Review of Dracula

Dracula (1931)
6/10
Horror classic has to be judged by today's standards...
29 October 2006
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.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed