Drácula (1931) User Reviews

What's all the ruido about....

[simeon_flake · 6/10 · 18 July 2005]

If my facts are straight, this much touted Spanish version of "Dracula" was considered lost for many years until its rediscovery in the 1970s--upon which many a critic and film historian flocked to view this rare "gem" & seemingly all at once proclaimed it better than its more famous English cousin.

Perhaps the novelty of finding this similar, but in many aspects different alternate take on the Tod Browning classic led to such clamoring, though given the many years in which viewers have been accustomed to videotape & now DVD--in which a back-to-back comparison of the two films is a very simple exercise--the fawning many do over Melford's 'Drac' seems a bit in the extreme, particularly such critical observations of how Melford upstages the English film "scene by scene, shot by shot". Having recently viewed both films, it's my opinion that a shot-for-shot comparison doesn't prove very detrimental at all to Señor Browning.

For instance, the much raved about moving camera of George Robinson doesn't really show much more mobility than Karl Freund's. Yes, there is the shot of the camera roving up the stairs in Drac's castle, but aside from that & a few other minor instances, Melford & Robinson keep the camera as still as the oft-derided Browning. Btw, I found it more than a bit amusing that the critters Browning has roaming around the cellars of Dracula's castle--the opossum and bug escaping from a miniature coffin--were retained by Melford.

The really big difference in movies is seeing the different angles which Melford shot many of his scenes from & how he makes more use of the outside portico in many of the later drawing room scenes. For those of us familiar with the Lugosi film, this can make for an interesting visual variety, but does this really equate to "better" or "masterful" directing?

It's not my intention to slam this version of Dracula. I think any horror fan should give it a few looks to see how two different production teams can interpret a single script & put their own creative twists on it. From that standpoint, the Spanish "Dracula" is required viewing, but hardly the "scathing critique" of its English counterpart that many have proclaimed it to be.

"Soy Dracula."

[utgard14 · 8/10 · 14 February 2014]

Spanish-language version of Dracula filmed at the same time as the English-language version. While Tod Browning directed that one during the day, George Melford would direct this one at night using the same script and sets. Many consider this to be the superior version of the two, at least from a directing perspective. This film has a more polished look in most scenes than its English-language counterpart. The direction isn't as stiff or stagey as it often is with Tod Browning's Dracula. To be fair, however, director George Melford had the benefit of watching Browning's footage so he had a template with which to work and improve upon. This version is also longer by almost half an hour. There are no added scenes but each scene plays out longer with added dialogue. Often it's just a case of an extra shot or two per scene, with Melford taking his time and building tension. The added length is good and bad . Good because it allows for scenes to play out properly without feeling rushed, as sometimes was the case with Browning's film. Bad because the added time is mostly added dialogue, which makes the long stretches with little action seem interminable. There are also more sound effects in this one as well as bits of music. It helps things considerably, especially in the creepy castle scenes.

The ultimate shortcoming with the Spanish version of Dracula is the cast, particularly the lead actor. Bela Lugosi, for all his hamminess, was an undeniably menacing presence in his film. Comical-looking Carlos Villarías seems a poor imitation, with his constant crazy eyes and goofy smile. It's hard to take him seriously, let alone find him a threatening or alluring character. Pablo Álvarez Rubio is good and probably a better actor than Dwight Frye, but somehow his Renfield is less memorable in comparison to Frye's over-the-top performance. Eduardo Arozamena is decent as Van Helsing but he lacks Edward Van Sloan's screen presence. The guy looks like Eugene Levy! The only solid improvements in the cast are in the romantic pair of Juan and Eva (John and Mina in the other). Barry Norton is a more grounded actor than the theatrically-inclined David Manners. Lupita Tovar is much sexier and livelier than Helen Chandler's pallid Mina.

It's certainly a great movie and not just a curio. Stronger in some ways than Browning's Dracula but weaker in others. I would say they're both about even, with a slight edge to the Browning version simply because of the iconic performances of Lugosi, Van Sloan, and Frye.

Dracula (1931) - US Version ***1/2; Spanish Version ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 9 August 2005]

The Browning/Lugosi 'classic' has always been one of my favorite Universal horror films but, ever since the simultaneously-produced 'rival' Spanish version resurfaced, the 'original' has taken a beating by fans and historians alike - mainly because the latter features superior camera-work! This, however, is the ONLY area where it can lay a claim to be better in when compared to the US version (the fact that leading lady Lupita Tovar had a sexier wardrobe than Helen Chandler shouldn't even be considered, I guess). Still, the fact that on the DVD the opinion that the seminal US version is the inferior one seems to be shared by quite a few people hasn't done it any favors! I remember being impressed by the Spanish version when I first watched it in 2001, singling out for praise the performance of Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield and, of course, George Robinson's cinematography. However, coming back to it now, I felt that Rubio's hysterical rendering of the character (which reminded me of Gene Wilder in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN [1974] of all people!) was nowhere nearly as nuanced as Dwight Frye's unforgettable characterization in the US version. Regarding the "superior camera-work", I guess this is true for individual sequences (Dracula's introduction, for instance) but, frankly, I never felt that Karl Freund - a pioneer of the moving camera - had somehow been restrained by Tod Browning, who admittedly wasn't very fond of this technique. Given that of late we've also been faced by the ridiculous assumption that Browning didn't actually direct the film, he couldn't have - since he wasn't even there!! It may be however, that since frequent Browning collaborator Lon Chaney (who had been slated for the title role) died before shooting began, the director sort of lost heart in the project - coupled also with the fact that the script was rather talky, another element with which Browning felt uneasy! Well, whatever went on behind the scenes, for me what's in front remains one of the highlights of the American horror film - from the marvelous dialogue (especially as delivered - each in their own unique way - by Lugosi, Frye and Edward Van Sloan), irreproachable performances (Frye and Van Sloan were at their best, while Lugosi only ever really came close with THE BLACK CAT [1934] and SON OF FRANKENSTEIN [1939]) and memorable individual scenes (the entire first act set in Transylvania, the confrontation scenes between Dracula and his nemesis Professor Van Helsing, Renfield's various ravings). The tame ending may appear anti-climactic to most people but I honestly was never bothered by it! If anything, this was remedied in any number of ways in subsequent outings...

