Matt Barry

(2013-05-23 21:31:31)

A Superior Version...

Hollywood-1931. The success of James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN started the trendgoing for a whole slew of horror films from Universal. Tod Browning,Hollywood's "Master of the Macabre", directed his classic DRACULA (1931)with Bela Lugosi, a staple of American horror film. But simultaneously, aSpanish-language version was directed on the same sets at night by GeorgeMelford at the Universal studio in Hollywood. His version, made from thesame script is much, MUCH more artistic. The sound recording and presentpicture quality is superior. If an audience could stand the subtitles (andthe lack of Bela Lugosi as Dracula, the only thing missing from the Spanishversion), then this could easily become almost as famous as the TodBrowningversion.

Klaatu-18

(2013-05-23 12:35:43)

The other Dracula

Dracula, in Spanish.I saw this version several years ago thanks to a local film festival. Theyhad recently reconstructed a copy and were about to re-releaseit.In a wonderfully cost-effective move this was filmed, using the same setsand the same script as the famous Bela Lugosi version. Swing-shiftfilmmaking.Even though my Spanish is very weak, I know the original. And hearing "Inever drink... wine" or "The children of the night! What beautiful musicthey make!" is still chilling no matter what language.And the director of this version made different choices from the Lugosiversion. One scene that was particularly effective: Dracula walking througha mass of spider-webs without disturbing them.Eight stars. See it if you can.

Coventry

(2013-05-22 00:21:51)

I Vant To Suk Your ... SANGRE!

The most interesting thing about the Spanish version of Dracula is themodest & informative introduction of main actress Lupita Tovar. I don'tknow when exactly this brief interview with her was shot, but it can'tbe too long ago judging by the picture quality, which makes it all themore impressive that she still looks relatively good! According to theIMDb, she's still alive and kicking, though nearly reaching the age of100 and not having made any movies in more than 60 years. With greatpride, Tovar explains how the Spanish crew exclusively worked duringthe nights, using the exact same sets of the English version, how thedirector didn't understood the language of his cast & crew and – mostnotably – how her costumes and wardrobes were a lot sexier and morerevealing than those of her English speaking colleagues. Interesting!She also claims that the Spanish version is superior and that is, ofcourse, debatable since many of the plot lines seem unnecessarilystretched and on the verge of being very tedious. The story is exactlythe same, but this version pays more attention to the extended drawingof characters that are merely supportive, like Renfield for example.The film eventually runs half an hour longer than its Englishcounterpart, 104 minutes in total, and that is simply too long for ahorror movie of that era. Part of the Universal monster movies' charmis that they are short, straightforward and to the point. "Drácula" isthe first, and to my knowledge, only contemporary Universal movie thatfeatures needless padding. Naturally Carlos Villarias is no patch onBela Lugosi when it comes to depicting the legendary infamous Count.Lugosi literally owned the character; whereas Villarias is hardlymenacing at all and most of the time he appears to pull funny grimacesand sneering expressions. There are so numberless versions of BramStoker's immortal novel available on the market, so I'm not entirelysure why Universal didn't simply dub the American version instead ofproducing yet another different film, but it still has many fans. Andit made Mrs. Lupita Tovar proud to be an actress, which is a good thingas well, I guess.

Gary170459

(2013-05-21 20:45:09)

Bueno

English language Dracula shot in the day, Spanish language Drácula shotat night, and Dracula good, Drácula better. Well, yes I agree, butthey're both stagey, corny and too long.Vampiro Drácula gets the urge to set up shop in Britain fromTransylvannia, and fixes on a single source of blood much to hiseventual downfall when Professor Van Helsing gets wise to him. It's anold story by now: recently the UK has been the final destination formany desperate vampires from Romania. The film moves to Whitby soquickly they didn't even get to explain how close Whitby is to London.This version has some atmospheric spooky scenes but ultimatelyeverything is spoilt by the leisurely hamminess of the actors involved.Carlos Villar playing Drácula is as vivid as a gas fire installer whileEduardo Arozamena playing Van Helsing nearly made his eyes pop out withhis looks of constant surprise. Carmen Guerrero playing heroine Lucialooked just fine to me though! Renfield gets a much larger slice of theaction here too, to (Juan) Harker's cost. The print condition is goodin the main for saying it's supposed to have been a lost film fordecades – 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) thanLugosi's ultra-stagey Dracula, but if I had to take one to a desertisland I'd take Lugosi's solely because it's far more concise.Confession time: I thought the classic novel was a nonsensical borewith a great idea poorly interpreted by Bram Stoker. So, a must-see forhorror (especially Golden Age) film completists, a must-not for anyonewith little time to spare.

