SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 1931 by Universal Pictures Corporation. Madrid premiere: 20 March 1931. Mexico City opening: 4 April 1931. General release in Spain: 28 May 1931. 104 minutes. COMMENT: Lupita Tovar comments in her introduction to Universal's DVD release that everyone involved in this movie didn't just want to make a Spanish-language version of Dracula, they wanted to make a better version. Believe it or not, in this aim they have admirably succeeded. Although filmed on exactly the same sets, this film runs a whole half-hour longer. Some scenes are actually shorter (the shipboard sequence) and one or two have been eliminated (the flower seller), but most run for greater length with absolutely no loss of tension at all. Instead they all generate a powerful increase in audience suspense and involvement. This is due to the combined efforts of imaginative scripting (what a masterstroke are the creaking doors in Dracula's castle!), engrossing acting (I thought Villarias far more menacing than the stagy Lugosi who is forced to rely on artificial devices like make-up and lighting to supplement his appropriately oily voice), stylish direction (Browning's compositions often seem amateurish by comparison) and superlatively noirish photography which strikes exactly the right balance between moody atmospherics and the audience's need to see what's going on (I found Freund's photography often a bit too dark-at least in the current DVD release). So far as the other players are concerned, I thought the lovely Lupita Tovar an equal match for Helen Chandler, that Arozamena filled Van Sloan's shoes more than adequately, and that the rest of the players led by Pablo Alvarez Rubio (as the demented Renfield) and Barry Norton (as our heroine's fiancé) were far and away superior to their counterparts in the Browning version. AVAILABLE on DVD through Universal. Quality rating: Ten out of ten.

GusF Based on the 1924 play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston rather than the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker directly, this is an extremely effective horror film. It is not only the first Spanish language film that I have watched but the first entirely in a language other than English or German. The film is a companion piece to the far better known English language version starring Bela Lugosi and was shot on the same sets at night. Since both films were in production at the same time, this one is more of an alternative adaptation than a remake but it does hue very closely to the English version. I understand that much of the script was in fact translated word-for-word. However, this film is a full half an hour longer than its counterpart as a result of several scenes being extended and others being added. Establishing shots from the English version are used quite liberally and Lugosi can be clearly seen in more than one of them. The film is very well directed by George Melford. He uses more interesting and creative camera angles than appeared in Tod Browning's film, though he did have the benefit of viewing the previously shot footage from that film and thinking of ways that he could improve upon it. As with its counterpart, this film does not have a soundtrack and no music is heard after the opening credits. While this had more to do with monetary than artistic considerations, it nevertheless served to underscore the creepiness of the situation in both films. This film was believed lost for decades until it was rediscovered in the 1970s. It was beautifully restored for its release on DVD but some of the film stock was clearly badly damaged as there is a noticeable but unavoidable drop in the picture quality in a few scenes.The film stars Carlos Villarías (using the slightly Anglicised name Carlos Villar) as Condé Drácula. Villarías gives a very good and suitably spooky performance as the iconic vampire, bringing both an urbane charm and a feral quality to the role when the script requires it. Even so, he is not on the same level as Lugosi, let alone my two favourite Dracula actors Christopher Lee and Frank Langella. The best performance in the film comes from Pablo Alvarez Rubio, who is wonderful as Renfield. For much of the film, Renfield is a sinister, disturbing figure with a tendency to eat flies and spiders. However, Rubio's performance managed to elicit my sympathy on occasion as he makes Renfield seem very pitiable and pathetic, far more so than other actor that I have seen in the role. The film also features strong performances from Eduardo Arozamena (who bares a passing resemblance to Edward Van Sloan) as Van Helsing, José Soriano Viosca as Dr. Seward and Barry Norton as Juan Harker. The weakest link is the irritating Manuel Arbó as the orderly Martín.One cast member that I feel deserves special attention is Lupita Tovar. While she is certainly very good as Eva Seward, the thing that it is truly worthy of note is that she is still alive at the amazing age of 105. As far as I know, this film - which will celebrate the 85th anniversary of its release in April 2016 - is the earliest film with a surviving star who was an adult when it was made. Its nearest competitors in this respect are Tovar's later films from the early 1930s. Even the considerably more famous 99-year-old Olivia de Havilland's career does not go (quite) as far back as hers. Tovar herself appeared in several earlier films in small roles and there are several silent film actors who are still alive as well so this is not the earliest film with a surviving cast member. However, Tovar does seem be the oldest of all of these actors so that's something anyway! She and the film's producer Paul Kohner (whose idea it was to make Spanish language versions of Universal films in the first place) were married in 1932. They were the first of three generations of their family to find success in the film industry as their daughter Susan Kohner (who herself is 79) was nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance in "Imitation of Life" and their grandsons Chris and Paul Weitz are the creators of the "American Pie" franchise and directed "About a Boy".Overall, this is a great horror film which is better than the English version in some respects and not quite as good in others. Unlike many of his other film incarnations, Condé Drácula remained well and truly dead as there was never a sequel, which is a shame. Maybe it's not too late for Lupita Tovar to reprise her role in a sequel 85 years on!