Which brings us back to the Spanish Dracula: like I said, the film is an interesting and altogether pleasing 'alternate' to the Lugosi version...but it is fatally compromised by the inadequate leading performance of Carlos Villarias, whose bulging eyes and feral snarls can't hold a candle to Lugosi's definitive screen vampire! This version does go to places where the American doesn't (Browning shies away from the vampire attacks, for instance) and even features 'new' scenes like the aftermath of the vampiric Lucy's demise - but, at 104 minutes (a full half-hour longer than the US version, when considering that they were following the same script!) it's way overlong for its own good. The Browning/Lugosi version is often criticized for its sluggishness but this one actually moves at a snail's pace: take, for instance, the famous scene where Dracula is exposed by the mirror - Lugosi knocks the box down immediately, while Villarias takes forever to do so (even if his resolution is effectively flamboyant nonetheless).

A word about the DVD quality: disappointingly, the Spanish version features closed-captions (for the hearing-impaired) rather than proper subtitles. As for the US version, the print utilized for this particular transfer (which differs from that of the original, and more satisfactory, 1999 release) is a bit too dark for my taste and the dialogue sometimes was hard to catch due to the incessant hiss on the soundtrack! It also reverts to the 'original' single groan during Dracula's staking (instead of the elongated variant available on the earlier disc)...but does feature a bit of music at the end of the Opera sequence, which had been missing from the previous edition!! Well, this only means that it's worth keeping both copies of Dracula as neither is really definitive...

Great Lugosi alternative

[Stevieboy666 · 7/10 · 25 July 2017]

It took me over 30 years to finally compare the Spanish language version off Dracula to the more familiar one starring Bela Lugosi. This one is surprisingly much longer. Very well made, using the same Universal sets, with a good cast but Lugosi plays a much better Count in my opinion.

A Spanish vampire in London.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 15 October 2017]

This alternate 1931 Spanish language version of the familiar Transylvanians' story was shot throughout the night, using the same Universal sets that the American production utilized during the day. Some buffs consider it superior, at least in a technical sense, but for this viewer, it was at least comparable to the Lugosi classic. Not really scary, per se, but atmospheric, literate, and fun.

The Count, played with a rather goofy charm by Carlos Villarias, comes to London to rent Carfax Abbey, and works his spell on local beauties such as Eva (Lupita Tovar) and Lucia (Carmen Guerrero). Those brave souls willing to fight him are asylum administrator Dr. Seward (Jose Soriano Viosca), Evas' handsome suitor "Juan" Harker (Barry Norton), and the determined, knowledgeable vampire hunter Van Helsing (Eduardo Arozamena).

Running approximately a half hour longer than the Lugosi / Tod Browning version, this is admittedly rather plodding, and thus not to all horror fans' tastes. For a while, it consists of more talk than action. But the characters, and performances, are entertaining, with Arozamena frequently mugging for the camera, Villarias keeping that silly smile on his face, and the majority of the cast playing it quite straight. Pablo Alvarez Rubio is wonderful as the nutty, bug munching Renfield; Dwight Frye may be more iconic in the role, but Rubios' performance is no less amusing. Some people will appreciate the attire of the ladies in this version, which is decidedly sexier.

An effectively roving camera operated by George Robinson is certainly an asset, with credited director George Melford and company making full use out of the existing sets.

Two years later, leading lady Tovar (who only recently passed away, at the impressive age of 106) married associate producer Paul Kohner.

Seven out of 10.

Has a few failings but a worthy version overall

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 5 February 2015]

It is hard to say which is the better version of the Todd Browning version and this, both have flaws but both has many things to recommend. There are things here that are done better here than in Browning's, like some of the storytelling and how it was made, but Browning's had the better Eva/Mina, Van Helsing and especially Dracula(the Renfield interpretations personally rank the same).

Visually this version is an absolute treat, the cinematography is superb and the editing is much improved over Browning's version as is George Melford's exciting direction over Browning's, the sets are wonderfully Gothic too, especially the genuinely creepy Trasylvanian castle. Of individual scenes the standouts were the smoke with Dracula rising out of his coffin, Renfield and the fly and the terrific final shot. The eerie music score compliments the atmosphere beautifully and the dialogue flows reasonably well.