Wayne Malin

(2013-05-21 05:48:04)

The Latino Dracula

Shot the same time as the English version of Dracula, this Spanish versionwas shot on the same sets during the night. Some people consider thissuperior to the English version. In SOME ways it is.The English version was badly directed by Tod Browning...but it wasBrowning'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 wasexceptionally well-directed. The camera moves and the director seems veryat ease with using sound. Also the first appearance of Dracula in theEnglish version was badly handled--in the Spanish one it's actually verygood and a little frightening! Also we find out the fate of Lucia (Lucy) inthis one. And the plots with Renfield and Eva (Mina) are more fleshed out . And Pablo Alvarez Rubio gives a good performance as Reinfield. AND thegirls wear more revealing nightgowns:) But that's aboutit.This film is VERY slow (it runs 25 minutes longer than the other) and theacting isn't that good. The man playing van Helsing overacts (badly) andBarry Norton and Lupita Tovar are just OK as Eva and Juan. But CarlosVillatias 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 thescreen presence of Lugosi. If that had teamed this director with theEnglish cast there might have been a GREAT movie. But, unfortunately, itdidn't happen. I do give this a 7 though.

TheUnknown837-1

(2013-05-20 17:00:25)

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

Owners of the Universal Legacy edition DVD of "Dracula" (1931) willfind a lot of special content along with the fantastic film. One of thespecial features is a Spanish version of the movie. And when oneexamines the Spanish version, they will see a strikingly familiarresemblance to the movie they already know. They will see the samesets, similar dialogue, same scene setups, and same story. The onlydifference is that the Spanish versions is, of course, in Spanish,features a different cast, and is notably long and duller than itsfamous English counterpart.In 1931, it was common practice in Hollywood to not dub over movies forforeign releases, but to essentially make the movie twice withdifferent casts and directors but using the same script and sets. For"Dracula", the English crew would come during the day, shoot theirscenes, and then the Spanish filmmakers would take over at night and dothe same. It was the goal of the Spanish crew to make the better of thetwo versions. However, when comparing the two movies, though they arequite similar, the Spanish version of "Dracula" is ultimately lessprofound, too long, and a lot less entertaining.A main fault of the movie are the characters and the way they arepresented and cast. Nobody can forget Bela Lugosi standing on thecastle stairway with a candle in his hand, grinning upon unfortunateMr. Renfield and declaring: "I am…Dracula." But one can easily forgetCarlos Villarias repeating the same line, but without the distinctivepronunciation and the air of presence and power that Lugosi had.Villarias gives a noble effort at playing Dracula, but ultimately hissneering, gasps, and wide eyes do not strike with very much impact andare more likely, I'm afraid, to stir up inadvertent laughter. I thinkLupita Tovar is a find Spanish actress, but it seems as if the greatmaterial that made me feel for Helen Chandler's portrayal of the samecharacter in the English version is gone. Barry Norton is also verygood, but his character is quite dry and has no presence. Only PabloAlvarez Rubio as Renfield comes close to matching the exhilaration andgusto that was found in his American counterpart.The English version of "Dracula" is a brief seventy-five minutes longand because it was so well-made, I wished it was longer. The Spanishversion is longer, but it's a lot less entertaining. In fact, at ahundred and four minutes, it drags on for much too long and this ismostly due to drawl, flat scenes that seem as if we're watching apoorly rehearsed stage production with the camera hardly moving attimes from wide shots that give us a very empty feeling. Now theSpanish version does clear up a minor question I had about the endingafter becoming associated with the English version and it does havesome fine individual moments, but it's really a withered and palecarbon copy of a beloved classic. The only audience members I canrecommend this to are curious fans of the English language version. Butthose are not curious, you might as well avoid. There's not a whole lotto be found.

(2013-05-20 14:47:56)

Best horror movie of the period - period.

