Welcome to Halloween week here on my channel! Thanks for watching me watch Dracula for the first time! A Quiet Place (2018) will be releasing Oct 30 and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) will release on Halloween. 🎃💀 Visit kaiielle.com for all links to reactions and more.
Oh dear lord the guy Renfield is talking to at the 2:00 mark is chewing the scenery like a St. Bernard and a T-Bone steak. Gotta love 1930s character acting. Where every line of dialog is your own private soap opera.
Early sound pictures required lots of cumbersome recording equipment that restricted what they could do with the camera. This is why we have the odd “staginess” of these pictures. Sound had only been around for a few years, and they were still figuring these things out. Despite their being known as “silent” films-the pictures in the pre-sound era were not silent as they always had musical accompaniment which would be performed live by musicians at the theater (often just a single organist). The early sound pictures now had dialog, and they might have been concerned that music would distract from the dialog. Just hearing the actor’s speaking would have still been a novelty when this came out. That said, this is not my favorite of the Universal horror films though it is the first sound picture they made. The Mummy and The Bride of Frankenstein are probably the best of the early Universals. The Wolf Man (I’m a sucker for werewolf stories) is probably my favorite, but that was made about a decade after Dracula. [Clarification: Dracula was Universal’s first sound horror film not their first sound picture].
You know I've always had kind of a soft spot for the '43 Phantom of the Opera. They really changed the story from the source material but I thought it was still really good. Claude Rains is great as always and the musical elements could have felt forced and out of place but they fit pretty well and gave a little bit of warmth to a very dark story.
The OG Universal monster movies were amazing for their time. The main titles that are considered classics were this one, Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Invisible Man, The Mummy, Creature From the Black Lagoon and the 1943 Phantom of the Opera. I'd recommend watching all of them, if not on the channel then just on your own. They really give you an appreciation for what they could do with the horror genre even with much less advanced technology.
According to a documentary I saw, one of the reasons there’s not much music is because sound was so new that film makers / studios weren’t sure how much music they should add to the movie
I absolutely love this movie. I think that the Universal Monsters are way better movies than movies that are made today. Great stories, great characters.
The book is definitely a masterpiece. It's told in a format of fragments of diaries and reports of the various characters, so it's like reading a series of memoirs. And I swear, the segment of the book detailing the voyage of the ship to England is one of the most terrifying things I've read. It's basically the captain's log detailing how they are lost in an unnatural fog and his men keep disappearing. It ends with the captain the last one alive and in a final act of desperation he ties himself to the wheel with a cross around his neck and hands, which prevents Dracula from attacking him.
So glad you reacted to this classic. There is a huge nostalgic charm to the aged presentation. I enjoyed your appreciation for this. The Universal Monsters are iconic as the first cross-over Movie Universe. I feel the Universal Monster Franchise should be on every Cinemaphile's Must Watch list. They are entertaining in their own right and in combination, flaws and all. They give us a great insight on the evolution of the movie industry.
The restoration of this and other 1930's films has been outstanding! They almost look like they were just released. This was filmed mostly on sound stages at Universal Studios, with the outdoor scenes in the hills above said studio. As to the lack of music; outside of cartoons and musicals, studios saw hiring composers and musicians as an unnecessary expensive. It wasn't until the success of King Kong in 1933 that they suddenly saw the potential of music soundtracks.
My love of 1930s movies mostly riffs off Marx Brothers comedies, but I love the classic Universal horrors too. Bela Lugosi is iconic as Dracula of course, and I'd love to see some of his early work from Hungary. But I want to give props to crazy eyes Dwight Frye as Renfield. He had too short a career but made a corner in playing madmen, so well that 40 years later Alice Cooper wrote a song about him.
LOVED the reaction! Appreciate the appreciation for the classics 😊 fyi, Phillip Glass created a score for a reissue of the movie 10/15 years ago (?) , some like it some hate it - I’m a Glass fan and really love this score, it feels like a totally different film. It tends to be available on an alt disk on the Blu-ray issues, it’s not hard to find and totally recommend watching it with the score!