utgard14 Spanish-language version of Dracula filmed at the same time as the English-language version. While Tod Browning directed that one during the day, George Melford would direct this one at night using the same script and sets. Many consider this to be the superior version of the two, at least from a directing perspective. This film has a more polished look in most scenes than its English-language counterpart. The direction isn't as stiff or stagey as it often is with Tod Browning's Dracula. To be fair, however, director George Melford had the benefit of watching Browning's footage so he had a template with which to work and improve upon. This version is also longer by almost half an hour. There are no added scenes but each scene plays out longer with added dialogue. Often it's just a case of an extra shot or two per scene, with Melford taking his time and building tension. The added length is good and bad . Good because it allows for scenes to play out properly without feeling rushed, as sometimes was the case with Browning's film. Bad because the added time is mostly added dialogue, which makes the long stretches with little action seem interminable. There are also more sound effects in this one as well as bits of music. It helps things considerably, especially in the creepy castle scenes.The ultimate shortcoming with the Spanish version of Dracula is the cast, particularly the lead actor. Bela Lugosi, for all his hamminess, was an undeniably menacing presence in his film. Comical-looking Carlos Villarías seems a poor imitation, with his constant crazy eyes and goofy smile. It's hard to take him seriously, let alone find him a threatening or alluring character. Pablo Álvarez Rubio is good and probably a better actor than Dwight Frye, but somehow his Renfield is less memorable in comparison to Frye's over-the-top performance. Eduardo Arozamena is decent as Van Helsing but he lacks Edward Van Sloan's screen presence. The guy looks like Eugene Levy! The only solid improvements in the cast are in the romantic pair of Juan and Eva (John and Mina in the other). Barry Norton is a more grounded actor than the theatrically-inclined David Manners. Lupita Tovar is much sexier and livelier than Helen Chandler's pallid Mina.It's certainly a great movie and not just a curio. Stronger in some ways than Browning's Dracula but weaker in others. I would say they're both about even, with a slight edge to the Browning version simply because of the iconic performances of Lugosi, Van Sloan, and Frye.

Bonehead-XL Common knowledge would have it that this is the superior version of "Dracula," shot on the same sets as the timeless Lugosi/Browning version during the night. Well, for films shot with the same script, these two are rather different. Spanish Dracula is generally better paced, despite being nearly a half an hour longer, with a few scenes cut together. The camera is more active, overall, though not by much. A lot of the dangling story threads in the English version are resolved. We find out just what the heck Renfield was doing to that unconscious maid. (Just freaking her out, apparently.) The Lucy subplot is actually resolved, with a simple scene of a sad Harker and Van Helsing leaving a tomb. We find out why Dracula left Mina just hanging around the abbey at the end. (He was going to finish the job but the raising sun forced him into his coffin.) The additional scene of Van Helsing giving the dead Renfield his final rites is poignant. There's a new, nice scene of Renfield being interviewed where he reverts to a normal, calm disposition before overcome by the presence of a fly. Lupita Tovar is an improvement over Helen Chandler. Tovar's Eva is much more energetic and, once under the count's sway, actually acts like a seductive, evil lady vampire. Van Helsing even has to ward her off with a cross! These are all pluses but this take lacks some important details. Carlos Villarias has nothing on Bela Lugosi. Instead of Lugosi's natural, sinister charisma and commanding presence, Villarias mugs for the camera, doing a lot of eyebrow and face acting. Pablo Rubio goes way over the top as Renfield, screaming hysterical laughter, acting like a total nut and not in a good way. Seward's staff seems even more incompetent here. With the exception of a few shots, this version seriously lacks the atmosphere of Browning's film. A shot of fog billowing through an iron gate is the sole moment of foggy, black-and-white ambiance. So it's about an even split. From a technical perspective, this is the stronger film, but it lacks the ingredients that made the English language film special.