Let's get real: there are only two reasons the reputation of theoriginal Dracula has remained intact into the 21st Century - BelaLugosi's performance and as a monument to camp/nostalgia of a certainkind. In all other respects, it is at its best competent, in its worstmoments dreadful. While admittedly atmospherically moody in design, itis ridiculously slow, and, with the exception of Lugosi, the acting ishilariously bad. Does Lugosi's strangely ethereal, other-worldlyperformance save the show. Yes; on the other hand, goth-nostalgia growsever more wearisome as the years wear on.Despite a legend perpetrated by Universal Studios itself, that theSpanish language version of the film produced simultaneously with theoriginal was shot by shot the same with different actors, the SpanishDracula is a completely different interpretation of the same script.The lighting is better, the camera work more fluid and moreprofessionally handled, the editing is far more advanced - indeed thelook of the film would put it in the early '40s if we didn't knowbetter. Adding to this impression of being ahead of its time is theacting - naturalistic, emotive, performed by a cast with a considerablerepertoire of facial expressions and vocal intonations at theirdisposal, most utterly believable.Finally, there is the redefinition of just what the 'horror' of Draculareally amounts to. Lugosi's presence in the original is heightened bythe portrayal of a British middle class environment that is hopelesslybanal. Here, the environment is given a warmer glow, but the realhorror of the vampire is that he is a beast in aristocratic disguise,seething with barely suppressed violence. Pay special attention to theship voyage sequence: in the original this is mostly about a storm inwhich Lugosi stands literally unmoved by the rough waves battering theship. In the Spanish version, the sequence is about the directconfrontation between the Count - hungry, gloating sneer on his face,crouched, about to pounce - and the unbelieving sailors, with asoundtrack provided by a truly frightening screech of laughter from themad Renfield.A note must also be made concerning the sexuality of the two films. Theimplicit sexuality of the original is really largely legend, derivedalmost solely from Lugosi's own impressively suave charisma. The makersof the Spanish version have not left the matter to the chance ofcasting - the women are thinly dressed, and Dracula's approach to themopenly seductive - this especially becomes clear in one scene whereDracula steps between the heroine and her fiancГѓВ©, utterly ignores thefiancГѓВ©'s presence and speaks to the heroine in the soothing, caringtones of a lover! I'm not saying the Spanish Dracula is anything morethan a well made B-movie - but it is an exceptionally well madeB-movie, probably the best of its era - a real classic that stands thetest of time on the virtue of its rugged performance and professionalpolish.Give honor to Lugosi's historic performance - but pay homage to anearly lost masterwork of genre cinema, the Spanish language Dracula,1931.

Jack McKee

(2013-05-20 02:18:24)

Look, I love the Lugosi version, but. . .

I have viewed the two films side by side a few times, and the Spanishversion is the superior film. (I still can't wrap myself around theearlier comment that the Spanish film is considered superior by some"only" because the direction is better. The American cinema is, forbetter or worse, more a director's medium than an actor's medium, sohigh quality direction matters.) Lugosi's delivery in this film is notjust an accent. It is stilted English learned to a large degreephonetically. Villarias is, on the other hand, speaking his nativelanguage and speaking it beautifully.The other performance are good as well. Lupita Tovar is an excitingpresence, in particular. Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield is also quitegood, making a more understandable character pre-madness than DwightFrye's English version.But director George Melford is far superior to Tod Browning. TheSpanish film has more mood, more expressiveness than the stiltedEnglish version. Dracula's wives are worth the price of admission allby themselves. In the Spanish version, you see Dracula appear from hiscoffin; Browning cuts away. There are lots of such instances. Browningis basically "phoning it in" here, where Melford makes a lot of choicesthat illuminate the script and make for a much more exciting andcohesive film.

gftbiloxi

(2013-05-19 08:31:05)