The storytelling is very compelling on the whole, as well as those three standout scenes the relationship between Eva and Seward is incredibly affecting, the atmosphere is very spooky, there is an exciting climax and it does make more sense than Browning's with things better explained thanks to the stronger editing. It is not perfect this said, the film is overlong and does drag as a result as expanding on these loose ends, the first scene with Dracula is scarier in the Browning film. The acting is a mixed bag, with the strongest performances being Lupita Tovar as a lively Eva, José Soriano Viosca's sympathetic Seward and particularly the chillingly insane Renfield of Pablo Álvarez Rubio. Eduardo Arozamena plays Van Helsing more than reliably if not as memorable as Edward Van Sloan or Peter Cushing. Barry Norton however is very stiff as Juan and Carlos Villarias tries far too hard as Dracula, his facial expressions verging on cartoonish and he lacks the aristocratic charisma and suave menace that Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee had.

All in all, a worthy version but a long way from perfect. A very high 7/10 Bethany Cox

Better than the English version?

[artserrano · 9 April 2003]

I have read most of the comments on the spanish version of Dracula, and I have two hypotheses as to why can anyone say this is a better version than Browning's: 1.- YOU'VE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE INTRODUCTORY DOCUMENTARY IN THE DVD VERSION - I also saw the documentary and was very excited to hear that this version was better and I can almost say that I was looking at it with the intention of finding the better version no matter what reality said, but the movie was definitely NOT better than the Browning's version. 2.- YOU DON'T SPEAK SPANISH - Folks, if you spoke spanish, believe me!!! you would understand how BAD this version is. It is so badly spoken (i hope not as bad as my english ;-) ) and so KITSCH!!!! it is incredible that anyone can say this is a good version.

Having said this, I would like to comment on the film: Perhaps there is one or two scenes better directed if by "better directed" you mean a better use of film language (i.e. the "Children of the night" scene), but in general Browning's Dracula remains a classical version for a good reason: it is better. The acting is so bad that it becomes very difficult to see through it a good directing... but directing means not only moving the camera, but also to direct people, and in that sense this movie fails miserably. I am very sorry I am so blunt, but I feel I need to shake you all in order to wake you up.

The other Dracula

[Klaatu-18 · 9/10 · 23 September 2000]

Dracula, in Spanish.

I saw this version several years ago thanks to a local film festival. They had recently reconstructed a copy and were about to re-release it.

In a wonderfully cost-effective move this was filmed, using the same sets and the same script as the famous Bela Lugosi version. Swing-shift filmmaking.

Even though my Spanish is very weak, I know the original. And hearing "I never drink... wine" or "The children of the night! What beautiful music they make!" is still chilling no matter what language.

And the director of this version made different choices from the Lugosi version. One scene that was particularly effective: Dracula walking through a mass of spider-webs without disturbing them.

Eight stars. See it if you can.

The Latino Dracula

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 31 August 2004]

Shot the same time as the English version of Dracula, this Spanish version was shot on the same sets during the night. Some people consider this superior to the English version. In SOME ways it is.

The English version was badly directed by Tod Browning...but it was Browning's first sound film. His direction (which was great in the silents) suffers from having to have the actors speak into concealed microphones. Also the camera seems rooted to the spot. The Spanish version however was exceptionally well-directed. The camera moves and the director seems very at ease with using sound. Also the first appearance of Dracula in the English version was badly handled--in the Spanish one it's actually very good and a little frightening! Also we find out the fate of Lucia (Lucy) in this one. And the plots with Renfield and Eva (Mina) are more fleshed out . And Pablo Alvarez Rubio gives a good performance as Reinfield. AND the girls wear more revealing nightgowns:) But that's about it.

This film is VERY slow (it runs 25 minutes longer than the other) and the acting isn't that good. The man playing van Helsing overacts (badly) and Barry Norton and Lupita Tovar are just OK as Eva and Juan. But Carlos Villatias is all wrong as Dracula. He tries but he can't carry the role. His villainous looks are actually rather silly and he totally lacks the screen presence of Lugosi. If that had teamed this director with the English cast there might have been a GREAT movie. But, unfortunately, it didn't happen. I do give this a 7 though.

Excellent--just like the American version.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 10 July 2009]

Back in the early 1930s, studios hadn't perfected dubbing and felt audiences no longer wanted subtitles or intertitle cards, as the silent era had just past. So, little known to audiences today, the American studios often re-filmed the exact same film using the same sets and sometimes even the same directors and often this was done at night when the American cast went home. However, Laurel and Hardy even learned to phonetically pronounce scripts in French, Spanish, German and Italian because they already had a huge international audience.

Here, with Dracula, the studio made two versions as well--English (with Bela Lugosi) and the Spanish language one with Carlos Villarías. Interestingly, Universal Studios chose to make multiple versions of Dracula but not of FRANKENSTEIN and you could probably assume that they thought Dracula would be the more successful film. But, because Lugosi was not internationally adored and well-known, there was no need to use him or the American cast. Instead, an American director (using a translator) filmed the Spanish version using a cast from all parts of the Spanish-speaking world.

Like the Laurel and Hardy films, this version was actually longer than the American version in order to fit the format generally used in these Hispanic countries. As a result, some new scenes were added and some minor characters were given more screen time. In particular, Renfield is given LOTS more time--and he's much more interesting here than in the American version. However, for the most part, the films look about the same and frankly I think both are equally good. As for Villarías, he's not exactly Bela Lugosi, but he's still very good. I particularly loved his wider emotional range--with a slightly more animated performance.

So, if you are a lover of classic horror films, give this one a shot. It's well made and you'll be surprised how alike the two versions are in quality.