This came out at a very unique time in movie history, technologically speaking. "Talkies" were still brand new - The Jazz Singer, which only has synced dialogue in a few scenes, was only 4 years before this - so they were still figuring out how sound films worked, both technically and aesthetically. And music especially was a problem. Silent movies obviously didn't come with recorded music, and there was a variety of solutions to fill the silence. As others have commented this usually meant a live organist in the theater (here in San Diego they just showed the Lon Cheney Phantom of the Opera this way with live organ last night!). But there wasn't even a standard for what they were playing. Some big movies (like Metropolis) had bespoke scores written for them and sheet music distributed to theaters, even sometimes full orchestral scores for major showings. More commonly the studio simply provided a cue sheet of suggested pieces. But there was nothing to stop the organist from ignoring any or all of this and just playing whatever they wanted. So what should be done with a synced-sound film? Some weren't sure audiences would accept nondiegetic (not coming from something in the scene) music as part of the soundtrack. And even if they would, studios were not equipped to record their own scores at first - they never had to before because it was always the theater's job. I think the initial idea was that theaters might just continue to have their organist play along, so no recorded music was necessary. But playing tastefully in and around the dialogue of a synced-sound film is a very different art from what organists were used to so this didn't really work. Ultimately it was King Kong (1933) that changed the game. Max Steiner is often considered the "Father of film music" for his Kong score, and, while this isn't really accurate, it is true that Kong was very influential and essentially taught all of Hollywood how music works in the sound era. Before Kong, nearly all talkies passed in awkward silence like this one. After Kong, music abounds. And organists were put out of work. I do think Dracula feels like the music is missing rather than being intentionally omitted. But a good counterpoint to that is that Philip Glass was commissioned in the 90s to provide a full score for the film, and.... it doesn't work at all. It has the opposite problem - he writes the music like a silent movie score, covering nearly every scene, even on top of dialogue, with an incessant scurrying wall of nervous energy that just will not shut up and let the movie breathe. Actually, I really like it on album. As a concert work it's great. As a film score it's terrible. Maybe there's an ideal middle ground someone could write one day, a tasteful score that would enhance the movie without stepping on it. But between the two versions we have, the awkwardly (some might say eerily) quiet original version is the best.
I was never scared by these films, I had already seen more modern horror by the time I started high school, but I loved watching them late at night in the early 90s. Free to air channels used to air Universal horror films after midnight on the weekends, and I loved staying up to watch. I also recorded many to VHS. B&W horror and sci-fi are excellent cold rainy Sunday indulgences.
As you watch more of these old movies, you will notice that some of these same actors also appear in other Universal horror films of that decade. For example Dwight Frye who played Refield was also in the Frankenstein (1931), The Bride Of Frankenstein (1935) as well as The Vampire Bat (1933) and The Invisible Man (1933). The actor that played Van Helsing, Edward Van Sloan, appears in Frankenstein (1931) The Mummy (1932) and again as Van Helsing in Dracula's Daughter (1936). Movie studios used contract actors at that time so they appeared in a number of films with the same company.
Poke around on RUclips for the comparisons between this and the almost mirror image Spanish version that filmed at the very same time using the same sets. It's fascinating as each team obviously had a different creative vision with basically the same script and content.
Although I don’t speak Spanish, I thoroughly enjoy the Spanish version (which was also included on the “Dracula” DVD). To me, it’s more atmospheric and a good deal more sensual in its portrayal of Dracula and his wives, as well as more inventive in its camerawork.
Since 1972, TV's Sesame Street has had a Muppet character named Count von Count (usually called the Count). It's pretty clear he's a parody of Bela Lugosi's character in this movie. Not bad for something that happened over 90 years ago.
I recently got into the Halloween spirit so just started watching all the old horror classics. In terms of nailing suspenseful music with atmosphere from this era of film, Wolf Man is the best I've seen thus far. In terms of special effects Invisible Man is incredible. The Mummy is wonderful in it's story and performances. I keep trying to find the old Frankenstein but haven't been able to thus far. And Lon Cheney's Phantom of the Opera is wonderful in it's execution
This reaction is such a Halloween treat. My aunt gave me my first ever VHS cassette tape; Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Bela Lugosi reprises his role as Dracula in that movie. So that was my first introduction to the actual character. It also started my affinity for horror comedies. Young Frankenstein, Ghostbusters, so many throughout the years. Probably why I spent most of this reaction with What We Do In The Shadows quotes going through my head. Bat!
I spent a weekend in Whitby and read Bram Stoker's novel while I was there. Being able to visit the places I was reading about was a fun experience, I'd 100% recommend it if you ever get to visit the UK.
