I'm with you, about this definitely not being a fave. My main problem issues with the film is how exceedingly draggy and often drearily monotonous the pacing/editing is, also that there are multiple amateurish-seeming or/and ridiculous (the maid, for example) performances that detract from the overall intended effect. In multiple cases I've seen the same performers, who are disappointing or absurd in this film, in other films of the same era in which they (for example David Manners and Helen Chandler) do illustrate true considerable actual acting talent and charisma that for some reason didn't at all materialize in Dracula.

I must admit that I've never been impressed by Bela Lugosi's performance in Dracula - though do recognize it as justifiably iconic. To see Lugosi to much better effect, try 1934's nifty The Black Cat, which co-stars Boris Karloff and David Manners. (Meanwhile, to see Manners in his most outstanding, in fact superb, performance, check out 1931's The Miracle Woman. That's one of my very fave early '30s films. It's wonderful.)

This is a movie that should be so much better than it turned out to be. Better direction and editing are I think the main things that would have made a significant difference. The best things about this movie are the awesome cinematography, the creepy/eerie sets, and the overall look/effect. Those things are absolutely faultless.

THE FILM IS ACTUALLY BASED ON THE 1924 STAGE PLAY,NOT THE BOOK.THE PLAY WAS LOOSELY BASED UPON THE BOOKWITH A SMATHERING OF SLY LIFTS FROM NOSFERATU AT THE TIME BANNED BY THE WIDOW STOKERS LAWSUIT OVER USAGE RIGHTS.LUGOSI HAD ALREADY CONQUERED THE STAGE ROLE BEFORE THE FILM CAME UP.FURTHERMORE,THE DIRECTOR TOD BROWNING WHO USUALLY WAS ON HIS GAME WAS DISORGANIZED AND THE SET WAS A MESS.THE CINEMATOGRAPHER TOOK THE LEAD ON A LOT AND WAS JUST SHORT OF CO DIRECTOR.BROWNING WAS KNOWN AS A MASTER OF THE SILENT FILM AND THUS A LOT OF THE ELEMENTS AND THEATRICS IN DRACULA ARE SILENT ERA STANDARD WHICH LEADS THE FILM TO DRAG AND LINGER AS WELL AS PROVIDING STILTED PERFORMANCES MORE AT HOME IN A SILENT FILM OR STAGE PRODUCTION.BROWNING ONLY DIRECTED A FEW MORE FILMS AFTER HIS FIRST TALKIE(DRAC),INCLUDING FREAKS.HIS LAST CREDITED DIRECTING JOB WAS 1939...JUST 8 YEARS AFTER DRACULA.

@genplant29 Yes, I completely agree with all your points, and I've seen The Black Cat as well. It was intriguing, and I also liked The Raven with Lugosi and Karloff, which I saw around the same time. I'll look up The Miracle Woman, since I haven't heard of that one.

@VHS-VANDAL Thanks for the input! The part about the movie being based on the play sounds ever so vaguely familiar...perhaps I heard that a long time ago and just forgot about it. What you said was very true, about the stilted performances and such, and that's interesting about Tod Browning. I've seen a few other films he directed, and one I very much enjoyed was The Devil-Doll (1936), with the always-amazing Lionel Barrymore.

Something that would have been perfection is if the best elements of 1922's Nosferatu - which is relentlessly creepy from start to finish, and looks and seems genuinely of the depicted period that it's set in - and 1932's Dracula - that has much about it that's truly great, but otherwise seriously falls short regarding certain other things - could be combined, with some casting improvements made along the way, and there being ideal direction and editing.

@barrymost said:

Personally, I wasn't crazy about this movie. I'm totally a fanatic for classic films, but I recently watched this when I was in the middle of reading Bram Stoker's original novel (I have since finished it), and just couldn't stomach the way some of the characters had been switched around and their relationships to each other changed. Also, maybe it was just me, but the acting seemed overly stiff and unnatural. But it is still a classic, and I can't deny that. Edward Van Sloan's portrayal of Dr. Van Helsing is, I think, truer to the character in the book, more so than Peter Cushing's portrayal many years later in the Hammer Films, but overall, I prefer Cushing's, since I've been a big fan of his for a long, long time. It has its merits, but it just didn't quite do it for me.

However, I wanted to share a little trivia about this. Lugosi's portrayal of the notorious Count is most certainly the most well-known, even today. That in itself is a sort of legacy. But I read something really hilarious about Lugosi, or rather, what happened at Lugosi's funeral, on IMDb. Vincent Price and Peter Lorre attended his funeral, and when they were viewing the body in the open casket, Lorre was reported to say to Price, "Should we drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"

As an objective judge of films, I have to say Browning's Dracula is most definitely sub-par. How many times have I watched a film? Probably dozens. I think it is mostly the pop culture sensation that bore out of this particular version of the film, although it was dreadfully inadequate as a translation of the book, but what few elements it did take from the book were actually quite memorable. I love Legosi's "Children of the night" quote from the book. And the guy who played Renfield was friggin' hilarious! I loved him! Plus the guy who played the orderly with the thick Cockney accent was funny too (Com'on ye ol' flyeater!). I also hated all the mix ups with Jonathan, Lucy, Mina, etc but almost all of the dozen or so Dracula film renditions messed them all up (the characters) somehow. The youtube channel Cinemassacre did a great video on which Dracula was closest to the book and had a great breakdown of it. You can check it out here Which Dracula Film is Most Faithful to the Book?

Listen to them! Children of the night! What sweet music they make!

@movie_nazi said:

(T)he guy who played Renfield was friggin' hilarious! I loved him!

Me, too! The other night I created a thread https://www.themoviedb.org/person/1549-dwight-frye/discuss/5d549ea9b76cbb0013d864bc about terrific Dwight Frye.

He certainly knew how to play deranged https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFggpT28JKY to the hilt! I love that demented laugh!

Here's a video (that includes more Dracula moments) of Frye's 5 most unhinged characters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmKgx2-cEk8 The short clip, starting at 4:00, where he's trying to give Maude Eburne a bat is hilarious!

Has anyone here seen the Spanish language version filmed during the night, while the Browning/Lugosi version was filmed during the day? I bought it as part of a boxed set a few years ago, which includes this version here. There are no posts on that board yet. Thought I'd post here to invite a discusssion over there, to compare the two.

@lima-2 Hey, that's really interesting! I haven't heard of that, but maybe some of the others in this discussion have? @genplant29 knows a lot about things like that. They might have seen it.

lima, I've seen the Spanish-language version (shot on the same dates, and using the same sets, but featuring entirely different cast), though not in a number of years, so unfortunately now don't really remember anything about it.

I used to have the probably same DVD set that you have, but donated it to my local public library five or so years ago when doing a major DVDs thin-out of quality movies that I decided I felt "done" with. Since then I've more than once wished I'd held on to this and a few others of the specific movies.

Btw, here's the link to the TMDb page for the Spanish-language version you mentioned: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/39259-dr-cula?language=en-US