Dracula

The oldest preserved Dracula movie.

"The strength of the vampire is that people will not believe in him"

Although it is not the first screen adaptation of "Dracula", it is the first that became a legend. It's not frightening jumpy type of horror, but relies more on the building of dark and scary atmosphere. End of the movie is unfortunately pretty weak, but Bela Lugosi is probably the best Dracula in the movie history.

7/10

Disappointment

Before I begin, I want to distance myself - I did not see the whole movie and everything I'll write here is based on around half an hour I did see and information from those who did watch the whole thing. For the same reason, I will not rate it. That 5/10 on IMDb is only because I want it to appear in my rating list.

This is not a Spanish movie. This is an American movie by Universal studio made in the Spanish language. Back then they did not use subtitles, but they made movies for each language separately. Browning's "Dracula" with Lugosi and Melford's "Dracula" with Avalos are basically the same movie. They were made by the same script, with the same scenery, same costumes, same equipment in the same studio, literally at the same time, just with different actors and director. They fix studio for particular scenes and then "English" crew shoot during the day and, when they are done, "Spanish" crew takes over for the night. Some fans claim it to be better than original, because the crew had a chance to watch the shooting of "English" version, learn on their mistakes and improve own version. Also, "Spanish" version is a bit longer with more dialogues and has better directing in the few scenes.

But, half an hour of extra length, more dialogue and potentially better director do not make a movie better by themselves. There are two reasons I gave up on this movie after half an hour and then fast forwarded through the rest with a few casual stops. This movie is almost scene by scene and word by word copy of the "English" version that I saw just a few weeks ago, and in almost every aspect it is worse than original, so I was extremely bored by it. Acting is lousy and sad. They had different nations of actors that spoke different and corrupted dialects of Spanish in the same dialogues. On top of that Melford did not speak or even understand Spanish at all. Besides directing camera, directing includes directing of actors and dialogues too, and that is not possible if the director does not understand them.

All in all, bad acting, bad Spanish and 90% of the movie already seen in much better Browning's version make this movie good only for avoiding. I recommend it only to hardcore fans of the original movie, only as a curiosity because of additional and few better-directed scenes, and to Spanish speakers because of quirky usage of language that could be entertaining to native speakers.

Unexpected twist

If you watch this movie, which I warmly recommend, in the beginning, you will have an impression of one more out of the countless similar adaptation of classic Dracula scenario. Though one of the better ones. Lugosi as Count is unsurpassed, Carol Borland as Luna sets standards for Vampira/Elvira, and everyone else is on the level too. However, I saw that story million times and, no matter how good it is, after a while it becomes boring and I was thinking to give up on this one. But Count was not named Dracula and none of the other characters had names that we are used to and that intrigued me. Soon, the story started to deviate from the classic Dracula scenario, leading us to a completely unexpected twist. I was sincerely surprised and thrilled with new development when I realized this is not classic horror-Dracula, but thriller instead. And from the angle of viewers back then it was maybe even mindfuck. I had no idea they had this type of movies back then. Really pleasant refreshment in the sea of similar movies from that era.

9/10

Sequel to "Dracula" (1931)

Pleasant surprise. I expected a horror in '30s style and got a decent drama instead. This movie is not similar to most of the classic horrors from that era. It's just an hour long, there's very little action and no special effects at all. Nothing spectacular, but very enjoyable to watch. It has a good atmosphere and it is not tiring at all. I really enjoyed it and, however silly it could sound, I think it's better than famous "Dracula" from 1931, which is a direct prequel to this movie ("Daughter" begins with the ending scene of "Dracula").

7,5/10

I did not have big expectations, because title itself sounds like cheap attempt to turn Dracula into lousy franchise. After Dracula there were bunch of movies like Daughter of Dracula, son of Dracula, House of Dracula and such. It sounds ridiculous, isn't it... But this movie is really good. For a start, it is not classic horror movie, but more of a thriller based on horror foundations of legendary Count. Beside good plot and even better twist, movie has, for its time, excellent special effects. Dracula's transformations from human for to bat or mist and back isn't just implied like before, but directly and convincingly shown on screen. Acting and directing are on high level and overall atmosphere is great. For 40's movie this is really really good.