Villarias Bites

Language was no barrier to Hollywood in the silent era: title cardswere easily translated from English. When sound began to roar,Hollywood began to fear the loss of its foreign markets--and so, for abrief time, the studios occasionally produced two versions of certainfilms, one in English and one in another language, most often German orSpanish. Such was the case with the 1931 Dracula.According to film historian and author David J. Skal, producer PaulKohner fell in love with Mexican-born actress Lupita Tovar (they latermarried), and his romantic interest prompted the suggestion that shestar in a Spanish-language version of the film. When the Englishlanguage cast wrapped for the day, the Spanish language cast arrivedand worked through the night using the same sets.Most of Hollywood's foreign-language duplicates were forgotten asquickly as they were released, but the Spanish Dracula would be theexception. Todd Browning, who directed the English language filmstarring Bela Lugosi, was extremely uncomfortable with soundtechnology. While the first fifteen minutes or so his film areexceptional, the movie thereafter becomes a filmed stage play--and avery choppy and rather unimaginative stage play at that. Instead ofsimply duplicating Browning's set-ups, producer Kohner and directorGeorge Melford set out to best him, and when the Spanish versiondebuted most viewers declared it greatly superior to the Englishversion.And in many respects it is. Whereas Browning's version is visually flatand rather slow, the Spanish Dracula is visually exciting, and althoughit is considerably longer than the English version the pace neverdrags. It also has it all over the Browning version in terms ofediting, 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 theEnglish version.But the Spanish Dracula has a problem, and it's a big one: actor CarlosVillarias, billed here as Carlos Villar. Villarias had a respectablefilm career throughout the 1930s and 1940s, but he met his match inDracula; where Lugosi intoned, snarled, and endowed the vampire with anelegant evil, Villarias goes through the film with a series ofexpressions that lead one to believe he has just encountered anoverflowing toilet. His flaring nostrils and disgusted glances are soincredibly out of place that they quickly become unintentionallyhilarious.Lugosi's performance, of course, is generally considered the ultimatestatement of the role, and with good reason. In a perfect world, wewould be able to snatch Villarias out of the Spanish Dracula and insertLugosi in his place; the result would be a truly amazing film fromstart to finish. As it is, however, we are stuck with Villarias, andfrankly he bites.The VHS release of the Spanish Dracula is out of print, but the film isavailable on the same disk with the Universal release of the morewidely known Todd Browning version. By and large the film quality isremarkably good; it has not, however, received a digital remaster, andat least one of the reels would greatly benefit from it. If you are afan of 1930s horror, you'll find it more than worth the effort, but Isuspect more casual viewers will be reduced to hysterical laughter bythe Villarias performance.GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Scarecrow-88

(2013-05-18 08:41:33)

