What's the difference between Dracula and Twilight?

Dracula actually has a reason to suck.

For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you're a wise man, Van Helsing.
-Count Dracula

80 years later and Bela Lugosi's portrayal of Count Dracula is still the classic image most people think of when they imagine the world's most famous vampire whether or not they've seen the film. The influence of Lugosi's portrayal of the character is still felt to this day.

The film's only fault is staying too close to the play it was based on in the last act. I'm guessing this since suddenly the action is confined mostly too one room with people describing what's happening outside. The rest of the movie is too fantastic to let that bring it down though.

Lastly, Dwight Frye who played Fritz in Frankenstein (most people think his name is Igor) is twice as entertaining in this as the mad Renfield.

So much better on rewatch. Iconic would be a gross understatement. Renfield almost steals the show with some marvelous insanity, but this one belongs to Lugosi all the way. This is such a very quiet movie, and all the more engrossing for it.

The June Challenge #19
Watching Tod Browning's take on Dracula a mere day after Nosferatu opens them up for comparisons, as both have their enduring strengths as well as their unavoidable issues. Nosferatu has an unrelenting chilling tone and a wonderful design for Count Orlok brought down at points by overly bright lighting (possibly a problem only in the version I watched). Dracula has gorgeous cinematography that fully utilizes the darkness, not to mention Bela Lugosi's legendary performance, yet suffers from an overabundance of dull expository dialog between the normal populace.

1931's Dracula Is One Of My Favorite Films, I Like It Because The Only Two Universal Monster Films That Are My Favorites Are 1931's Frankenstein And 1931's Dracula.

"I prefer to remain and protect those whom you would destroy."

75 mins of grand shots of sets, smoke and shadows.

wow.

So much to like ... so much to be underwhelmed by. The first 20 minutes or so are wonderful. Lugosi is strange and riveting. Dwight Frye steals the whole movie. He's the best Renfield on screen to date ... and when you're competing with Klaus Kinski, Roland Topor and Tom Waits, that's quite an honour. But after Dracula arrives in England, things get bogged down in creaky drawing room drama and the good moments are scarce. I don't think Browning was meant to be a director of sound films.

Full of atmosphere and a great performance from Lugosi. I did find that it dragged a little near the end but it was enjoyable and has put my faith back in the Universal classic horror films after the pretty awful Mummy film. I really enjoyed the warden of the mental hospital who brought some humour into the film which I wouldn’t have expected to work but it does. Theres a great scene where him and a girl that also works there talk about how they must be the only sane people in the whole building. Dracula’s helper was great too and gives a particularly manic performance.

#6 for Great Movies May.

Maybe I've been spoiled by seeing several great vampire films first - Vampyr, Nosferatu, Nosferatu the Vampyre (probably my favourite ever) - but I found this adaptation fairly dull. Maybe it was the lack of score (I noticed Philip Glass has done a version, I'd be interested in checking that out). I enjoyed Frankenstein/Bride of Frankenstein and Tod Browning's own Freaks far more.

Edit: I'm also really interested in seeing the Spanish-language version, which shot simultaneously on the same sets. I've heard it's more intense.