Wordiezett So much average

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

skywalking997 Although it is somewhat less an adaptation of original Stoker novel, than it is an adaptation of the stage play, itself based on the novel, the 1931 version of "Dracula" does manage to create its own distinctive take on the story. It is also, of course, visibly dated, both in terms of its stylistic choices and (especially) in its use of music, but the film is compelling, nevertheless, and succeeds largely on the strength of its casting. Bela Lugosi never quite escaped the shadow of "Dracula", and Dracula never quite escaped the shadow of Lugosi. Regardless of how many others might play the role, there is still something intrinsically identifiable about this version of the character and, even though much of the horror and sexuality of later cinematic incarnations is muted, here, this version does remain one of the most iconic landmarks of vampire cinema.

e-gomez-67683 This movie is slow from beginning to end and nothing about it really scares me. The one strength I can find is Bela Lugosi's performance as Dracula. Everything else was weak and felt mediocre in its execution

allisonbazanos I found this movie to be a little boring and not able to keep my interest very well. It didn't have much of a climax and I felt like I was waiting the whole time for something more to happen. I did however like how there wasn't any music or noise in it, it made the film that much more creepy. Although I would not watch it again, I'm glad I can say I did because it is a classic.

Antonius Block One of the problems modern viewers will have with Tod Browning's 1931 'Dracula' (ok, at least this modern viewer), unfair as it may be, is that countless versions of the vampire tale have been told over the decades, so quite a bit of the shock value is lost. This version is told in a 'right down central' type of way, and unlike some of Browning's other seriously creepy movies from this time period which I love, it's hard to imagine anyone being scared or feeling tension which watching it. Browning tries to give us the tinglies with various things like bugs crawling about in the beginning, but too many of his effects seem like comical parodies, such as a rubber bat dangled in the window more than once. Unfortunately, I would also put legendary actor Bela Lugosi's performance in this category. His demeanor and slow cadence with words doesn't produce the intended chills, and he's not helped by Browning's tight shots on him staring into the camera. We can recognize this film as the adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel that influenced so many which would follow and give it credit for that, but it's not such a great movie to pull others together for at, say, Halloween time. You can do better for horror/scary/creepy even in the time period.