abbey in London. Renfield is converted in a servant of Dracula and prepares his master's ship travel to his new a property. While navigating, Dracula sucks the blood and kills all the crew of the vessel. Once in London, Dracula sucks the blood of Lucy Weston (Frances Dade) and she becomes an undead. He feels also a kind of passion for Mina Seward (Helen Chandler), the daughter of Dr. Jack Seward (Herbert Bunston) and fiancé of Jonathan Harker (David Manners). Dracula sucks her blood, Mina has a weird behavior and health problem, and Dr. Seward calls a specialist, Prof. Abraham Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), to diagnose the mysterious problem with Mina. Although being a scientist, Van Helsing believes in the supernatural, and tries to save Mina from turning into a vampire.

"Dracula" is a spectacular well-known classic vampire story, with a magnificent transposition of the Bram Stoker's novel to the cinema. Although being a 1931 black and white movie, the photography and the camera work are excellent. There are at least two magnificent scenes: the long traveling of the camera in the sanatorium, from the yard to Remfield's room and the long stairway in the end of the movie to Dracula's tomb. The performances are quite theatrical, as usual in that period, and the film does not show any explicit violent scene. I dare to say that probably it is Bela Lugosi's best performance. "Universal Studios" released in Brazil a wonderful box, with the shape of a coffin, called "Classic Monster Collection" with eight classic horror movies on DVD. Maybe "Dracula" is my favorite one. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Drácula"

Note: On 23 November 2013, I saw the Spanish Version of this movie.

Finally, I bought Dracula on video. I remember looking on the cover of the video, saying restored version and new musical score by Philip Glass on the cover. But I was so crazed by my find that I didn't stop to think if that was the video I wanted. If I buy a video, it must be as original as the movie.

A very important part of the Universal pictures in the '30, is the music. The music is very much a character in those movies. The music adds a special mood. The new score by Philip Glass didn't add that feeling. It was irritating. For instance, when Renfield visits Count Dracula in Transsylvania. These scenes are very important because they introduce us to Dracula. When Dracula and Renfield have conversation, I had trouble concentrating because of the ridicilous score! The score wasn't a character to the film, as the original was.

This is yet another of those dreary classic films which people desperately WANT to love for purely sentimental reasons. Certainly, it cannot be denied its place in Hollywood history. But it needs to be evaluated for what it is - a fairly unprepossessing example of the genre.

It's a sad comment on any sound movie to say that it compares unfavorably to an earlier silent version but that's the undeniable truth in this case.

In 1922 director F.W. Marnau filmed the first screen adaption of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" in Bavaria under the title of "Nosferatu". With this landmark production Marnau created an extremely chilling piece of cinema which contained some genuinely spooky images. Nine years later Hollywood sanitized the whole concept and came out with Lugosi's painfully slow and almost comical remake.

Today, this sleepy clunker is, in all honesty, only of interest as an historical curiosity. It moves along with all the pace of a funeral procession (appropriately enough). The dialogue regularly stops for long periods and with nothing much happening on the screen to fill the void you'll find yourself glancing over at the video shelf to consider other options.

The almost total lack of incidental music throughout the picture also doesn't help the situation. Bela pulls his usual collection of rather idiotic facial expressions most of which will lead you to believe that he's just spotted something nasty on the carpet.

As far as being a viable source of entertainment is concerned, it's unlikely that this movie will hold much appeal for anyone other than the most perservering of old time horror fans .