Almost equal to the American version

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 6/10 · 31 October 2015]

I am very happy I had the opportunity to see this (and its American counterpart) in the cinema, especially right before Halloween, and would probably rate this version comparable to the American version, except for the sorely miscast Carlos Villarías. He might be delightful in comedy or dramatic role, but he was out of his depth here.

The cinematography in this Spanish-language version of Dracula is sometimes better than the English/ American-language version, and I liked the additional exterior shots, but while the Spanish cast mostly does well, leading vampire Carlos Villarías is sorely lacking in both charm and chill Lugosi brought to the role.

While Lugosi was simultaneously sinister and cordial, Villarios looks like he is playing it for kids at a birthday party. His narrow, sloping shoulders were a bad contrast to Lugosi's broad shouldered poise and confident manner. Villarias lacks even the slightest physical intimidation in the role, appearing largely comical. When he is first revealed on the staircase, he looks nearly comical in his postured posing, despite the benefit of experimental (in its day) photography.

Spanish, Turkish or English.. Dracula still Dracula.

[yusufpiskin · 8/10 · 14 January 2020]

Super interesting to compare this with the 1931 English language classic.

It's not as good in my opinion, but it takes its time to explain more (sometimes holding the viewers hand) and has a few great effects shots that are superior to the English counterpart. Best of all though is the Reinfield/fly joke that completely slays (and they so unfortunately cut out of the English version.) That alone is worth the price of admission.

The famous Spanish version of Dracula...

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 29 November 2021]

Made simultaneously to the famous Bela Lugosi Dracula using the same sets but filmed at night, this is the Spanish language version of Dracula. Back in 1931 at the dawn of the talkie era you couldn't overdub a film into a different language, to service a different market - you had to make another film! And I guess, with the large Spanish audience in not only the States but the world in general, this was a commercially viable idea. To this end, we have a film which often looks very similar to its more famous English language equivalent but there are numerous differences as well. For a start, its 28 minutes longer, so fills in a few areas where the English variant was sketchy. It also allowed for a far more sensual presentation of its female vampires and included a few more horror moments too. It seemed to be unseen for decades, only resurfacing again in the late 70's, adding to its mystical reputation. So, is it better? Many people think it is and aspects of it are an improvement but for me, the English language version pips it to the post. For one thing, the latter version has far better pacing - those extra 28 minutes aren't necessarily all stellar stuff and it is still quite stagey like the English version. Secondly, Lugosi is better as the count than Carlos Villarías - the latter is solid enough but Lugosi is so brilliantly over-the-top, he was made for the role. This is still a very worthwhile movie though, especially for Dracula completists and fans of vampire cinema.

Villarias Bites

[gftbiloxi · 5/10 · 11 June 2007]

Language was no barrier to Hollywood in the silent era: title cards were easily translated from English. When sound began to roar, Hollywood began to fear the loss of its foreign markets--and so, for a brief time, the studios occasionally produced two versions of certain films, one in English and one in another language, most often German or Spanish. Such was the case with the 1931 Dracula.

According to film historian and author David J. Skal, producer Paul Kohner fell in love with Mexican-born actress Lupita Tovar (they later married), and his romantic interest prompted the suggestion that she star in a Spanish-language version of the film. When the English language cast wrapped for the day, the Spanish language cast arrived and worked through the night using the same sets.

Most of Hollywood's foreign-language duplicates were forgotten as quickly as they were released, but the Spanish Dracula would be the exception. Todd Browning, who directed the English language film starring Bela Lugosi, was extremely uncomfortable with sound technology. While the first fifteen minutes or so his film are exceptional, the movie thereafter becomes a filmed stage play--and a very choppy and rather unimaginative stage play at that. Instead of simply duplicating Browning's set-ups, producer Kohner and director George Melford set out to best him, and when the Spanish version debuted most viewers declared it greatly superior to the English version.

And in many respects it is. Whereas Browning's version is visually flat and rather slow, the Spanish Dracula is visually exciting, and although it is considerably longer than the English version the pace never drags. It also has it all over the Browning version in terms of editing, and it has a cohesion the Browning version completely lacks. The supporting cast is also quite fine, with Lupita Tovar a standout, easily besting Helen Chandler's remarkably tiresome performance in the English version.

But the Spanish Dracula has a problem, and it's a big one: actor Carlos Villarias, billed here as Carlos Villar. Villarias had a respectable film career throughout the 1930s and 1940s, but he met his match in Dracula; where Lugosi intoned, snarled, and endowed the vampire with an elegant evil, Villarias goes through the film with a series of expressions that lead one to believe he has just encountered an overflowing toilet. His flaring nostrils and disgusted glances are so incredibly out of place that they quickly become unintentionally hilarious.

Lugosi's performance, of course, is generally considered the ultimate statement of the role, and with good reason. In a perfect world, we would be able to snatch Villarias out of the Spanish Dracula and insert Lugosi in his place; the result would be a truly amazing film from start to finish. As it is, however, we are stuck with Villarias, and frankly he bites.

The VHS release of the Spanish Dracula is out of print, but the film is available on the same disk with the Universal release of the more widely known Todd Browning version. By and large the film quality is remarkably good; it has not, however, received a digital remaster, and at least one of the reels would greatly benefit from it. If you are a fan of 1930s horror, you'll find it more than worth the effort, but I suspect more casual viewers will be reduced to hysterical laughter by the Villarias performance.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Greatly Overrated

[Athanatos · 26 December 1999]

The Spanish-language Drácula (1931) is frequently said to be better than the simultaneously shot, English-language Dracula. I find this odd.

