Not great, but worth viewing for the hardcore vampire fan (Rating: 2.00)
Review : True, Carlos Villar's performance as Dracula is this movie's greatest fault. I disagree with the statement that Villar's acting improved as the movie wore on. In earlier scenes I felt he was actually pretty impressive. Villar's approach to Dracula was very different from Lugosi's. Bela's Dracula had a magisterial, imposing presence. It was easy to believe this man had been a king, a general. Lugosi's Dracula was so smooth it was shocking when he'd display anger. Villar, by contrast, plays Dracula as much more feral. When he's not around others - on his own time, so to speak - his facial expression is animal-like. The polished aristocrat is only a facade, used when necessary, whereas in Lugosi we see a true aristocrat with a - usually - well-controlled feral aspect to his personality. Villar's is an interesting take on the character, and to start with it worked well for me, especially as a contrast to Lugosi's interpretation. Unfortunately there's a certain unfinished cast to Villar's features, an almost childlike softness and roundness, and later in the movie, when he's attempting to look intense and dangerous, what he really looks like is a pouting, sulky child.One major gripe I had with this film concerns the first time we ever see Dracula. An important moment to get right, one would think. Scene: the interior of Castle Dracula, the Count's coffin sits in the middle of a gloomy, expansive room - which we will see again in the closing scenes. The coffin lid raises slightly, a hand moves out into the air. So far, so good. If it had been left at that, this would have be an underplayed, very effective scene. Apparently this was thought to be too boring - we actually needed to SEE Dracula here - so immediately is spliced in a scene, obviously taking place in completely different room (Carfax Abbey from later in the film), Dracula rises from his coffin. Only now it's not a coffin, it's a wooden packing crate, as it will be later in the film. Obviously different room, obviously different "coffin." I wanted to scream. Continuity, Melford! I'll give the director the benefit of the doubt this film splice was done or forced by the studio, but it's still shockingly amateurish editing, during one of the film's pivotal moments. The special effects in the movie are better than Lugosi's Dracula. The bats are much more convincing and well-done that the famous - and beloved - rubber-bat-on-a-string of the English language version. Unfortunately the Spanish movie is ungodly slow, much more so than its more famous counterpart. It does, after all, take over 30 minutes longer to tell the same story. It's very talky. The acting, depending on the actor, comes in two varieties: stilted or totally over the top. All in all, a boring viewing experience. I recognize the Spanish language 1931 Dracula for the important cultural curiosity it is. Every true vampire aficionado should have a copy of this movie in their library. As for me, I'm glad I saw it - once.
good if you're spanish (Rating: 3.00)
Review : I bought the dracula legacy collection and watched the spanish version with english subtitles.I thought it was OK,but seemed too much of a remake of the first one.But if you are Spanish you'll love it!In this film there are things that weren't in the original but it also doesn't have stuff that wasn't in the original.
The Best Dracula movie of 1931 even with subtitles (Rating: 4.00)
Review : If you are a fan of the Bela Lugosi "Dracula," you owe it to yourself to check out this Spanish version, shot at night by George Melford on the same shots Todd Browning was using during the day. Granted, Lugosi is a better Count than Carlos Villar, but the two things that really sell this alternative version of the tale are the cinematography and production values, decidedly more creative and eerie than the English version, and the wickedly vamp out women, led by Lupitar Tovar. Endure the subtitles and screen these two 1931 "Dracula" movies as a double-feature.
A LOST TREASURE FROM UNIVERSAL (Rating: 5.00)
Review : The Spanish version of DRACULA received so much publicity (mainly claiming it's superiority to the Tod Browning/Bela Lugosi classic) that I avoided this archival release for years. Well, I'm happy to say that I was mistaken. This marvel is one last classic from Universal's horror heyday. True, the star is no Bela Lugosi--but the Spanish Renfield rivals Dwight Frye without ever imitating him. Best of all, you get a chance to see what Browning's film could have been like without any cuts. It is impossible to downplay the value of this alternate version. A true treasure for film buffs.
Average (Rating: 3.00)
Review : i just got done watchin this The VHS just came in my mail today and popped it in ..... to me This movie is missin a lotta links... it is Atmospheric at times but as i reviewed the Reviews below some of the reviews actually said this film was more atmospheric then The english version .... which id have to disagree .... i think Tod Browning's version is more atmospheric then this.... and i think Dwight Frye is more up to the act of Reinsfield then Pablos whatever his name is Lol.... but it is a good movie.... i think The english version is better but this is as well a must watch classic horror film... if u ever have a chance to watch it .... then do so its a rareity so Enjoy ps.... another thing is (dracula didnt say I Bid you welcome) at the first THATS NOT COOL DOOD thats my fav line in the english version!!!
|