Firstly she will need to watch plan 9 from outer space and secondly she might need to watch white zombie that is the film that they show for Bela Lugosi in the Ed Wood film
Right, not scary but atmospheric. It's like watching the original "The Haunting." There's no jump scares or gushing blood or special effects but it is still enjoyable entertainment
Though I highly appreciate this movie, I definitely recommend you to watch 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' from 1992, directed by Francis Ford Coppola. That one, though it changes one key element of the story, is imo still the best adaptation of the book.
Yes, it's interesting to consider that this movie is almost 100 years old, but here's something for perspective: consider just how YOUNG commercial cinema was when "Dracula" came out in 1931. The whole notion of "movies" at all was only about 20 years old or so. The first "talkie" (widely acknowledged to be "The Jazz Singer") had come out only only 4 years earlier, in 1927. (No wonder "Dracula" has no music! They hadn't even thought of that yet.) The first Academy Awards had happened only two years earlier. The original "Dracula" may seem tame today, but it must have scared the hell out of audiences back then; they had literally never seen anything like it.
I definitely recommend watching "Bram Stoker's Dracula" released in 1992 directed by Frances Ford Coppola and starring Gary Oldman as Dracula (a terrific performance) and Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. It's pretty faithful to the book and a beautiful looking film.
@kaiielle, thank you so much for watching this classic thriller. I'm glad that you enjoyed it. I absolutely love this movie. Bela Lugosi is commanding as Dracula, his delivery and his presence is both charming and menacing. I have seen many versions of Dracula, and there is no better performance of Renfield than there is given by Dwight Frye. The dialogue between him and Mr. Harker and Van Helsing is delightfully sinister. One moment I enjoy is the segue in dialogue...John: "What could've done this?" Maid: "Count Dracula." We've seen moments in movies like this many times, and here it is perfectly done. The lack of music(aside from Swan Lake in the opening titles) is obvious, yet it doesn't take away from the mood of the film. At least I don't think it does. I agree with you on the set design, it is spectacular. Yes, some of the dialogue is outdated and there is melodramatic acting. I don't think this is a perfect film, but it is absolutely enjoyable, and I think that people can learn a lot from horror movies of this time. Relying on atmosphere and mood and style is just as good if not better than relying on shock and violence. Why are there possums and armadillos in Castle Dracula? Oh well. Thank you again for watching this movie, kaielle. Everyone is suggesting you watch more of Universal Monster movies, which I agree. I would also like to suggest that you check out another Universal thriller that is more overlooked. "The Old Dark House" from 1932 and directed by James Whale, the man who directed Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein. I think you would get a kick out of it. I also have to suggest the Val Lewton thrillers from the 1940's: Cat People, I Waled With A Zombie, The Leopard Man, The 7th Victim, and The Body Snatcher. All enjoyable films.
Fun fact about Dracula (1931): This iconic film lacks a musical score largely due to the technological limitations of the early sound era. At the time, synchronizing music with dialogue was complex and costly, especially during the onset of the Great Depression, which further tightened film budgets. Directors like Tod Browning often opted for silence or natural sound effects to create tension, which was an effective choice for the film’s eerie atmosphere. Also worth noting, the movie isn't directly based on Bram Stoker's novel but is adapted from a 1924 stage play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston. This theatrical origin influenced the film's structure and style. Amazing how these historical factors came together to create such a haunting classic!
The Universal horror movies are justly famous but the other studios delved into the genre as well and often better. You owe it to yourself to watch "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" from 1932. Frederic March won the first of his two Oscars in the title role (the first and, until Silence of the Lambs, only actor to do so for portraying a monster) and it is truly horrifying even today.
I loved your review of "Dracula." The one thing is that I actually liked was the absence of music. Ges we all have our own opinions on this. Again - wonderful review of this classic movie!
This may sound bizarre to you, but I feel that “Dracula” is less stagey and “creaky” than “Frankenstein,” which while a solid film still feels more primitive to me in its camerawork and blocking. But I also think we need to keep in mind that “horror” and what registered as “horrific” were different for audiences in the 20s, 30s, and 40s, particularly when compared to what was to come in the 60s and onward. It’s the rare film from that earlier period that can still frighten modern audiences. (I’d put “Dead of Night” on that list, though.)
Growing up as I did in the 1960s and 70s, watching such movies on TV, I don't think I ever questioned the way people spoke or the nature of the dialogue. I just accepted that, in the world of the movie, that was just how they spoke. But, it seems that with the change in acting styles from those days till now, that's the first thing younger audiences question.
It's a very noticeable style change! I actually just watched a video last night here on RUclips about why acting is so different today compared to back then and how/why that evolution took place.