DrГѓВЎcula

Conde DrГѓВЎcula(Carlos VillarГѓВ­as, portraying the count with thesefiendish eyes like a rabid dog on the prowl for rabbit meat)hasRenfield(Pablo ГѓВЃlvarez Rubio)bring documents to his decrepit,centuries-old, decaying castle in Transylvania for a place in CarfaxAbbey near London. He has plans to use Renfield as his servant to dohis bidding while he's asleep in his coffin. So after the papers aresigned, Conde DrГѓВЎcula and his vampire brides bite him. He isn't bittenenough to die, but in a weakened state mentally, Renfield has becomequite crazed..the smell of blood stamped in his brain and through hisveins. Renfield watches as Conde DrГѓВЎcula destroys a ship's crew ontheir voyage to a London harbor. The London police, newspapers, andscientists are baffled at Renfield's mental state and the shippingcrew's slaughter. Doctor Seward(JosГѓВ© Soriano Viosca), who operates thecity sanitarium, seeks the assistance of renowned Doctor VanHelsing(Eduardo Arozamena)regarding Renfield's bizarre condition. Also,the police start finding victims, such as the friend of Seward'sdaughter Eva(Lupita Tovar, much more energetic and effective in thisrole than monotone Helen Chandler), with bites on their necks and bloodcompletely drained from their bodies. Conde DrГѓВЎcula is attracted toEva, who has a fiancГѓВ© Juan Harker(Barry Norton, also much better thanhis American counterpart)worried about his future wife's worseningcondition. What he doesn't know is that Conde DrГѓВЎcula appears at Eva'sbedside taking just enough blood to keep her alive. Meanwhile, VanHelsing, who has expertise in all things weird, unexplained, andsupernatural, explains to his medical colleagues that the oneresponsible for the rash of deaths is a vampire. Obviously, Van Helsingwill be met with scorn and disbelief at such an accusation. That isuntil Doctor Seward realizes his daughter is Dracula's chosen bride.The rest of the film consists of Van Helsing and Dracula'scat-and-mouse battle with Renfield the centerpiece and Eva's lifehanging in the balance.I think this version is superior in some ways to Browning versionbecause director George Melford was able to see what he was doingduring the day. Melford and company add richer, longer dialoguesegments, use more of the sets(especially exteriors), shoot certainscenes more imaginatively, and showing us certain scenes just impliedin the American version(such as the bars bent so that Renfield couldescape, the vampiric bite wounds,etc). I love the scene where Renfieldcatches a fly when he has just told Seward and Van Helsing he was muchbetter. I do not think Carlos VillarГѓВ­as was as memorable or forebodingas Lugosi, but he isn't terrible. He's just not memorable in an iconicsense. Tovar is given a chance to make her version of Mina sexier,livelier, and a stronger female presence on screen. Pablo ГѓВЃlvarez Rubiowas a bit too theatrical as Renfield for my tastes and certainlydoesn't match Dwight Frye in the role. I did think Arozamena was abetter Van Helsing, given more to do in the role with the ability tospread his wings a bit. His scene denying Dracula's attempt to mentallyovertake him was well-staged by all considered including how it wasshot. Another important aspect where this version betters the Americanversion is the relationship between Seward and his daughter Eva. He'sthe one that coerces Eva into showing Van Helsing the bite marks on herneck. As she lays sick and weak in bed, Seward closes in with suchfatherly anguish on his face. That element is missing in Browning'sfilm..not his fault, but that's just difference in casting. TheTransylvania sequences are stronger, dialogue-wise, with Dracula andRenfield's exchanges giving us more to go by. I love the cob web scenebecause Renfield takes his sweet time tearing into it due to intensefear. Oh, and the scene where Dracula smashes the mirror box. Handsdown, Melford's version stands ahead. When Van Helsing asks Dracula(inthe American version)to look at something, he opens it with Lugosisimply knocking it out of the good doctor's hand. In the Spanishversion, Villarias' Count takes his cane and smashes the damn thinginto smithereens with cigarettes exploding all over the floor! And, Melford, wisely, shoots certain scenes from the opposite side ofthe door Renfield and Dracula frequently enter and exit out of into theyard on the estate. Melford and cinematographer George Robinson alsohave lots of fluid dolly shots where the camera just moves delicatelyinto scenes pulling in and backing away quietly. The film uses the setsbeautifully. Such a magnificent film, both visually stunning andprofessionally made. A definite must-see for curious Dracula fans andcertainly Gothic horror aficionados.

MARIO GAUCI

(2013-05-17 17:23:16)

