Dracula - The Legacy Collection (Dracula / Dracula (1931 Spanish Version) / Dracula's Daughter /...

Dracula - The Legacy Collection (Dracula / Dracula (1931 Spanish Version) / Dracula's Daughter / Son of ... | Bela Lugosi, Sheila Manners | The First. The Best.

DVDs:

Dracula - The Lega...

	Dracula - The Legacy Collection (Dracula / Dracula (1931 Spanish Version) / Dracula's Daughter / Son of ... Bela Lugosi, Sheila Manners Universal Studios, 2004 average customer review:based on 73 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

GREAT

GREAT MOVIES
IT SEEMS THE HORROR ACTORS BACK THEN PUT THEIR ALL INTO THEIR CHARACTERS

The First. The Best.

When you think of Dracula, you think of this film. With a very strange release date of February 14 1931, it's 76 years old. And still influences the horror genre today. There are 3 versions of the original in this set. The English version, starring the only true Dracula, Bela Lugosi, with or without a music score written by Philip Glass, and the simultaniously shot Spansh version with Carlos Villar.

The Lugosi version is probably the most famous Dracula in the world today. Every pop-culture image of Dracula, with the midnight black hair and dapper evening dress and pronounced widows peak was modeled after this film. Oddly enough, though Dracula is usually depicted today with his widows peak, Bela didn't have one. I don't know where it came from.

There are those that consider the Spanish version to be a better film, but I disagree. Having just watched it for the first time last night, right after I watched the English version, I have to say I liked the English version more, due to it's better acting as the three principal characters.

Eduardo Arozamena's Van Helsing was good, but Edward Van Sloan's was just a little bit better. Arozamena just had too many goofy looking facial expresions for my taste, where Van Sloan had an air about him that told you this guy knew what he was talking about, and if you were smart, you'd listen to him and live longer.

Dwight Frye captured Renfield much better than Pablo Alvarez Rubio. Where Rubio laughed maniacally, Frye had an evil sounding laugh. Now I know this movie isn't scary anymore, not with all the real horror in the world, but the scene where police discover Frye's Renfield in the ships hold is one of the only scenes left in any movie that can make my skin crawl. The way Karl Freund, the veteran cameraman, framed him, the way the light hit just so, that evil laugh and his eyes growing madder by the second. Has to be seen. Frye looks like he'll jump through the screen and kill you any second. Probably caused a few heart attacks in 1931.

Lupita Tovar's Eva was far superior to Helen Chandler's Mina, and Barry Norton was far less annoying than David manners as Juan and John Harker, respectivly. Chandler's performance was as dry as sandpaper, while Manners' attempts at being macho and manly were laughable. Manners was about as macho as my kid sister.

An often overlooked character is Charles Gerrard's Martin, the asylum's security chief. Gerrard was far more entertaining than his Spanish double.

The Spanish version, I thought, had a better script. Plus, the benefit of shooting at night, after the English version was done for the day. The Spanish crew would come in, see what the English had done and then try to top it. Visually, in some places, they did. Specifically when Dracula woke and left his coffin. But the reason I like the English version better is exactly the reason I don't like todays so-called horror movies. The acting. The acting and their imaginations were all they had. Little to no visual effects, absolutelly no CGI and director Todd Browning got better results by NOT showing you what happened and letting your imagination run away with you.

And, of course, Bela Lugosi. Carlos Villar had some of the dumbest facial expresions of any vampire I've ever seen. Bela nailed it. He had a charm that all Draculas since lacked. The spotlights on his eyes by Karl Fruend made it almost impossible to look away. And he didn't even need them really. Bela could creep you out without any help from visual effects. He was master of this role. He really, with Frye, carried the picture.

