:bluesad:
I really wanted to like it, I really did. I saw the original Dracula with Bela Lugosi. It didn't follow the book very closely and while Lugosi has some scary eyes, he doesn't match the book's physical description what-so-ever. They also seem to have forgotten about the vamporization of Lucy. They only briefly mentioned her and forgot her. Also, you'd think Dracula: King of the Undead would have a better plan for if his enemies found his tomb. He went straight to sleep and basically let them kill him. It was very anti-climactic. I expected much more from a horror classic. It's not that I'm young, I love old black and white films. I watch all sorts of movies. The only genre I write off is business, political, and economic films such as Wall Street or Boiler Room.
But on the bright side, Renfield was hilarious. I know he's supposed to be a frightening degenerate but I found him funny. Especially when the maid saw him and passed out.
Actually this gives me an idea for a new poll...
Why would I hate you? I can't speak for anybody else though.
I think it's a classic, and I love Bela Lugosi. Oh well. Live and let live.
Oh no, don't worry about it. That's not the reason I'm going to kill you ... wait... forget I said that.
Quote from: A.J. Bauer on May 26, 2011, 12:00:49 PM
:bluesad:
I really wanted to like it, I really did. I saw the original Dracula with Bela Lugosi. It didn't follow the book very closely and while Lugosi has some scary eyes, he doesn't match the book's physical description what-so-ever. They also seem to have forgotten about the vamporization of Lucy. They only briefly mentioned her and forgot her. Also, you'd think Dracula: King of the Undead would have a better plan for if his enemies found his tomb. He went straight to sleep and basically let them kill him. It was very anti-climactic. I expected much more from a horror classic.
Well, looking at it from another angle, perhaps Dracula wanted to die.
Being undead (and eternal) he had to watch everyone\thing he ever loved die off naturally as he continued to live on.
Also, knowing that love would never be given freely to him, but forced thru the supernatural, he would never know true love as it was for normal humans.
Lastly, never being able to know the light of day and it's own warmth and wonder, you have a very sad, tragic character who was tired of "un-living," if you will. I would say that makes for some major unhappiness.
Quote from: A.J. Bauer on May 26, 2011, 12:00:49 PM
But on the bright side, Renfield was hilarious. I know he's supposed to be a frightening degenerate but I found him funny. Especially when the maid saw him and passed out.
Yeah, Renfield was pretty funny. The actor (Dwight Frye, IF I'm right) was a good pick for Renfield in the Universal movie. Some good stuff there.
Why would we kill you? The movie itself just isn't very good at all. I did like Bela as Dracula, however.
Quote from: akiratubo on May 26, 2011, 02:32:55 PM
Why would we kill you? The movie itself just isn't very good at all. I did like Bela as Dracula, however.
Yeah Bela
was pretty cool. I think that a great deal of his appeal was his accent and his somewhat reserved European mannerisms, as well as actually being from the Austro-Hungarian part of Europe, that lent great authenticity to him too.
Sadly, no matter what else he did, even his Ed Wood stuff, he was ever truly able to break free of his typecast for Dracula. Which, is doubly sad because I liked some of the other stuff he did as well, like
The Devil Bat. Bela was just as good playing a mad scientist as he was a vampire.
Well, I never read the book but I did watch the orignla Dracula a few weeks ago and loved it. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
None of the cinematic Dracula's resemble Dracula from the book. Except perhaps Christopher Lee in Franco's COUNT DRACULA (1970).
Yes-the film is dated. The first section-whith Lugosi and Renfield in the castle and on the boat-is classic. Lugosi is very otherworldly. He never answers Renfield's questions-he just says what's floating through his mind. Fitting for a creature who's only human contact is killing them. Once the film switchs to England-he becomes a meloncholy charecter-but the supernatural feel is lost.It's quite talky and...stagey. Don't blame Bela. He didn't direct the film.
All said and done-I haven't seen a beter Dracula then Bela-regardless of the short comings of the film. Lee,Carradine-all good. But not convincing as a Translyvanian Count.
Quote from: Chainsaw midget on May 26, 2011, 12:45:34 PM
Oh no, don't worry about it. That's not the reason I'm going to kill you ... wait... forget I said that.
:buggedout: :buggedout: + :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr:
To be honest, I don't find the Tod Browning Dracula that great. Not to say that it's bad, it's definitely a classic. Bela makes the movie worth watching, but everything else is pretty dated.
I liked the 90's version, but I think they should down play on the sexual content and fire Keanu Reeves.
"RGHRAAAAAUGHHGGHGRAR!!!"
-Keanu Reeves as Jonathon Harker
I've seen the film criticized on other sites for being a bit static and dull at times (although I personally never find it this way) and being an early talkie, perhaps it was a bit experimental in that regard. Lugosi though is excellent..his stare, his hand motions, his costumes, the way he reacts to the mirror are all classic touches. I've seen others say the Spanish version also from 1931 is more exciting and better paced but it really suffers without Lugosi as the Count IMO. It's definitely a Horror classic and rightly so but I do feel Nosferatu is actually a much scarier film...Lugosi though will always be awesome for this and his many other roles.
I didn't like when it seemed the stare was replacing dialogue.
Renfield: "Master!"
Dracula: *Stares*
Renfield: "No master! Don't make me do THAT!"
Dracula: *Stares*
Renfield: "Please! No please!"
Dracula: *Stares*
The only great part about the Universal Dracula is Lugosi. The rest of the movie is average 30s horror. I still love it though!
Quote from: Criswell on June 05, 2011, 04:45:34 AM
The only great part about the Universal Dracula is Lugosi.
I think Edward Van Sloan was good as Van Helsing, and I loved Dwight Frye as Renfield. The only Renfields I liked better were Tom Waits.
I also think that Peter MacNicol was the funniest thing about Dracula: Dead & Loving it with his Renfield, and I credit a lot of that with his utilization of a lot of what Frye did first.
This is what I heard. The film is not based so much on the book by Bram Stoker, but the stage play, which was playing in New York City at that time, which just happened to star Bela Lugosi, which was why he got the part. Actually, the part of Dracula was supposed to be played by Lon Chaney, sr. but he died before the film got started. Universal wanted to do a version of "Dracula" based upon the book by Bram Stoker, but something called the Depression came along, and made a version based upon the book to expensive to do, so Universal had to find a cheaper way to do it. Thus, the version based upon the stage play and why the film looks so much like a play. This is just what I heard.
Quote from: WilliamWeird1313 on June 06, 2011, 06:22:45 AM
Quote from: Criswell on June 05, 2011, 04:45:34 AM
The only great part about the Universal Dracula is Lugosi.
I think Edward Van Sloan was good as Van Helsing, and I loved Dwight Frye as Renfield. The only Renfields I liked better were Tom Waits.
I also think that Peter MacNicol was the funniest thing about Dracula: Dead & Loving it with his Renfield, and I credit a lot of that with his utilization of a lot of what Frye did first.
Ugh I always forget how good Dwight Frye is in it. I guess its just Lugosi's presence overshadowing everything else.