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.
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.