jacobjohntaylor1 This is great movie. It the same script has the one with Bela Lugosi with s.p.a.n.i.s.h actors. In not as good as the Bela Lugosi version. But still this is a great movie. It has a great story line. It is very scary. It is one of the scariest horror movie of all time. It based one of the the best horror stories ever told. The acting is not as good has the Bela Lugosi version. But still it is good acting. If you like scary movies then you need to see this movie. It is a a true horror classic. This movie is a must see. I need more lines. And I am running out things to say. This one of the best vampire movies ever made. Great movie.

gavin6942 Centuries-old vampire Dracula (Carlos Villarias) preys upon the innocent Eva (Lupita Tovar) and her friends. This film is somewhat legendary. Although it was not uncommon for films to be made in multiple languages, this is the one that most people seem to be familiar with. In a fraction of the time, and working in the middle of the night, this crew put together a film that in many ways is superior to the Browning release. Although some shots are a bit rough, probably due to the lack of time for retakes, there is a clear indication that the director was trying to improve upon Browning's work with some clever camera angles and moving shots.For me, what really seals the deal is Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield. I have loved Renfield in every incarnation of "Dracula" from the novel up through modern versions (such as Tom Waits in Coppola's take). But Rubio may be among the very best, pushing the visual madness to its limits. A shame his career is otherwise very undistinguished.Sadly, Tovar's grandson Chris Weitz is known for directing "New Moon" (2009), part of "The Twilight Saga". How can one family make such a great vampire film (despite its flaws) and also one of the worst? A real shame.

TheLittleSongbird It is hard to say which is the better version of the Todd Browning version and this, both have flaws but both has many things to recommend. There are things here that are done better here than in Browning's, like some of the storytelling and how it was made, but Browning's had the better Eva/Mina, Van Helsing and especially Dracula(the Renfield interpretations personally rank the same).Visually this version is an absolute treat, the cinematography is superb and the editing is much improved over Browning's version as is George Melford's exciting direction over Browning's, the sets are wonderfully Gothic too, especially the genuinely creepy Trasylvanian castle. Of individual scenes the standouts were the smoke with Dracula rising out of his coffin, Renfield and the fly and the terrific final shot. The eerie music score compliments the atmosphere beautifully and the dialogue flows reasonably well.The storytelling is very compelling on the whole, as well as those three standout scenes the relationship between Eva and Seward is incredibly affecting, the atmosphere is very spooky, there is an exciting climax and it does make more sense than Browning's with things better explained thanks to the stronger editing. It is not perfect this said, the film is overlong and does drag as a result as expanding on these loose ends, the first scene with Dracula is scarier in the Browning film. The acting is a mixed bag, with the strongest performances being Lupita Tovar as a lively Eva, José Soriano Viosca's sympathetic Seward and particularly the chillingly insane Renfield of Pablo Álvarez Rubio. Eduardo Arozamena plays Van Helsing more than reliably if not as memorable as Edward Van Sloan or Peter Cushing. Barry Norton however is very stiff as Juan and Carlos Villarias tries far too hard as Dracula, his facial expressions verging on cartoonish and he lacks the aristocratic charisma and suave menace that Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee had.All in all, a worthy version but a long way from perfect. A very high 7/10 Bethany Cox

Hot 888 Mama . . . but compared to Carlos Villarias with his protruding (prosthetic?) teeth, Bela looks downright kosher. Furthermore, I haven't been so disappointed in the appearance of hand digits since "Sissy Hankshaw" had her thumb reduction surgery in EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES. A vampire sporting Villarias' teeny tiny hands is more fitting for a spoof, such as SCARY MOVIE VIII. The obtrusive and tacky sound effects horned into this low-brow Stoker adaptation further relegate this to the Punch-and-Judy circuit of slap-stick entertainment aimed at the lowest common denominator (think an Adam Sandler flick, such as GROWN UPS 2 or, perhaps a more apt comparison, LITTLE NICKY). Like the character of Adolf Hitler in NICKY, Villar sports a _ _ _ _ -eating grin suggesting he has had daily pineapples shoved up his rear orifice, too. Lugosi looks positively menacing compared to Villarias (though neither of them could hold a candle to the ACTUAL vampire who agreed to star in the title role of the earlier German NOSFERATU film). If the quality of this offering were close to that of the day-time project, its half-hour longer running time could be a blessing. As is, it's a definite curse.