Dracula is an old movie, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie.
I mean, it is bad, but not because it's old.
The film is based on a play and the book, and a lot of changes have been made. Most prominently, Dracula is acquainted with the characters early in the plot and they know where he lives from the start, changing the dynamic a lot, and Harker and Renfield have been combined in this film's Renfield, leaving this film's Harker very hollow.
The film feels very incomplete and unskilled. Scenes jump into each other without much grace and several plot points aren't taken to completion. The film feels very compressed and lacking in buildup or flow. The book's strength was its tension and mystery, and even though the film doesn't go for that, it fails its own direction by feeling disjointed.
Bela Lugosi is iconic as Dracula. He was an incredible screen presence and he makes Dracula scary, elegant, and menacing. He's a far cry from the book's Count, but he is fantastic and the best part of the film.
The Spanish production filmed parallel on the same sets is intriguing.
This film corrects for many of the American version's flaws, with the plot feeling more resolved and complete and some aspects of the book being brought back in. Some effects are used in place of awkward camera cuts as well.
The Count is weaker. Carlos Villarias simply can't compare to Lugosi even though he's creepy. His face just makes him a different kind of creepy, feeling a bit more skeevy and abhorrent than undead and supernatural. That works for the book's description, but against Lugosi, it looks laughable. He still does a good job and feels unnatural but the vibes are very different.
The Spanish film can feel as plodding as the American one feels hasty. The actors and camera linger too often on scenes that could be performed a bit faster and more to the point, leading to a sense of dullness. The narrative additions add to the length, but I think the staging also does, unnecessarily. Neither film has a soundtrack but the Spanish one's lack of score is felt much more due to the extended silences.
Renfield in both films is extremely compelling after he goes mad. Both actors do a great job.
Neither Dracula is really a great film, but Lugosi gave an undeniably great performance and the Spanish film delivers a more complete story. They're fun curiosities to watch together and the American film earns its place in pop culture.
Film One has the story, one has the Count.
Dracula is an old movie, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. I mean, it is bad, but not because it's old.
The film is based on a play and the book, and a lot of changes have been made. Most prominently, Dracula is acquainted with the characters early in the plot and they know where he lives from the start, changing the dynamic a lot, and Harker and Renfield have been combined in this film's Renfield, leaving this film's Harker very hollow.
The film feels very incomplete and unskilled. Scenes jump into each other without much grace and several plot points aren't taken to completion. The film feels very compressed and lacking in buildup or flow. The book's strength was its tension and mystery, and even though the film doesn't go for that, it fails its own direction by feeling disjointed.
Bela Lugosi is iconic as Dracula. He was an incredible screen presence and he makes Dracula scary, elegant, and menacing. He's a far cry from the book's Count, but he is fantastic and the best part of the film.
The Spanish production filmed parallel on the same sets is intriguing.
This film corrects for many of the American version's flaws, with the plot feeling more resolved and complete and some aspects of the book being brought back in. Some effects are used in place of awkward camera cuts as well.
The Count is weaker. Carlos Villarias simply can't compare to Lugosi even though he's creepy. His face just makes him a different kind of creepy, feeling a bit more skeevy and abhorrent than undead and supernatural. That works for the book's description, but against Lugosi, it looks laughable. He still does a good job and feels unnatural but the vibes are very different.
The Spanish film can feel as plodding as the American one feels hasty. The actors and camera linger too often on scenes that could be performed a bit faster and more to the point, leading to a sense of dullness. The narrative additions add to the length, but I think the staging also does, unnecessarily. Neither film has a soundtrack but the Spanish one's lack of score is felt much more due to the extended silences.
Renfield in both films is extremely compelling after he goes mad. Both actors do a great job.
Neither Dracula is really a great film, but Lugosi gave an undeniably great performance and the Spanish film delivers a more complete story. They're fun curiosities to watch together and the American film earns its place in pop culture.