The performances of Villarías, Rubio, and Arozamena are much less affecting than those of Lugosi, Frye, and Sloan. I'll readily grant that Rubio's behavior is more like than of a typical madman than is Frye's, but *realism* precludes vampires in the first place.

The acting of some of the bit players in Drácula is poor. The lighting is simply thoughtless illumination. Continuity is ignored *ab initio*; for example, does Conde Drácula emerge from the coffin of Count Dracula (as shot by Freund or Browning), or from a packing crate?

There are various points at which Drácula *is* better than Dracula. Holes in the script of Dracula are generally plugged in Drácula. While Sloan's acting is superior to that of Arozamena, the English-language script requires him to be unbelievably ineffectual. (Watch Sloan pause on the steps to explain that there is no time to lose, and then continue *walking*!)

Spanish Version.

[AaronCapenBanner · 6/10 · 22 October 2013]

Unusual film in that it is a Spanish language version of the Bela Lugosi film, made at the same time and on the same sets as the 1931 film, only with an entirely different cast and crew. Actually, it was directed at night, while Tod Browning made his during the day. Plot is exactly the same, though differently staged, and in some ways is an improvement, being more atmospheric and effective, even though it is nearly 30 minutes longer! What's missing is a lead actor with the talent of Bela Lugosi, and that's a big deal. Universal Studios apparently did it this way once, and resorted to dubbing in the future, which would certainly be simpler...

Both better and worse

[davidmvining · 6/10 · 30 September 2022]

The early sound period has always fascinated me, especially in how studios suddenly needed to find ways to release films in different markets with different languages when changing out intertitles had been enough since the advent of the medium. One thing they did was simply film multiple versions of a movie. This is probably the most famous example of the practice, but even Hitchcock did it with the English language version of Murder! And the German language version Mary. Using the same script and sets, the only difference was most of the cast and crew. The English language version was directed by Tod Browning and this Spanish version was directed by George Melford, who didn't speak Spanish.

The Spanish language version is often held up as the superior version of the two, and I definitely see a reason for that. I think the Spanish language version is better edited and maybe even better filmed. It takes a very good looking original film and makes it look better. I think the editing issues may have something to do with the Hays Code cuts to the English language version (that's a guess), but one such example is the introduction of Dracula (Carlos Villarías) in both. In the English version, we actually end up seeing one of Dracula's brides before we see him after the eponymous vampire rises from his casket. In the Spanish language one, we see Dracula first before we see all three of the brides in one wide shot. It simply makes more sense in the Spanish version. There's also a moment late in the English version where Mina describes the fear of Dracula at the sight of the sun, but we never saw it. In the Spanish language one, Eva (Lupita Tovar) is actually shown with Dracula in that key moment when the sun begins to rise. It's a small hole in the English language version that gets papered over with the dialogue, but it's fully present in the Spanish language version. I could imagine the Hays Office forcing the cutting of the bit because Dracula was too close to Mina, or something. I have no evidence of that, but the Hays Office could be weird about things along those lines.

I also like the voyage on the Vesta in the Spanish language version more. In the English language version, it's just a big storm with Dracula and Renfield in the hold with Dracula popping up once to just look around. In the Spanish language version, it's obvious that Dracula is feeding on the men. I've read that the Hays Office wouldn't allow it to be shown Dracula attacking men, only women (though, curiously, Dracula attacks Renfield in the English language version but the brides attack Renfield in the Spanish language version), so this could also be a cut from the Hays Office.

Once the action gets to England, though, the films follow pretty exactly the same path, and this is where the film begins to lose me. It's mostly that I don't really find Villarías all that threatening as Dracula. He's got big eyes and a large overbite, so he ends up looking goofy rather than scary. I also don't like Pablo Álvarez as much as I liked Dwight Frye as Renfield. Álvarez feels more thinly mad than Frye did. There seems to be less character behind Renfield in the Spanish language version, and he ends up less interesting, robbing the film of the one thing I latched onto emotionally in the original. Also, we do get that missing scene dealing with Lucia (Carmen Guerrero) and her vampirism, but it's just a single shot of Van Helsing (Eduardo Arozamena) and Juan Harker (Barry Norton) leaving the cemetery, talking about having dealt with her. In addition, I also don't really like Arozamena as Van Helsing. He's flatter, and less interesting than Edward Van Sloan had been.

There are other small differences. In the English language version, Dracula mind controls Mina down a set of stairs, while in the Spanish language version he simply carries her. I like the image of the Spanish version better, but there's an awkward moment where Dracula has to put her down to interact with Renfield that breaks the tension because it seems so silly.

So, the differences overall are something of a mixed bag. Visually and in terms of editing, it's more cohesive and smoother. That may or may not have something to do with the Hays Office taking scissors to the English version, but all we have is the end result and the Spanish version wins. However, it seems as though Melford's inability to communicate directly with his cast (using an interpreter according to Tovar) limited his ability to help craft their performances. He'd been working just as long as Browning had, having credits dating back to 1914 (coincidentally enough, both of their final directing credits are in the late 30s), but I would imagine the language barrier hindered things.