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

The Browning/Lugosi 'classic' has always been one of my favoriteUniversal horror films but, ever since the simultaneously-produced'rival' Spanish version resurfaced, the 'original' has taken a beatingby fans and historians alike - mainly because the latter featuressuperior camera-work! This, however, is the ONLY area where it can laya claim to be better in when compared to the US version (the fact thatleading lady Lupita Tovar had a sexier wardrobe than Helen Chandlershouldn't even be considered, I guess). Still, the fact that on the DVDthe opinion that the seminal US version is the inferior one seems to beshared by quite a few people hasn't done it any favors! I rememberbeing impressed by the Spanish version when I first watched it in 2001,singling out for praise the performance of Pablo Alvarez Rubio asRenfield and, of course, George Robinson's cinematography. However,coming back to it now, I felt that Rubio's hysterical rendering of thecharacter (which reminded me of Gene Wilder in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN[1974] of all people!) was nowhere nearly as nuanced as Dwight Frye'sunforgettable 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 thatKarl Freund - a pioneer of the moving camera - had somehow beenrestrained by Tod Browning, who admittedly wasn't very fond of thistechnique. Given that of late we've also been faced by the ridiculousassumption that Browning didn't actually direct the film, he couldn'thave - since he wasn't even there!! It may be however, that sincefrequent Browning collaborator Lon Chaney (who had been slated for thetitle role) died before shooting began, the director sort of lost heartin the project - coupled also with the fact that the script was rathertalky, another element with which Browning felt uneasy! Well, whateverwent on behind the scenes, for me what's in front remains one of thehighlights 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 VanSloan were at their best, while Lugosi only ever really came close withTHE BLACK CAT [1934] and SON OF FRANKENSTEIN [1939]) and memorableindividual scenes (the entire first act set in Transylvania, theconfrontation scenes between Dracula and his nemesis Professor VanHelsing, Renfield's various ravings). The tame ending may appearanti-climactic to most people but I honestly was never bothered by it!If anything, this was remedied in any number of ways in subsequentoutings...Which brings us back to the Spanish Dracula: like I said, the film isan interesting and altogether pleasing 'alternate' to the Lugosiversion...but it is fatally compromised by the inadequate leadingperformance of Carlos Villarias, whose bulging eyes and feral snarlscan't hold a candle to Lugosi's definitive screen vampire! This versiondoes go to places where the American doesn't (Browning shies away fromthe vampire attacks, for instance) and even features 'new' scenes likethe aftermath of the vampiric Lucy's demise - but, at 104 minutes (afull half-hour longer than the US version, when considering that theywere following the same script!) it's way overlong for its own good.The Browning/Lugosi version is often criticized for its sluggishnessbut this one actually moves at a snail's pace: take, for instance, thefamous scene where Dracula is exposed by the mirror - Lugosi knocks thebox down immediately, while Villarias takes forever to do so (even ifhis resolution is effectively flamboyant nonetheless).A word about the DVD quality: disappointingly, the Spanish versionfeatures closed-captions (for the hearing-impaired) rather than propersubtitles. As for the US version, the print utilized for thisparticular transfer (which differs from that of the original, and moresatisfactory, 1999 release) is a bit too dark for my taste and thedialogue sometimes was hard to catch due to the incessant hiss on thesoundtrack! It also reverts to the 'original' single groan duringDracula's staking (instead of the elongated variant available on theearlier disc)...but does feature a bit of music at the end of the Operasequence, which had been missing from the previous edition!! Well, thisonly means that it's worth keeping both copies of Dracula as neither isreally definitive...

Matthew Ignoffo

(2013-05-16 23:51:16)

Atmospheric alternate version

This Spanish version of DRACULA is interesting and odd, running nearly ahalf-hour longer than the English version with Lugosi. It was filmed byUniversal simultaniously with the Lugosi version, using the same sets butwith a Spanish-speaking cast. The Lugosi version was filmed during the day,and the Spanish version was filmed at night.Carlos Villarias is excellent as Dracula. There is more use of sound effectsin this version, with doors creaking and other moody sounds along the waythat are not in the English version. Also, the costumes for the women aremore revealing.Lugosi still has the upper fang as far as being ominous, especially withthat one-of-a-kind accent. But Villarias does a great job as theblood-thirst Count, especially with the use of his eyes, giving a veryspooky look to the old boy. This is an enjoyable alternative version of thevenerable classic.

galfridus73

(2013-05-16 09:16:55)

Superior in many ways, but in the end it is as good as "Dracula"

Comparing this to the English language "Dracula" (made at the same timeas this movie, using the same sets), one wishes that George Medford andTod Browning had traded places or, preferably, that Medford haddirected both of them, and the Spanish language screenwriters followedhis lead, not just "DrГѓВЎcula."I doubt, however, than anyone can make an argument to replace Lugosiwith Carlos VillarГѓВ­as in the role of the Count. And it's very difficultfor me to picture anyone other than Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing(even Peter Cushing and Anthony Hopkins have to stand aside). Perhapssome of us might have liked to see Helen Chandler moved aside forLupita Tovar, but that would have been purely for an eye candy factor.In the end, this movie does suffer from some short cuts taken byMedford (you never see VillarГѓВ­as come down the castles's stairs in thebeginning as Lugosi does), and it definitely suffers from the lack ofKarl Fruend's cinematography.But, in the end, the movie is an excellent interpretation of the samesource material as Browning's "Dracula." They are both very much thesame movie, but they are both very much different movies. I say watchthem both and choose for yourself. If, in fact, you cannot choose,well... you can always do what I did and rate them the same.