8/10

A bit crowded, but good enough

I ran into this movie following the list of all Dracula movies, but this one is part of Frankenstein franchise, and really it is both and neither, because both monsters have just extended cameo appearances in it. The story is in fact about a crazy scientist who wants to continue work of doctor Frankenstein and get revenge to people who put him in jail. He has the assistance of hunchback Daniel, a character that, under different names, appears in most of the horror flicks, sometimes as Dracula's assistant Igor, sometimes as an assistant of mad doctors. On their way they find and get back to life Frankenstein's monster, Count Dracula and Wolf-man. After the success of the movie with Frankenstein and Wolf-man together, authors decided to go step further and treat us with three monsters in the same movie (five if we count mad scientist and hunchback). Plus they added a young gypsy girl to spice up the story with some romance and jealousy. Many characters and extensive story are packed in a bit less than 70 minutes, so hastiness is the main flaw of this movie. However, good story and even better casting pretty much cover for this flaw. Particularly noteworthy are Karloff as the crazy scientist, Chaney in his third appearance as Wolf-man and Carrol as the hunchback. The rest of the crew is also very good. I really enjoyed it and I'll get back to it again sometime.

7,5/10

True masterpiece

Multilayered and deeper than in any previous Dracula movie, the story is balancing between drama and thriller. Characterization has much more attention than in any other monster movie from this period, acting is solid, and camera, directing and effects are superb. For its own time and genre, this movie is simply perfect.

10/10

Disappointment

Kind of nonsense that's rarely seen. Acting, directing, camera and other technicalities, all are on the level we are expecting from this kind of movies. Really decent, I can not complain. But the screenplay is unbelievably bad. They crammed a bunch of monsters and forced them together in the same story. They did not stick to original legends, they did not attach to previous movies, they did not even think of some new original plot. They simply threw in a bunch of cliché horror patterns into a rush overladen story, that is not either original, or tense or fun at all. There's neither good plot nor denouement. It simply starts, lasts some time and ends without any logical sense. It's like they cut off random parts of previous monster movies and then shuffled them and glue them together. What author did here is not writing, it's recycling, and amateurish and lousy done. The movie is not unwatchable, but it is a complete waste of time.

4/10

Entertaining

This line is already a cliché, but here we go again - for its time and genre this movie is a real gem. Once again we have Lugosi as Dracula, Chaney as Wolfman and Frankenstein monster all together in one movie, but this time, instead of a horror classic, we have Abbott and Costello comedy, and I must say I prefer this approach. It's not Oscar material, but it's 80 minutes of pure fun.

8/10

Half of a movie...

First of all, the title is misleading, because this movie has nothing to do with Dracula or his blood. The tagline is also bullshit: "In her eyes...desire! In her veins... the blood of a monster!" This has nothing to do with this movie either. The movie starts slow and promising. A teenage girl loses her mother. Father wants to remarry, so he sends her to boarding school. One of her teachers uses ancient amulet from the Carpathians to hypnotize her into the vampire. She starts to kill her roommates and police is helpless. Her old boyfriend reads about it in the papers and comes to boarding school to find her and save her. A pretty nice plot, isn't it?! But, after an hour of the movie, when it came to speed and became interesting, when you expect at least half an hour more of some action, mystery, suspense, or at least romance or comedy, or any kind of culmination and then denouement, you get one minute of lousy ending scene instead. It's like someone cut the movie in half and then just added last minute to the first half. Girl attacks her teacher and they both die out of nowhere. The end. Real motive why did teacher did all this is unclear, and everything in the movie stays undetermined and incomplete. The movie had the potential to grow and become something memorable, but instead, it was cut in half and ruined.

4/10

One more movie about Count Dracula. This time it is not remake of some of its predecessors, nor the original story inspired by Dracula. This one is direct, although not literal, adaptation of cult classic by Bram Stoker. Authors gave their best to turn this cult novel into unexciting, even boring, movie. I'm confused by the choice of actresses. If they couldn't find three girls that will be convincing in their roles, they could at least find three with breathtaking looks. Those they took are neither. First one is ugly and other two, although much better looking, are very unconvincing. Even legendary Christopher Lee is totally lame in role of Dracula, especially compared to Bela Lugosi. This is probably the worst Dracula movie ever to date. I'm watching them chronologically, so I can not speak about those which came after just yet. The only good things about this movie are Peter Cushing and scene of Dracula's death, which is fascinating for its time.

4,5/10

Mediocre low-budget vampire movie, interesting only because of its originality compared to its predecessors. While Dracula movies so far were placed in past centuries, this story takes place in "present", in small American town in fifties of the 20th century, and main characters are teenage couple, local priest/doctor and some town aunts. Pretty much unusual for Dracula movie. Still, story and characters are undeveloped, plot is simple, and everything happens fast and easy, like in short cartoons. Movie is two-dimensional and fails to involve us enough, so there's no dramatic tension. Teenage romance won't fill you with emotions, nor will horror elements scare you. Overall, interesting idea, technically well done for its time and budget, but undeveloped, so movie fails to build atmosphere that could leave strong impression. You won't get bored, but you'll forget all about it soon enough.