I can see why some people who hold up this version as the superior one, and I was leaning that way for the first twenty minutes or so. However, I think it ends up faltering just enough to bring it down below the English version.

Catholic Dracula

[Cineanalyst · 7/10 · 28 November 2017]

Made during the nights at Universal while the English-language "Dracula" was filmed during the days, this Spanish-language version offers an interesting comparison of another cast and crew approaching the same script and sets differently. While some, like David J. Skal (author of "Hollywood Gothic"), have praised the Spanish "Dracula" for its supposedly superior cinematography and, consequently, better pacing, I partially disagree. Some of the setups and camera-work, indeed, are better and much of it's different, but some of it's worse. And, if anything, the 30-some- minutes of padding to the runtime doesn't help (originally, it may've been closer to 20 minutes, as the English version has lost footage). Moreover, while there are some other interesting differences between the two, including the acting, I think the most overlooked and, perhaps, important differences are related to the languages and the intended audiences. One consequence of this is that the Spanish "Dracula" emphasizes Catholicism more, which, in this respect, makes it more faithful to one of the main conceits of Bram Stoker's novel.

Although Stoker was, reportedly, an Anglican, "Dracula," as has been noted by D. Bruno Starrs, reads as Catholic proselytizing; indeed, the Anglican characters in the novel, by the end, practically adopt the Catholic faith. And, of course, the story is full of Catholic iconography, which is used to combat the soulless vampire. Whereas other adaptations, including the 1931 English version, include the use of crucifixes and rosaries to ward off vampires and a bit of kneeling prayer and signs of the cross, they seem to be included as part of the occult intrigue—and about as effective as wolf's bane. That makes sense for the English "Dracula," because it was primarily meant for a majority-Protestant domestic audience. The Spanish "Dracula," on the other hand, meant for mostly-Catholic viewers, such as in Latin America, is far more expressive of its characters' Catholic faiths. So, Van Helsing and others more frequently make the sign of the cross, including the kiss of the thumb, which would also presumably be the general practice of said audience.

While this film might be the best adaptation of the Catholicism in Stoker's novel because of its language orientation, it also suffers from an absence of accents from non-Spanish-speaking counties. Bela Lugosi's genuine, thick Hungarian accent is an important reason that his Dracula is better than the toothy, bug-eyed impersonation by Carlos Villarias. The English film also featured Hungarian-speaking extras in an early village scene, which seems a bit like an Easter egg regarding its star's heritage. That's gone here. Also gone is Van Helsing's faux Dutch accent. Consequently, an adaptation that was already more regionally restricted than the book becomes even more restricted, as well as more confused due to the settings remaining in England (although the geography of England is a source of confusion in both films).

Mostly, this "Dracula" suffers without Lugosi. Some of the acting is better, though. The scenes between Mina and Harker in English, for instance, were placid and sometimes vomit inducing, but there's more emotion and sex appeal in Spanish—in no small part thanks to Lupita Tovar, who nearly falls out of her gown. And Pablo Àlvarez Rubio gives Dwight Frye a run for his money as Renfield. Some loose ends left in the English film are sewn up here, too, including the fate of Lucy and the scene of Renfield crawling towards the fainted nurse. The scene of the sanitarium guard and the maid's talk on the lawn works better here because there's some flirtation between the two. Even better, the scene where Renfield accidentally cuts himself at the Count's castle is enhanced because Renfield does it while eating—which contrasts nicely with the feast that his crucifix denies to Dracula. In the English version, he just cuts himself on a paper clip.

Some scenes in both films are photographed and staged better than the other and still others are just different. The early scene inside a stagecoach, for instance, isn't necessarily better in either film. The Spanish one is a single shot and probably has better blocking, whereas the English one is composed of several shots. (The English film, overall, has a quicker average shot length (ASL), which in that respect gives it a better pacing. I counted a 9.6 seconds ASL for English vs. 10.8 seconds for Spanish. My counts trend north of those at the cinemetrics website, but the gaps between the films are similar. Gary D. Rhodes, author of "Tod Browning's Dracula" and who probably swings too far the opposite of Skal in arguing in favor of the English version, has an outlier Spanish count of a 12+ seconds.)

The first appearance of Dracula is more stunning for Lugosi, with the dolly movement and the highlighting of his eyes—a technique largely absent for Villarias. But, the second appearance, when Dracula greets Renfield, is better handled in Spanish, with a crane shot and a swooping bat instead of pointless insert shots of armadillos. The Spanish film suffers sometimes from its use of outtakes from the English film, including having two sets of female vampires; its missing scenes of Dracula prowling the streets of London, including the killing of the flower girl; and Van Helsing and Dracula's contest-of-wills scene is, unfortunately, turned into a game of peekaboo. I prefer Renfield's death scene in the Spanish version, though. In the end, the best "Dracula" would've been some alternation between the two films, but, of course, with Lugosi in the titular role.

(Mirror Note: There's a virtuoso through-the-mirror shot that dollies out in a scene with Eva and Lucia; in the English version, editing is used more instead of camera-work for this scene, as the mirror shot serves as a reverse angle within a series of shots. It also almost has a good sound-bridge transition from the theatre scene and includes Lucy mocking Dracula's accent. The cigarette-box mirror scenes are more similar.)

Best horror movie of the period - period.