There are plenty of goofs which are quite noticeable in the film. In the scene with John and Mina on the balcony, if you look close you can tell it's in a room painted to appear as if it's outside. You can see where the walls meet in the corner. It's 1931. Talkies and even movies in general were in their infancy. You have to expect a few mistakes. I can live with it. Particularly when you make up for it with killer shots of Castle Dracula in the Transylvainaian mountains. That is one ominous looking building, shot beautifully. Most of Fruend's camera work was excellent. The heavy English mist hanging over the run-down Carfax Abbey and the train station where the rather pretty flower girl met her end. In all, this one opened the door for horror movies of the '30's. I prefered it without the Glass music, as I thought there were times the music was there when it wasn't needed or wanted. Plus the eerie silence is perfect when you watch it in a dark room on a chill October night.

The sequel, Dracula's Daughter, featured Gloria Holden as a female bloodsucker who delivered a Lugosi-esque performance that sat very well with me. She had an old world elegance about her on her quest to rid herself of the curse of the vampire, accompanied by her creepy man servant Sandor, played by Irving Pichel. Edward van Sloan returns as Van Helsing and delivers another fine performance as he helps Otto Kruger's Jeffery Garth rescue his love Janet, played by Marguerite Churchill, from the evil Countess who, unable to rid herself of the curse, seeks to use Janet to lure Garth into her trap and make him her undead husband. Fine film.

Son of Dracula, starring Lon Chaney Jr. was not so well done. I found it a valiant effort that, sadly, fell on it's face. I think at this point Universal had begun what was inevitable. Keep making sequels until we suck every dime we can from the Dracula name. In this one Count Alucard (spell it backwards) comes to, wait for it, LOUISIANA!!! Yeah, stupid ain't it? Weak script and even weaker acting. I have much respect for the junior Chaney, but this role wasn't for him. He just didn't have the vampire charm of Holden and the master, Lugosi. In one scene towards the beginning, Alucard knocks at the door of the plantation house and is told by the butler that the elderly family patriarch has died and the family is not accepting visitors. In responce Chaney's Count angrily bellows "Announce me!" Lugosi would have just stared at the butler until his will overpowered him. The only thing that saved this movie at all was the very creepy Bayou bog that Alucard kept his coffin in. There is a killer visual of Chaney floating across the bog that is actually very good for 1943. But that's all the movie has. Watching it I could tell they were getting away from the acting and more toward throwing money into a movie with the "more is better" mindset. Sometimes it is. This wasn't one of them.

As bad as Chaney was in Son, John Carradine's portrayal of the vampire king in House of Dracula was worse. He dosen't even look creepy. This film is related to Dracula in that he's in it and his name's on the box. Mostly it was about the Wolf Man who starred in it along with the Frankenstein creature in a second attempt at joining all of Universal's heavy hitters in one movie. By now the magic had been lost. The tagline featured Dracula! The Frankenstein Creature! The Wolf Man! A Mad Doctor! A Hunchback! Dracula sucked, the Frankenstein Creature was barely in it, The Wolf Man carried it, the Mad Doctor didn't even get Mad until the very end, and the Hunchback wasn't evil. She was the doctor's poor nurse who had a severe medical problem. Other than her spinal issues, I thought she was quite pretty.

On the first disc you'll find all the extras. There's a fairly good documentary hosted by Carla Laemmle, a trailer for the Dracula re-release, a poster montage, and a commentary track with film histoian David J. Skal. The only reason I didn't give it five stars is lack of mention of the sequel films in the documentary Road to Dracula. In all the other Legacy sets the sequels are at least mentioned in the commentaries, if not gone into in depth. But when the only reason I'm down-grading a star is because of the documentary, dosen't that tell you what a classic this is? Still a killer movie 76 years later.

for more information click here

Great Horror Classic

This Legacy collection of "Dracula" isn't really as bad as most folks would think. Even though, the restored version of "Dracula" is better (cause all they did was "brighten" it up thats it), and they won the Rondo Award for it, and it is better than this version of the movie.However, dont over look it because of that alone. Its a wonderful set with other movies that make up for it, try finding the movies on your own and be successful!..trust me!, it would be very hard to do so today on DVD..so, buy the set on that alone..highly recommended!!

reviews: 1, 2, page 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

products you might be interested in