Markus Peltonen

(2013-05-15 13:55:14)

Better than the English language version

DVD is a great invention. Just a few years ago this was one of the verylong list of films I thought I'd never see. But now I'm the proud ownerof the excellent Dracula Legacy box set and finally saw this film.To my surprise this was clearly better than the English languageversion with Bela Lugosi. While that version was somehow stiff andslow-moving this one has much better rhytming. The only part that worksbetter in the Lugosi-version is the legendary Dracula's castle scene inthe beginning. In that, Carlos VillarГѓВ­as' Dracula doesn't work, he justisn't menacing enough. But it is virtually impossible to top Lugosi'sperformance in that scene.When the movie moves out of the castle, it starts to work much betterthan the other version. For example the interaction between Dracula andVan Helsing puts Lugosi and Van Sloan in shame. This is about 30minutes longer than the English language version but I didn't evennotice the length since it moved so smoothly. All in all, a great pieceof classic horror cinema.

funkyfry

(2013-05-15 17:38:25)

The Spanish language dracula is a weaker cousin

The Spanish-language version of Bram Stoker's novel was filmed at night onthe same sets as its Lugosi-starred American counterpart, with what lookslike Universal's unit for Spanish-language comedy shorts. We get to seewhat looks like the Mexican versions of Mabel Normand, Charlie Chaplin, andHarold Lloyd go through the vampiric rituals. Contrary to rumour, it iscertainly inferior in acting, tone, and pacing to Tod Browning's version. The Browning version may have less plot (probably Universal's editors hadinstructions to cut length to allow for extra showings and to cut out thedead weight of Browning's lethargic pace, which worked with silent gothicsbut not so well with sound), but its got much better actors putting in muchbetter performances. Medford's film may be a better directed film thanBrowning's "Dracula" in terms of modern film tastes, but so is your average"Francis the Talking Horse" movie, and they're not true classics either. Browning's "Dracula" is, irrefutably, a classic. That's my two cents on thesupposed controversy over which version is better (I guess I disagree withmost of the posters on imdb), which to me is as obvious as it could possiblybe.The nice gothic set pieces distinguish this film from other cheapie horrorfilms, but these are entirely borrowed from the English language production. Interestingly, no actual graverobbing is shown in this safe-for-Catholicsversion of Dracula.

Michael_Elliott

(2013-05-14 22:00:19)

Pretty Good

Dracula (1931) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Spanish version Spanish version filled at night while the American version with Lugosifilmed during the day. It's pretty hard not to compare both versionsbut I guess this really isn't fair to either. I'll go ahead and do itanyways. The Spanish version is overall the better movie due to muchbetter camera-work, editing and beautiful sets. The visual look of thisfilm is so much better than the American version but the American onedoes have the better and more interesting cast. Like the Americanversion however, this too moves way too slowly for its own good.

JosГѓВ© Luis Rivera Mendoza

(2013-05-12 22:42:52)

As good as the original English version!