[winner55 · 10/10 · 19 December 2008]

Let's get real: there are only two reasons the reputation of the original Dracula has remained intact into the 21st Century - Bela Lugosi's performance and as a monument to camp/nostalgia of a certain kind. In all other respects, it is at its best competent, in its worst moments dreadful. While admittedly atmospherically moody in design, it is ridiculously slow, and, with the exception of Lugosi, the acting is hilariously bad. Does Lugosi's strangely ethereal, other-worldly performance save the show. Yes; on the other hand, goth-nostalgia grows ever more wearisome as the years wear on.

Despite a legend perpetrated by Universal Studios itself, that the Spanish language version of the film produced simultaneously with the original was shot by shot the same with different actors, the Spanish Dracula is a completely different interpretation of the same script. The lighting is better, the camera work more fluid and more professionally handled, the editing is far more advanced - indeed the look of the film would put it in the early '40s if we didn't know better. Adding to this impression of being ahead of its time is the acting - naturalistic, emotive, performed by a cast with a considerable repertoire of facial expressions and vocal intonations at their disposal, most utterly believable.

Finally, there is the redefinition of just what the 'horror' of Dracula really amounts to. Lugosi's presence in the original is heightened by the portrayal of a British middle class environment that is hopelessly banal. Here, the environment is given a warmer glow, but the real horror of the vampire is that he is a beast in aristocratic disguise, seething with barely suppressed violence. Pay special attention to the ship voyage sequence: in the original this is mostly about a storm in which Lugosi stands literally unmoved by the rough waves battering the ship. In the Spanish version, the sequence is about the direct confrontation between the Count - hungry, gloating sneer on his face, crouched, about to pounce - and the unbelieving sailors, with a soundtrack provided by a truly frightening screech of laughter from the mad Renfield.

A note must also be made concerning the sexuality of the two films. The implicit sexuality of the original is really largely legend, derived almost solely from Lugosi's own impressively suave charisma. The makers of the Spanish version have not left the matter to the chance of casting - the women are thinly dressed, and Dracula's approach to them openly seductive - this especially becomes clear in one scene where Dracula steps between the heroine and her fiancé, utterly ignores the fiancé's presence and speaks to the heroine in the soothing, caring tones of a lover! I'm not saying the Spanish Dracula is anything more than a well made B-movie - but it is an exceptionally well made B-movie, probably the best of its era - a real classic that stands the test of time on the virtue of its rugged performance and professional polish.

Give honor to Lugosi's historic performance - but pay homage to a nearly lost masterwork of genre cinema, the Spanish language Dracula, 1931.

Bueno

[Spondonman · 7/10 · 16 December 2012]

English language Dracula shot in the day, Spanish language Drácula shot at night, and Dracula good, Drácula better. Well, yes I agree, but they're both stagey, corny and too long.

Vampiro Drácula gets the urge to set up shop in Britain from Transylvannia, and fixes on a single source of blood much to his eventual downfall when Professor Van Helsing gets wise to him. It's an old story by now: recently the UK has been the final destination for many desperate vampires from Romania. The film moves to Whitby so quickly they didn't even get to explain how close Whitby is to London. This version has some atmospheric spooky scenes but ultimately everything is spoilt by the leisurely hamminess of the actors involved. Carlos Villar playing Drácula is as vivid as a gas fire installer while Eduardo Arozamena playing Van Helsing nearly made his eyes pop out with his looks of constant surprise. Carmen Guerrero playing heroine Lucia looked just fine to me though! Renfield gets a much larger slice of the action here too, to (Juan) Harker's cost. The print condition is good in the main for saying it's supposed to have been a lost film for decades – it's been a long wait…and it's a long wait for the end too. However, it's better in all departments (especially photography) than Lugosi's ultra-stagey Dracula, but if I had to take one to a desert island I'd take Lugosi's solely because it's far more concise.

Confession time: I thought the classic novel was a nonsensical bore with a great idea poorly interpreted by Bram Stoker. So, a must-see for horror (especially Golden Age) film completists, a must-not for anyone with little time to spare.

WHY THE SPANISH VERSION IS WORTH SCREENING

[Sunsphxsuns · 9/10 · 9 September 2021]

Although filming took place on the same studio lot as the English speaking version, the Spanish speaking version offers several intriguing opportunities to view different or expanded views of the outdoor and indoor scenery. The Spanish version clearly boasts a more comprehensive cinematography. Moreover, ominous creaking doors are louder, and the unearthly baying of the "children of the night" (wolves) definitely have a more distinctive creepiness to them. The Spanish Dracula is worth watching on several levels, and English subtitles are available on most of the recent Universal DVD releases.

The better of the two, in my opinion

[InjunNose · 7/10 · 25 August 2020]

Not astoundingly, knock-you-out-of-your-seat better, but yes: George Melford's Spanish-language version of "Dracula" is the one that I find myself rewatching most often. As the undead Transylvanian count, Carlos Villarias is somewhat less spookily authoritative than Bela Lugosi, but the story has more room to breathe here (the film runs almost half an hour longer than Tod Browning's version), and Lupita Tovar's warm, kittenish performance as Eva is preferable to Helen Chandler's distant, patrician Mina in the English-language production. Both films show their age, so don't expect a masterpiece in either case; F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" remains the definitive cinematic adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. But Universal's Spanish-language version, while every bit as stagey as the better-known Lugosi film, boasts more atmosphere and comes closer to being an immersive experience for the viewer.