I'm so glad u explained u never saw Ford Coppola Dracula cause all I can ever do when I watch this version is say Oldman's lines & can't help but compare. Both movies have their charms so u should check it out. I'm curious to see what u think of the story w a more modern take on it. Plus stars Winona Ryder & other great actors! This was fun. I haven't watched this in decades!!❤💞❤️
It's a tad contentious, but my favorite version of this film is the Philip Glass scored version from the 90's. For me, it strikes that balance more in terms of evoking mood and atmosphere and is far more memorable than just throwing Swan Lake into sequences like they had to back then. For me, that's the definitive take on this film.
Dracula: Dead and Loving It is a parody of mostly this film and is surprisingly accurate in following the film. The same can be said for Young Frankenstein parodying Frankenstein (1935) & its sequel The Bride Of Frankenstein. Both fun movies done by Mel Brooks. Van Helsing (2004) is a rather unique take on the character and the monsters he encounters. Very campy and over the top, but a fun watch.
Bela Lugosi is the classic Dracula for certain with his elegance and strong Hungarian accent! But for the absolute 'creepiest' depiction of Count Dracula (or Count Orlock in this particular case), the original 1922 German silent film, "Nosferatu" absolutely cannot be beat! To this day the actor in that film (Max Schreck) still wins the award for the creepiest looking and creepiest acting figure. (In real life he was said to be a strange and elusive, mysterious fellow. He never broke character during the entire time of making the film). And the shadowy quality of the old black and white silent film makes it even creepier! I am dead serious when say I would truly freak out if I awoke and saw a figure that looked like him slowly moving into my bedroom at night. Note: The German film producers called the 1922 silent movie "Nosferatu" and renamed Count Dracula's character to Count Orlock for the movie in an effort to avoid copyright violation because Bram Stoker's widow wouldn't sell them the rights to the book to make their movie. But after Nosferatu was made she sued them anyway because the story was the same as her husband's novel. A court ordered all copies of the film destroyed but one copy was secretly preserved and that's the one we are able to see today.
I highly recommend “The Black Cat” from 1934, with Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff. It has nothing to do with the Poe story but is an outstanding horror movie, with Lugosi playing a sympathetic character, though still quite terrifying. It’s directed by famed ‘B” movie director Edgar G. Ulmer.
Bela reprised his role one more time in Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, over a decade later. Recommend reacting to that, after seeing classic Frankenstein and Wolfman
I think that was mostly silent films unless it was a deliberate choice. Once they got the technology to actually put audio directly into the movie they realized they could get professional composers and musicians to provide the music and that was all she wrote for the theater piano player.
There are a number of movies and TV shows that have carried the name "Van Helsing", but I'm betting you were thinking of the 2000's Hugh Jackman outing. Pop culture osmosis tells me it was pretty mediocre, though I've never seen it myself. 🤷
I assume you didn't include "The Bride Of Frankenstein" in that poll? I'd be surprised if you did because it most certainly would have been up there near the top! It's one of _the_ most popular and most requested of the Universal Horror films of the 1930s.
Welcome to Halloween week here on my channel! Thanks for watching me watch Dracula for the first time! A Quiet Place (2018) will be releasing Oct 30 and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) will release on Halloween. 🎃💀 Visit kaiielle.com for all links to reactions and more.
It's always nice to see people react to old school cinema. Thank you for reacting to this classic. 😊🍿🎃
Renfield had the BEST madman laugh EVER!
100% agreed. Dwight Frye should have patented that creepy laugh.
Oh dear lord the guy Renfield is talking to at the 2:00 mark is chewing the scenery like a St. Bernard and a T-Bone steak. Gotta love 1930s character acting. Where every line of dialog is your own private soap opera.
Early sound pictures required lots of cumbersome recording equipment that restricted what they could do with the camera. This is why we have the odd “staginess” of these pictures. Sound had only been around for a few years, and they were still figuring these things out. Despite their being known as “silent” films-the pictures in the pre-sound era were not silent as they always had musical accompaniment which would be performed live by musicians at the theater (often just a single organist). The early sound pictures now had dialog, and they might have been concerned that music would distract from the dialog. Just hearing the actor’s speaking would have still been a novelty when this came out. That said, this is not my favorite of the Universal horror films though it is the first sound picture they made. The Mummy and The Bride of Frankenstein are probably the best of the early Universals. The Wolf Man (I’m a sucker for werewolf stories) is probably my favorite, but that was made about a decade after Dracula. [Clarification: Dracula was Universal’s first sound horror film not their first sound picture].
