Dracula AD 1972

[MIB41]

Yeah, I like Bela's take, and respect it greatly. I can't help but find the movie a bit lacking. I don't buy the whole "early talkie" thing either. "Phantom of the Opera" and even "Nosferatu" are more visually appealing overall. But Lugosi more than makes up for Browning's phoned-in direction.

Chris

I completely agree Chris. While Bela's version has a historical relevance to both film and the popularity of the character, I can't help but feel his interpretation was more effective for audiences in the thirties than what it offers today. By nature, film becomes more graphic over time and audiences demand that images be more informational for shock value. Well, Lee's Dracula gave audiences that and then some. In many ways, I think it was ahead of it's day. The idea of combining a certain sensuality with violence is rampant in television and film today. The very trademark of Hammer films.

[palitoy]

They also distribute our national currency.
http://www.pennylicious.com/images/2...tire-money.jpg

Sandy McTyre, our first prime minister.

[madmarva]

I think the '31 Dracula suffers more from clinging too close to the stage play it was adapted from than anything else. The portion of the film set in Transylvania is pretty good, the rest is just too stagy and slow. The showdown between Bela and Van Helsing is pretty good, though.

Lee's Dracula is scarier and much more menacing and his films vary in quality.

I like both Lee and Lugosi. When you say Dracula, I think Lugosi, but Lee was more effective in the role.

But, overall, I prefer the Universal monster films to Hammer's, and it's more childhood nostalgia than anything.