Villarias Was The Lonely, Tragic Dracula

[TeamRocket_Jessie · 10/10 · 12 January 2016]

Carlos Villarias was a better actor than Bela Lugosi, but Villarias was campy at times and had zero sex appeal. He was also less creepy than Lugosi. Instead, Villarias made Dracula more lonely and and relatable. I feel that made Villarias the better Dracula by leaps and bounds. Villarias was the Dracula that Bram Stoker described. To make up for Villarias's lack of sensuality, Lupita Tovar oozed lust. At times, her hair was messy, tousled, and maybe even a little frizzy. Her outfits were tighter, showed more skin, and her body type was curvy and voluptuous. When she dove in to bite Mr. Harker, she looked like a flesh-crazed beast/a sex-crazed nymph and it's the most sexual moment I've seen in any 1930s movie. Dracula's harem girls were also more sensual than those in the American version. As for the camera work, the camera actually moves and there are more camera angles. As a result, you see more of the small details of the set design and more of the disorienting, unnatural shapes that the stairs, archs, etc. make.

a withered and pale carbon copy of a beloved classic; notably lacking the presence and timing that made the original so wonderful

[TheUnknown837-1 · 6/10 · 25 October 2009]

Owners of the Universal Legacy edition DVD of "Dracula" (1931) will find a lot of special content along with the fantastic film. One of the special features is a Spanish version of the movie. And when one examines the Spanish version, they will see a strikingly familiar resemblance to the movie they already know. They will see the same sets, similar dialogue, same scene setups, and same story. The only difference is that the Spanish versions is, of course, in Spanish, features a different cast, and is notably long and duller than its famous English counterpart.

In 1931, it was common practice in Hollywood to not dub over movies for foreign releases, but to essentially make the movie twice with different casts and directors but using the same script and sets. For "Dracula", the English crew would come during the day, shoot their scenes, and then the Spanish filmmakers would take over at night and do the same. It was the goal of the Spanish crew to make the better of the two versions. However, when comparing the two movies, though they are quite similar, the Spanish version of "Dracula" is ultimately less profound, too long, and a lot less entertaining.

A main fault of the movie are the characters and the way they are presented and cast. Nobody can forget Bela Lugosi standing on the castle stairway with a candle in his hand, grinning upon unfortunate Mr. Renfield and declaring: "I am…Dracula." But one can easily forget Carlos Villarias repeating the same line, but without the distinctive pronunciation and the air of presence and power that Lugosi had. Villarias gives a noble effort at playing Dracula, but ultimately his sneering, gasps, and wide eyes do not strike with very much impact and are more likely, I'm afraid, to stir up inadvertent laughter. I think Lupita Tovar is a find Spanish actress, but it seems as if the great material that made me feel for Helen Chandler's portrayal of the same character in the English version is gone. Barry Norton is also very good, but his character is quite dry and has no presence. Only Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield comes close to matching the exhilaration and gusto that was found in his American counterpart.

The English version of "Dracula" is a brief seventy-five minutes long and because it was so well-made, I wished it was longer. The Spanish version is longer, but it's a lot less entertaining. In fact, at a hundred and four minutes, it drags on for much too long and this is mostly due to drawl, flat scenes that seem as if we're watching a poorly rehearsed stage production with the camera hardly moving at times from wide shots that give us a very empty feeling. Now the Spanish version does clear up a minor question I had about the ending after becoming associated with the English version and it does have some fine individual moments, but it's really a withered and pale carbon copy of a beloved classic. The only audience members I can recommend this to are curious fans of the English language version. But those are not curious, you might as well avoid. There's not a whole lot to be found.

I Vant To Suk Your ... SANGRE!

[Coventry · 5/10 · 16 October 2007]

The most interesting thing about the Spanish version of Dracula is the modest & informative introduction of main actress Lupita Tovar. I don't know when exactly this brief interview with her was shot, but it can't be too long ago judging by the picture quality, which makes it all the more impressive that she still looks relatively good! According to the IMDb, she's still alive and kicking, though nearly reaching the age of 100 and not having made any movies in more than 60 years. With great pride, Tovar explains how the Spanish crew exclusively worked during the nights, using the exact same sets of the English version, how the director didn't understood the language of his cast & crew and – most notably – how her costumes and wardrobes were a lot sexier and more revealing than those of her English speaking colleagues. Interesting! She also claims that the Spanish version is superior and that is, of course, debatable since many of the plot lines seem unnecessarily stretched and on the verge of being very tedious. The story is exactly the same, but this version pays more attention to the extended drawing of characters that are merely supportive, like Renfield for example. The film eventually runs half an hour longer than its English counterpart, 104 minutes in total, and that is simply too long for a horror movie of that era. Part of the Universal monster movies' charm is that they are short, straightforward and to the point. "Drácula" is the first, and to my knowledge, only contemporary Universal movie that features needless padding. Naturally Carlos Villarias is no patch on Bela Lugosi when it comes to depicting the legendary infamous Count. Lugosi literally owned the character; whereas Villarias is hardly menacing at all and most of the time he appears to pull funny grimaces and sneering expressions. There are so numberless versions of Bram Stoker's immortal novel available on the market, so I'm not entirely sure why Universal didn't simply dub the American version instead of producing yet another different film, but it still has many fans. And it made Mrs. Lupita Tovar proud to be an actress, which is a good thing as well, I guess.