The Mummy is top tier
You know I've always had kind of a soft spot for the '43 Phantom of the Opera. They really changed the story from the source material but I thought it was still really good. Claude Rains is great as always and the musical elements could have felt forced and out of place but they fit pretty well and gave a little bit of warmth to a very dark story.
The OG Universal monster movies were amazing for their time. The main titles that are considered classics were this one, Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Invisible Man, The Mummy, Creature From the Black Lagoon and the 1943 Phantom of the Opera. I'd recommend watching all of them, if not on the channel then just on your own. They really give you an appreciation for what they could do with the horror genre even with much less advanced technology.
According to a documentary I saw, one of the reasons there’s not much music is because sound was so new that film makers / studios weren’t sure how much music they should add to the movie
Frankenstein has more, as does the Mummy after that. But yeah, Dracula is practically a silent film for the most part.
I absolutely love this movie. I think that the Universal Monsters are way better movies than movies that are made today. Great stories, great characters.
The book is definitely a masterpiece. It's told in a format of fragments of diaries and reports of the various characters, so it's like reading a series of memoirs.
And I swear, the segment of the book detailing the voyage of the ship to England is one of the most terrifying things I've read. It's basically the captain's log detailing how they are lost in an unnatural fog and his men keep disappearing. It ends with the captain the last one alive and in a final act of desperation he ties himself to the wheel with a cross around his neck and hands, which prevents Dracula from attacking him.
The sequel to this Dracula's Daughter picks up where this movie left off.
So glad you reacted to this classic. There is a huge nostalgic charm to the aged presentation. I enjoyed your appreciation for this. The Universal Monsters are iconic as the first cross-over Movie Universe. I feel the Universal Monster Franchise should be on every Cinemaphile's Must Watch list. They are entertaining in their own right and in combination, flaws and all. They give us a great insight on the evolution of the movie industry.
The restoration of this and other 1930's films has been outstanding! They almost look like they were just released. This was filmed mostly on sound stages at Universal Studios, with the outdoor scenes in the hills above said studio. As to the lack of music; outside of cartoons and musicals, studios saw hiring composers and musicians as an unnecessary expensive. It wasn't until the success of King Kong in 1933 that they suddenly saw the potential of music soundtracks.
My love of 1930s movies mostly riffs off Marx Brothers comedies, but I love the classic Universal horrors too. Bela Lugosi is iconic as Dracula of course, and I'd love to see some of his early work from Hungary. But I want to give props to crazy eyes Dwight Frye as Renfield. He had too short a career but made a corner in playing madmen, so well that 40 years later Alice Cooper wrote a song about him.
LOVED the reaction! Appreciate the appreciation for the classics 😊 fyi, Phillip Glass created a score for a reissue of the movie 10/15 years ago (?) , some like it some hate it - I’m a Glass fan and really love this score, it feels like a totally different film. It tends to be available on an alt disk on the Blu-ray issues, it’s not hard to find and totally recommend watching it with the score!
Yes, someone besides me who enjoys the Phillip Glass score!
This came out at a very unique time in movie history, technologically speaking. "Talkies" were still brand new - The Jazz Singer, which only has synced dialogue in a few scenes, was only 4 years before this - so they were still figuring out how sound films worked, both technically and aesthetically. And music especially was a problem.
Silent movies obviously didn't come with recorded music, and there was a variety of solutions to fill the silence. As others have commented this usually meant a live organist in the theater (here in San Diego they just showed the Lon Cheney Phantom of the Opera this way with live organ last night!). But there wasn't even a standard for what they were playing. Some big movies (like Metropolis) had bespoke scores written for them and sheet music distributed to theaters, even sometimes full orchestral scores for major showings. More commonly the studio simply provided a cue sheet of suggested pieces. But there was nothing to stop the organist from ignoring any or all of this and just playing whatever they wanted.
So what should be done with a synced-sound film? Some weren't sure audiences would accept nondiegetic (not coming from something in the scene) music as part of the soundtrack. And even if they would, studios were not equipped to record their own scores at first - they never had to before because it was always the theater's job. I think the initial idea was that theaters might just continue to have their organist play along, so no recorded music was necessary. But playing tastefully in and around the dialogue of a synced-sound film is a very different art from what organists were used to so this didn't really work.