In the early days of the sound era, it was very common to make severalversions of a movie in order to sell them in foreign countries. Ratherthan having the sound dubbed, those versions were completely re-shotversions of the movies the studio was producing using actors speakingthe language of the nation where the studio wanted to sell the film.This practice died very soon due to the excessive cost of making themand the fact that actors began to be worldwide recognized celebrities,making foreign audiences to prefer the original films over the specialforeign versions. Among those few surviving films of that era, theSpanish version of Dracula, named "DrГѓВЎcula", has become very popularamong fans due to its excellent quality, that rivals that of theoriginal Tod Browning's version.Just like the original English version, the movie follows the GarretFort's screenplay based on the "Dracula" play by Hamilton Deane andJohn L. Balderston in turn based one Bram Stoker's famous novel. Themovie begins with Renfield (Pablo ГѓВЃlvarez Rubio) visiting Count DrГѓВЎcula(Carlos VillarГѓВ­as) to complete the formalities of the Count's new plan:to move to England by buying a ruined abbey in London. However, DrГѓВЎculais an ancient vampire thirsty of the young blood of the cities, andjust as he arrives to England, a series of murders will begin. After heselects young Eva (Lupita Tovar) as his new victim, he'll have to faceProf. Van Helsing (Eduardo Arozamena), an eminent scientist who is afriend of Eva's father and suspects that the Count is one of theundead.Co-directed by George Melford and Enrique Tovar ГѓВЃvalos (this would bethe last of the four Spanish versions they co-directed as a team), thefilm stays true to Browning and Fort's vision of the play on manyaccounts; however, given that the shooting was done by night rightafter Browning and his team ended the work on the English version, theyhad the advantage of watching the dailies the crew had left. This gavethem the chance to explore different takes and changes in the structureresulting in a remarkably different experience.While at first sight both versions look the same (with the obviousdifference of the spoken language), Melford and Tovar's slightmodifications increased not only the runtime, but also the pace of thefilm; so while the movie is almost 30 minutes longer than Browning'sfilm, it feels like it flows smoother and faster. Gone is the staticartistic look of Browning's haunting images, and welcome is a morevivid, dynamic Dracula that seems to forecast future incarnations ofthe character. Also, it's important to point out that since the filmwas not ruled under the Hays code (as the English version was), thesexual innuendo ever present in Dracula's story was a bit moreexplicit.It's hard to judge the film's cast without comparing them to the castin Browning's film, so I won't try to avoid it. Carlos VillarГѓВ­as is avery good Dracula, but lacks that mythical presence that Lugosi gave tothe character. Just like Dwight Frye steals the show in the Englishversion, Pablo ГѓВЃlvarez Rubio does the same here and gives the bestperformance of the film. Quite a change are Lupita Tovar and BarryNorton, who really give to their characters, Mina and John (Juan)Harker, a certain spark missing in the original. Finally, EduardoArozamena makes a top notch impersonation of Van Sloan's Van Helsing,mimicking every mannerism, fully understanding the character as awhole.Overall the cast is quite good for the job, although the non-Spanishspeaking audience will miss another key factor in the disappearance ofthe foreign film versions: the strange and wide diversity of accents.This ends up as the most notorious flaw of the film, as the film is adisjointed mix of several (and quite different) Spanish accents. Tovarand Arozamena employ Mexican accent while ГѓВЃlvarez Rubio and VillarГѓВ­ashave two kinds of Spain's Spanish. Barry Norton's Argentinian accentcompletes the awful mix that takes a lot of the film's believability.Despite this flaw (that goes unnoticed by non-speaking audiences), thefilm is a terrific Dracula adaptation, and it's not wonder why manyfans prefer it over Browning's original film. While maybe notgroundbreaking artistically, its dynamic pace makes it definitely moreentertaining and accessible than Browning's classic. This film is anoddity that every horror fan should see. 8/10

Joseph Brando

(2013-05-12 04:49:28)

Light Years Ahead of It's English Counterpart

You've heard the rumblings....You've read the reviews....and it's alltrue!! The Spanish version of Dracula exceeds its simultaneously shotEnglish counterpart in almost every way. While that version comesacross as sloppy, silly, and hard to follow, this one comes across ascreepy, involving and more lively. The only thing the English Versionhas over this one is Bela Lugosi, who of course is the iconic vision ofDracula. But that is a small price to pay for an entirely better motionpicture experience and Carlos Villarias makes a fine Dracula. Everyscene is shot better in this one, the actors seem to take their rolesmore seriously and the nightgowns are see-through in this version! Notto mention that you actually get to see Dracula rise from his coffin,sort of, unlike the American version. Watch both and I'm sure you willagree that "DrГѓВЎcula" is the one to see!

donaldgilbert

(2013-05-11 01:09:56)

Unnecessarily longer and overacted- inferior by leaps and bounds

I can in no way believe that there are critics out there that foundthis superior to the English language version. Although it's 30 minuteslonger, the Spanish Dracula added no new story; just stretched out someof the scenes in the English Dracula, with characters explaining thingsthat needed no explanation. Browning's English Dracula was leaner; theSpanish version was at times, a bit on the dull side.My biggest complaint, however, was that the acting was REALLYover-the-top. Seriously, I thought Lugosi and company were a bit hammy,but the cast of the Spanish version was laughable (especially the counthimself!). Really, Bela was spooky; this count was cheezy.My 4/10 is not in relation to the Browning version. I'm rating it as afilm independent of it's English cousin. Because it was slightly dull &overacted, I can't really seriously recommend seeing it. (TheBrowning/Lugosi version would get an 8/10.)

Outlaw-16

(2013-05-10 18:44:48)

The Better of the 2 Draculas

I love Tod Browning's version of the classic DRACULA, but the Spanishversion is more developed. The acting is far superior, especially withRenfield's character, and the overall look of the film is more haunting.The new DVD has both version so decide for yourself.Added Bonus: The Spanish version is almost 30 minuteslonger.