5,5/10

As they say in my country - same crap in different package. There are some Dracula movies that present original stories and even if they have no other qualities they are at least entertaining. Unfortunately, most of Dracula movies are basically the same story with variations in details, and this one is one of that majority. There are no major flaws, but it just rehashes same old story in same old way and that makes it redundant. If you never saw original Dracula or any other old Dracula movie you may find this interesting, but if you saw at least few of its predecessors this movie will be complete waste of time.

5/10

"Billy the Kid Versus Dracula"... WTF?! As much as title promises complete nonsense, you must admit it makes you bit curious... I expected mix of western and horror that parodies this two cult movies or spoofs western and Dracula genres in general. I could bet this movie is dumb, but I hoped it is somewhat funny. Even when I realized I can not find it anywhere I simply could not give up. When I finally found online stream and saw its terrible quality of both picture and sound (probably pirate VHS rip of 1966. movie) I still could not resist. And I'm glad I didn't.

Movie is not comedy or parody. It is based on classic Dracula plot, puts it in Wild West scenery, and enriches it with western elements, making plot more interesting. Story is more complex than in original Dracula and combines western, classic Dracula horror and romance in some kind of thriller. Although production is bad and special effects ridiculous, story is good enough to hold your attention in spite everything else being bad. Also, movie is just over an hour long and that leaves no room for idling. And end... to me it is awesome. Final clash between Billy the Kid and Dracula, that last just few moments, is one of shortest, most efficient and funniest fighting scenes in movie history. I had to rewind this scene more than a few times with huge smile on my face.

Objectively, this movie does not deserve more than weak four, but it is original for nine. Overall, warm recommendation to fans of old Dracula movies.

6,5/10

Direct sequel of "Horror of Dracula" from 1958. abounds in cliches in story that switches from predictable to already seen and back. Also it has serious lack of suspension and horror atmosphere. Though, if I didn't see all Dracula movies to date, this one would probably leave better impression, because it brings some completely new moments. At one hand, coachman leaving passengers in the middle of nowhere because he's afraid to go near the castle during the night is scene everyone know by heart, at the other hand, passengers that steal a coach to continue their journey, and then realize they can not control horses that run straight to the castle is pretty much original approach. Scenes in tavern, table made for them when they arrive in castle, their luggage waiting in made rooms, scenes with Dracula and his helpers, cliches ragged long time ago. And then great scene of chase and completely original and unexpected way to defeat Prince of Darkness. Movie is full of unconvincing scenes with counterweight in fantastic Barbara Shelley, whose beauty and acting are, in my opinion, highlights of this feature. I really like Christopher Lee, but to me he's ridiculous in this role. Few times during the movie I was thinking about giving up on it, and yet I'm very glad I did not miss awesome ending.I have really mixed impressions. Anyway, it's surely better than its prequel from 1958.

6/10

Horror comedy from 1967. by Roman Polanski, in UK known as Dance of the Vampires and in USA as The Fearless Vampire Killers aka Pardon Me, But Your Teeth Are in My Neck, is timeless classic of vampire cinema. This British-American cooperation was filmed in Italy and it's the first film Polanski made in color and in widescreen format. He approached this classic theme in different and original way, turning horror into comedy. Movie attracted the most attention using, for its time, pretty much explicit eroticism and implying connection between vampirism and homosexuality. Sharon Tate posed naked for Playboy as part of movie promotion. In the beginning Polanski was against Tate because he doubted her acting abilities, but she played leading female role anyway, and she even married Polanski soon after movie premiere. For Polanski, this movie opened door of Hollywood.

8/10

By itself, this is one of better Hammer movies. From movie to movie improvement in every aspect is obvious, from screenplay, to scenography, effects, directing and acting. At the other hand, this is God knows how many in a row Dracula movie that recycles same old plot, and does not offer much novelty. Although this one has bit different approach and some new details, like symbolism of the doll on Maria's bed, essentially it's same crap in different package. And that really starts to bore...

6/10

Considering budget of just 50.000 $ this is not so terribly, bad, but how and why did I see it through to the very end remains mystery...

4/10

This movie is terribly underrated. Up to its time, Count Dracula by Jesus Franco is definitely the most faithful and the most convincing adaptation of Bram Stoker. Story wasn't identical, but it was the closest thing to original novel they made so far. Scenery, sound, directing, complete approach is strange and different than what we were used to see in this genre. Instead of fairytale-like, fantasy atmosphere typical for horrors those days, here we have illusion of real life. Cast is particularly striking. Count Dracula is played by legendary Christopher Lee, actor who appeared in about three hundred movies and who's played Dracula more times than anyone else. In 1970. he played Dracula four times and this is the only movie that shows Dracula with facial hair. Also, this is the first Dracula movie in which Dracula starts as old man and gets younger by drinking blood. Klaus Kinski, father of Nastassja Kinski and actor who left us around 150 movies (Marquis de Sade in Marquis de Sade's Justine, hunchback in For a Few Dollars More), nailed role of Reinfield although he has no lines at all. He entered the role of madman so deep that in scenes where Reinfield eats insects he ate real flies instead of fake ones. Some time after Reinfield becomes Dracula in 1979. Nosferatu the Vampyre. Role of Van Helsing was meant for Vincent Price, but it ended up with Herbert Lom (Chief Insp. Charles Dreyfus from Pink Panter series). And in the role of Lucy we have tragically deceased Soledad Miranda, beautiful member of "Club 27". Although very unusual for its genre, or maybe exactly because of it, this movie left strong impression on me.