Ultimately it was King Kong (1933) that changed the game. Max Steiner is often considered the "Father of film music" for his Kong score, and, while this isn't really accurate, it is true that Kong was very influential and essentially taught all of Hollywood how music works in the sound era. Before Kong, nearly all talkies passed in awkward silence like this one. After Kong, music abounds. And organists were put out of work.
I do think Dracula feels like the music is missing rather than being intentionally omitted. But a good counterpoint to that is that Philip Glass was commissioned in the 90s to provide a full score for the film, and.... it doesn't work at all. It has the opposite problem - he writes the music like a silent movie score, covering nearly every scene, even on top of dialogue, with an incessant scurrying wall of nervous energy that just will not shut up and let the movie breathe. Actually, I really like it on album. As a concert work it's great. As a film score it's terrible. Maybe there's an ideal middle ground someone could write one day, a tasteful score that would enhance the movie without stepping on it. But between the two versions we have, the awkwardly (some might say eerily) quiet original version is the best.
I was never scared by these films, I had already seen more modern horror by the time I started high school, but I loved watching them late at night in the early 90s. Free to air channels used to air Universal horror films after midnight on the weekends, and I loved staying up to watch. I also recorded many to VHS. B&W horror and sci-fi are excellent cold rainy Sunday indulgences.
As you watch more of these old movies, you will notice that some of these same actors also appear in other Universal horror films of that decade. For example Dwight Frye who played Refield was also in the Frankenstein (1931), The Bride Of Frankenstein (1935) as well as The Vampire Bat (1933) and The Invisible Man (1933). The actor that played Van Helsing, Edward Van Sloan, appears in Frankenstein (1931) The Mummy (1932) and again as Van Helsing in Dracula's Daughter (1936). Movie studios used contract actors at that time so they appeared in a number of films with the same company.
Poke around on RUclips for the comparisons between this and the almost mirror image Spanish version that filmed at the very same time using the same sets. It's fascinating as each team obviously had a different creative vision with basically the same script and content.
Although I don’t speak Spanish, I thoroughly enjoy the Spanish version (which was also included on the “Dracula” DVD). To me, it’s more atmospheric and a good deal more sensual in its portrayal of Dracula and his wives, as well as more inventive in its camerawork.
Since 1972, TV's Sesame Street has had a Muppet character named Count von Count (usually called the Count). It's pretty clear he's a parody of Bela Lugosi's character in this movie. Not bad for something that happened over 90 years ago.
I recently got into the Halloween spirit so just started watching all the old horror classics. In terms of nailing suspenseful music with atmosphere from this era of film, Wolf Man is the best I've seen thus far. In terms of special effects Invisible Man is incredible. The Mummy is wonderful in it's story and performances. I keep trying to find the old Frankenstein but haven't been able to thus far. And Lon Cheney's Phantom of the Opera is wonderful in it's execution
This reaction is such a Halloween treat. My aunt gave me my first ever VHS cassette tape; Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Bela Lugosi reprises his role as Dracula in that movie. So that was my first introduction to the actual character. It also started my affinity for horror comedies. Young Frankenstein, Ghostbusters, so many throughout the years. Probably why I spent most of this reaction with What We Do In The Shadows quotes going through my head. Bat!
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is one of the funniest movies ever made.
I spent a weekend in Whitby and read Bram Stoker's novel while I was there. Being able to visit the places I was reading about was a fun experience, I'd 100% recommend it if you ever get to visit the UK.
Highly recommend Tim Burton’s Ed Wood (1994) especially now that you’ve watched this.
Ed Wood films are fabulous to experience
Firstly she will need to watch plan 9 from outer space and secondly she might need to watch white zombie that is the film that they show for Bela Lugosi in the Ed Wood film
I thought that Dracula 2000 had a great history on how vampires came to be.
Right, not scary but atmospheric. It's like watching the original "The Haunting." There's no jump scares or gushing blood or special effects but it is still enjoyable entertainment
Bella’s portrayal became the definitive look of Dracula through the entire 20th Century.
Though I highly appreciate this movie, I definitely recommend you to watch 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' from 1992, directed by Francis Ford Coppola. That one, though it changes one key element of the story, is imo still the best adaptation of the book.
I named my last cat after Mina ❤️
Yes, it's interesting to consider that this movie is almost 100 years old, but here's something for perspective: consider just how YOUNG commercial cinema was when "Dracula" came out in 1931. The whole notion of "movies" at all was only about 20 years old or so. The first "talkie" (widely acknowledged to be "The Jazz Singer") had come out only only 4 years earlier, in 1927. (No wonder "Dracula" has no music! They hadn't even thought of that yet.) The first Academy Awards had happened only two years earlier. The original "Dracula" may seem tame today, but it must have scared the hell out of audiences back then; they had literally never seen anything like it.
