Such a frustrating disappointment

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Admirable film.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Copyright Universal A Tod Browning Production, presented by Carl Laemmle. New York opening at 12 February 1931. U.S. release: 14 February 1931. 75 minutes. NOTES: The stage play opened on Broadway at the Fulton on 5 October 1927 and ran for a smash-hit 265 performances before hitting the road. Lugosi, of course, played Dracula, and Edward Van Sloan was Van Helsing. Others in the cast included Dorothy Peterson, Nedda Harrison and Terrence Neill. Ira Hards directed for producer Horace Liveright. Filming began 29 September 1930 and wrapped 15 November 1930. Negative cost: approx. $355,000. COMMENT: At times, this version of Dracula seems very much like a filmed stage play. An engrossing play, but a work of theatre nonetheless. Other than skilful glass work enhancing some sets, there are no special photographic effects to speak of. The bat does not turn into Dracula before our eyes. Instead the inanimate creature dangles around very obviously on wires. Worse, the dialogue-especially in the less capable mouths of Manners and Bunston-tends to be stiff and stilted. Other critics have rightly objected to the considerable alterations made to Stoker's novel. Only the principal characters and the basic outline of the plot itself (plus of course all the legendary vampire lore) have been retained. However, production values are otherwise first-class and the movie actually looks much younger than its age. Browning's direction has tremendous drive and force, thanks in part to the powerful performances delivered by Lugosi, Chandler, Van Sloan, Frye and Dade; and thanks also to Freund's frighteningly atmospheric photography and Hall's superlatively moody, gothic sets. Astute film editing helps increase an already sharp pace, and it's a tribute to Browning's concentrated direction (and some forceful sound effects) that the absence of background music is not particularly noticed. AVAILABLE on DVD through Universal. Quality rating: eight out of ten (I thought some of the scenes were printed a bit too dark. It's sometimes hard to see what's going on).

I did not have high expectations for this movie. I mean its a vampire movie and I grew up in a time period where vampires and werewolves battled for the affection of a girl in the worst way. However, this movie is no Twilight.This movie actualizes and places the nightmare creatures of vampires into our own realities. A movie created at this time period with this subject matter was rare and Dracula was one of the first.Bela Lugosi had no actors, or visual characters to study. he set the bar high for fictional characters like vampires.The entrance of the movie shows great juxtaposition of Renfelid's oblivious and innocent nature to Count Dracula's ways compared to the people that reside in the town outside of the castle. There fear in there eyes are almost malleable. When they are speaking in a different language it creates a want to know that they are saying and draws you into the movie.The character of Dracula has lifetimes of knowledge and depth. The character is played to perfection by Bela Lugosi. There is an aura of fear around him, but in many moments you feel for Dracula and the situation that he is inOverall great movie and definitely deserves nine stars.

I recently purchased a Universal Monster Box Set which included 1 film from all the monsters. I started at the beginning with Dracula. Let me start off by saying it blows my mind that this movie was released only 34 years after Dracula was created by Bram Stoker in 1897.This movie is grand, and ambitious for the time. There are large sets and some great shots. That being said this movie does have be graded based on it's time. Being released in 1931 it came out only 4 years after the first "talkie" or movie with audio was released. That is an amazing achievement.However watching now the acting is clunky, Dracula's feeding and "attacks" are slow and funny and there are some pretty severe limitations based on the knowledge and talent of film makers.I am excited to dig into the rest of the box set and see how Dracula compares to others like Frankenstein, Wolf Man and the Mummy.

It is quite evident that this movie was very influential both with respect to society and the movie industry. It can be seen as one of the movies that kicked off the horror film genre, and even today, we seen remains of its effects. In present society, I would be surprised to find someone who is not familiar with the story of Dracula and the vampire movies that were inspired by this original story. As a horror movie lover today, I cannot overcome my bias in judging the plot of the movie and the movie in general. I found it very slow and predictable, but this is likely because of what I have been exposed to at present time. If I were a movie-goer in 1931, perhaps I would have have enjoyed it much more; I'm sure that I would not have seen anything like it, and it would most likely a very good thriller in my 1931 eyes. Even in my mindset today, I did find that the lighting (darkness throughout the film) contributed to the scary tone and was very effective in producing a horror effect. The widening of the eyes of both Dracula and Renfield had a similar effect that I enjoyed.Aside from my biases as a young adult in today's world, I enjoyed this movie. Its effects are clearly widespread, and I have movies like this to thank for the modern horror movies I love today.