8/10

I have very opposite impressions about this flick. It is one of the best and, at the same time, one of the worst Dracula movies. Let's start with its positive attributes. When you see dozens of Dracula movies, like I did, after a while pouring sand in the desert becomes tiresome. Truth to be told, there are some that bounce from the classic template, and even some surprisingly original ones, but the vast majority play an identical story with slight variations. This one is quite interesting. It does not stick to the basic plot that we are accustomed to, Dracula doesn't kidnap a girl, there's no professional vampire killers, characters are much more interesting than in most of previous films, and writers have managed to find a way to kill Dracula in the original way with which we have not met before, without getting stupid. Also, movie is the most aggressive and the bloodiest so far. At the other hand, scenography and effects are very bad. Acting is good, but everything else is unconvincing, especially tragicomic bats and scenery that's supposed to be a castle. The only exception is a scene of massacre in the church, which is quite disturbing. Further, even though I have great love for breasts, I think that the big flaw of this film is that the camera incomparably more focuses on boobs of every single female character than on Dracula. Judging by the screen time they occupy in comparison to Dracula, they should be given names and be placed in front of Christopher Lee in ending credits. Recommendation to Hammer fans only.

6/10

The best Hammer Dracula so far. Story picks up where "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave" has left. It has nothing to do with Stoker's classic or with any previous Dracula film. Christopher Lee in the role of Count is rather minor figure and more someone who controls things from shadows than actually appears in the film. Acting, costumes, scenery and overall atmosphere are peak of Hammer production. Story is original, interesting and m ore a thriller than a horror.

7/10

!!! SPOILER ALERT !!!

Traveling merchant accidentally encounters Dracula's death (end of "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave") and decides to keep his cape, medallion, ring and some blood. An indefinite period of time later we see three rich middle-aged gentlemen, devoured by boredom of business and family life, who once a month seek refuge from the lives of prominent citizens by meeting in a whore house. There they meet occultist who offers them to sell their souls to the devil. They buy Dracula's things from merchant and perform ritual to resurrect Dracula. But during the ceremony they panic and kill the occultist. Dracula revives and decides to revenge his servant by forcing the children of these three to kill their fathers. One of those three has son and daughter who are in secret relationships with daughter and son of other two, which additionally complicates the plot. If you liked any of previous Hammer flicks, you'll love this one.

Frank Zappa joined KISS vs. Frankenstein

Every decade has its own specific atmosphere. As B production of the 1980s is recognizable at first glance, so the atmosphere of this film is simply screaming 1970s. They say this film is so bad it's good. I wouldn't agree. Although the idea is quite original and the story is somewhat decent, this is an extremely cheap, amateur-directed and mounted movie and acting is terrible. One of those movies where the boobs of main actress are the only thing worth watching, and since you will not see them, better skip.

2,5/10

Pictures of Panda-Dracula, a formless mass that should represent Frankenstein's monster and the most explicit view of Regina Carrol's tits you can easily find on Google Pictures, so you'll know what I'm talking about.

At the end of the 18th century, the African prince comes to Europe to negotiate the abolition of slavery. After receiving, he remains a guest at the Count Dracula's castle, who kills his wife and turns him into a vampire. Two centuries later, in Los Angeles, he encounters a girl he believes is the incarnation of his wife. The story is quite original, full of interesting details and well-told, but everything else in the movie is cheap (budget $ 500,000), lousy and unconvincing. There is a lot of idling and a good part of the movie we watch club performances of the soul band "The Hues Corporation." The film was, at least to me, mostly boring, and it does not deserve more than four, but for the quality story I will honor it with

5/10

The seventh in the series of Hammer vampire films is refreshed by placing the action in the present, specifically in 1972. Naive satanist, thirsty for power and immortality, performs the ritual and revives Count exactly 100 years after Van Helsing killed him, and Dracula moves to take revenge on Van Helsing family. The main roles are again performed by Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, and there are also a few hippie beauties. The acting and directing are satisfying, and the first half of the film has a strong seal of the seventies. The music is totally inappropriate for the genre, but all together it is quite fun. In the second half things go downhill and the movie turns into a bad vampire cliché. All in all, a movie worth watching once.

7/10