JFC, this movie is almost 100 years old. The fact that you said that twice in the intro really made that fact clear to me.
Filmed on Universal's backlot......staircase practical set.
I definitely recommend watching "Bram Stoker's Dracula" released in 1992 directed by Frances Ford Coppola and starring Gary Oldman as Dracula (a terrific performance) and Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. It's pretty faithful to the book and a beautiful looking film.
@kaiielle, thank you so much for watching this classic thriller. I'm glad that you enjoyed it.
I absolutely love this movie. Bela Lugosi is commanding as Dracula, his delivery and his presence is both charming and menacing. I have seen many versions of Dracula, and there is no better performance of Renfield than there is given by Dwight Frye. The dialogue between him and Mr. Harker and Van Helsing is delightfully sinister.
One moment I enjoy is the segue in dialogue...John: "What could've done this?" Maid: "Count Dracula."
We've seen moments in movies like this many times, and here it is perfectly done.
The lack of music(aside from Swan Lake in the opening titles) is obvious, yet it doesn't take away from the mood of the film. At least I don't think it does.
I agree with you on the set design, it is spectacular.
Yes, some of the dialogue is outdated and there is melodramatic acting. I don't think this is a perfect film, but it is absolutely enjoyable, and I think that people can learn a lot from horror movies of this time. Relying on atmosphere and mood and style is just as good if not better than relying on shock and violence.
Why are there possums and armadillos in Castle Dracula? Oh well.
Thank you again for watching this movie, kaielle. Everyone is suggesting you watch more of Universal Monster movies, which I agree.
I would also like to suggest that you check out another Universal thriller that is more overlooked.
"The Old Dark House" from 1932 and directed by James Whale, the man who directed Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein. I think you would get a kick out of it.
I also have to suggest the Val Lewton thrillers from the 1940's: Cat People, I Waled With A Zombie, The Leopard Man, The 7th Victim, and The Body Snatcher.
All enjoyable films.
Thank you for reacting to this one!
You are always awsome. ⚜️🎃⚜️
Love at first bite 1979 😉
Fun fact about Dracula (1931): This iconic film lacks a musical score largely due to the technological limitations of the early sound era. At the time, synchronizing music with dialogue was complex and costly, especially during the onset of the Great Depression, which further tightened film budgets. Directors like Tod Browning often opted for silence or natural sound effects to create tension, which was an effective choice for the film’s eerie atmosphere.
Also worth noting, the movie isn't directly based on Bram Stoker's novel but is adapted from a 1924 stage play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston. This theatrical origin influenced the film's structure and style. Amazing how these historical factors came together to create such a haunting classic!
The Universal horror movies are justly famous but the other studios delved into the genre as well and often better. You owe it to yourself to watch "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" from 1932. Frederic March won the first of his two Oscars in the title role (the first and, until Silence of the Lambs, only actor to do so for portraying a monster) and it is truly horrifying even today.
I loved your review of "Dracula." The one thing is that I actually liked was the absence of music. Ges we all have our own opinions on this. Again - wonderful review of this classic movie!
This may sound bizarre to you, but I feel that “Dracula” is less stagey and “creaky” than “Frankenstein,” which while a solid film still feels more primitive to me in its camerawork and blocking. But I also think we need to keep in mind that “horror” and what registered as “horrific” were different for audiences in the 20s, 30s, and 40s, particularly when compared to what was to come in the 60s and onward. It’s the rare film from that earlier period that can still frighten modern audiences. (I’d put “Dead of Night” on that list, though.)
Growing up as I did in the 1960s and 70s, watching such movies on TV, I don't think I ever questioned the way people spoke or the nature of the dialogue. I just accepted that, in the world of the movie, that was just how they spoke. But, it seems that with the change in acting styles from those days till now, that's the first thing younger audiences question.
It's a very noticeable style change! I actually just watched a video last night here on RUclips about why acting is so different today compared to back then and how/why that evolution took place.
The one with the F word is "Design for living" 1933 (pre hays code)
For all of the menace and strength of the title character, Renfield is the one that brings the horror.
Highly recommended the book as well.
I've seen this movie with Kronos Quartet playing live a score by Philip Glass. It was cool, but I think the silence actually adds to the tension.
Now watch Bram Stoker's Dracula, directed by Francis Ford Coppola.
Such a classic ❤
I'm so glad u explained u never saw Ford Coppola Dracula cause all I can ever do when I watch this version is say Oldman's lines & can't help but compare. Both movies have their charms so u should check it out. I'm curious to see what u think of the story w a more modern take on it. Plus stars Winona Ryder & other great actors! This was fun. I haven't watched this in decades!!❤💞❤️
Nosferatu is a good movie.
It's a tad contentious, but my favorite version of this film is the Philip Glass scored version from the 90's. For me, it strikes that balance more in terms of evoking mood and atmosphere and is far more memorable than just throwing Swan Lake into sequences like they had to back then. For me, that's the definitive take on this film.
Dracula: Dead and Loving It is a parody of mostly this film and is surprisingly accurate in following the film. The same can be said for Young Frankenstein parodying Frankenstein (1935) & its sequel The Bride Of Frankenstein. Both fun movies done by Mel Brooks.
Van Helsing (2004) is a rather unique take on the character and the monsters he encounters. Very campy and over the top, but a fun watch.
Bela Lugosi is the classic Dracula for certain with his elegance and strong Hungarian accent! But for the absolute 'creepiest' depiction of Count Dracula (or Count Orlock in this particular case), the original 1922 German silent film, "Nosferatu" absolutely cannot be beat! To this day the actor in that film (Max Schreck) still wins the award for the creepiest looking and creepiest acting figure. (In real life he was said to be a strange and elusive, mysterious fellow. He never broke character during the entire time of making the film). And the shadowy quality of the old black and white silent film makes it even creepier! I am dead serious when say I would truly freak out if I awoke and saw a figure that looked like him slowly moving into my bedroom at night.
Note: The German film producers called the 1922 silent movie "Nosferatu" and renamed Count Dracula's character to Count Orlock for the movie in an effort to avoid copyright violation because Bram Stoker's widow wouldn't sell them the rights to the book to make their movie. But after Nosferatu was made she sued them anyway because the story was the same as her husband's novel. A court ordered all copies of the film destroyed but one copy was secretly preserved and that's the one we are able to see today.
You could always watch it again with the Phillip Glass score added.
I highly recommend “The Black Cat” from 1934, with Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff. It has nothing to do with the Poe story but is an outstanding horror movie, with Lugosi playing a sympathetic character, though still quite terrifying.
It’s directed by famed ‘B” movie director Edgar G. Ulmer.
Bela reprised his role one more time in Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, over a decade later. Recommend reacting to that, after seeing classic Frankenstein and Wolfman
You might say he's a stare master 😜
Awsome Reaction as always. Your inclusion of Metallica's Sanitarium shows why you are the best! Keep rockin
9:35 YOUR eyes are beautiful! love your channel!
Van helsing is a tongue-in-cheek fun romp.
Thumbs up if you have read the book!
Re the lack of music. Wasn't it common at the time to sometimes have live music playing during a film? Or was that just silent films... ?
I think that was mostly silent films unless it was a deliberate choice. Once they got the technology to actually put audio directly into the movie they realized they could get professional composers and musicians to provide the music and that was all she wrote for the theater piano player.
There are a number of movies and TV shows that have carried the name "Van Helsing", but I'm betting you were thinking of the 2000's Hugh Jackman outing.
Pop culture osmosis tells me it was pretty mediocre, though I've never seen it myself. 🤷
I assume you didn't include "The Bride Of Frankenstein" in that poll? I'd be surprised if you did because it most certainly would have been up there near the top! It's one of _the_ most popular and most requested of the Universal Horror films of the 1930s.
I just watched Bride of Frankenstein - I highly recommend it!
If you didnt watch Dracula 1992 ou must then fo watch parody Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995)
The remake of Nosferatu is good as is Gary Oldman in Bram Stoker's Dracula.
To be honest, I always preferred Nosferatu to Dracula 🧛♀️
This version of Dracula was pretty far from the source material. Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye are both excellent.
I strongly recommend watching/ reacting to Penny Dreadful.
Lucy! You got some splainin to do.
Are you gonna check out the other Universal Monsters movies?
Eventually!
Certainly, this isn't still protected by copyright, is it? Why not show the whole movie?
This doesn't enter the public domain until 2026.
Wow, almost a hundred years. Seems excessive to me. Probably has something to do with Disney.
Universal has a 95 year rule before it enters public domain.