MovieChat Forums > Dracula (1931) Discussion > best vampire movie ever

best vampire movie ever

posted 10 years ago by crakatoot
24 replies | jump to latest

we all think that right. yeah it has flaws but come on the atmosphere, the sets and of course the acting. Lugosi is outstanding of course but everyone was good in it. Edward Van Sloan, David Manners and especially Dwight Fry and Helen Chandler .
not just the best Dracula movie but the best vampire movie. Noosferatu was good both the Shreck and Kinski version. same thing with Let me In, Near Dark, Intervieww with the Vampire, Lost Boys. all great but this one takes the prize.

i told you not to stop the boat. Now lets go. Apocaylpse Now

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] montrossboc-1 10 years ago

To me, there is no other Dracula, and I feel it is the best vampire movie that I've seen.

Generosity, that was my first mistake

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

The BBC drama Count Dracula, was made in 1977 and was, I think, not only the best Dracula ever, but also one of the best vampire movies ever made.

Actually, it was a mini-series and part of the Masterpiece Theater program. It not only followed the book quite closely, but was very well-acted as well.

[–] ElectricWarlock 9 years ago

House of Dark Shadows is my favorite vampire movie ever but this definitely makes the top 5.

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

Let The Right One In is still the best i've seen so far

so many movies, so little time

[–] greenbudgie 8 years ago

It has become my favourite vampire movie too. None of the others can beat this one for atmosphere.

[–] Paranaut 7 years ago

Um, no, even the Spanish version made on the same sets is way better, not to mention Let the Right One in, Nosferatu, Shadaow of the Vampire, the original Fright Night, the 1979 Dracula, and I don't care what anyone says, other than Keanu, Bram Stker's Dracula is 100 times better.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

I agree to an extent but I think this may be a better film if it was longer, the film seems to skip about from scene to scene. Also, I know you guys must be fans of Lugosi but as wonderfully creepy, exotic, and mysteriously charming he is - I didn't find him to be sexy/sensual which is what I think would've made the character of Dracula even more interesting.

I was reading an article and it was mentioned by one that Rudolph Valentino would've made a great dangerously dark and sensual vampire in this if he had lived. Even his opinions of death sounds strangely vampiric:

https://twitter.com/PattiFromNYC/status/667186127107989504/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Also, my favorite Dracula movie is the Coppola one from 1992 - Bram Stoker's Dracula.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8331) 7 years ago

Dracula (1931) is certainly not the best vampire film ever, not even close. It's an interesting film from an historical standpoint, but after I sat down and watched it for the first time recently I ended up walking away feeling like it's pretty overrated.

And I think I probably agree about the Coppola's film. I haven't seen every single Dracula film, so I can't make any definitive statements, but I do think that one's underrated. Incredible visual style.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

True. Don't get me wrong, I may seem to just criticize the film but there are many things about it I really liked. The atmosphere, the look, and the menacing foreign-ness of Lugosi are all very beautiful in a dark dusty stylistic way. And perhaps it is overrated in that it made such an impact as one of the first talkie horror film, and we don't judge it as such but what it is today. Nosferatu and all other silent films are more easily forgotten as they're just not as easily palatable for the modern audience in comparison. Just getting someone today to watch a b/w talkie is a labor, what more a silent film no matter the excellence of the time?

But I wonder if this film would've stood better if the director's true cut/edition was released instead?

Also, it's a shame that Coppola's Dracula is so underrated, I don't understand it. It is beautiful and encompassing in all respects, even Keanu Reeve's misplacement cannot damper it.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8331) 7 years ago

Yeah, don't take my comments to mean there is nothing to recommend the film. There are certainly some shots that are quite striking as well as some really beautiful matte paintings. And the entire production is very atmospheric.

Plus, Dwight Frye's performance as Renfield is truly excellent. I can't say a word against it.

But much as I said in the Addams Family thread, I feel like it's a film that is stuck between eras. It is not a silent film . . . but it also was made at a time when filmmakers were not fully comfortable with recorded sound. So the director's footing just wasn't particularly firm.

However you may be right about the Director's Cut being superior. We just can't say without actually having seen that cut.

In regard to Coppola's film, I think it has some script issues and that is where it falters a bit. But I still enjoy it and find it pretty underrated.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

"But much as I said in the Addams Family thread, I feel like it's a film that is stuck between eras. It is not a silent film . . . but it also was made at a time when were not fully comfortable with recorded sound. So the director's footing just wasn't particularly firm. "

--------------------------

^^^I actually enjoy or like it being stuck between eras, I like the atmosphere of the 20s, but with sound, that would make it even better. :)

BTW, what other transitional 20s-30s films would you recommend? I enjoyed this film you recommended actually.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8331) 7 years ago

Hmm. . . I really haven't seen a great many films from that time period, but I do remember some recommendations given by others.

If you like gangster movies, maybe check out Scarface and Public Enemy. Those are both from the early 30s.

I also enjoyed Bride of Frankenstein (1935), though I think by then we were firmly into the talkie era.

It may also be interesting to watch The Great Dictactor, if you haven't seen it, just because it's a talkie with Charlie Chaplin so I'm sure it would be interesting to see this silent star in a non-silent movie.

That's about all I got, though.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

The Gangster genre is my favorite genre of all time actually!

And yes, I have seen both Scarface and Public Enemey! Muni and Cagney?!

I have not seen Bride of Frankenstein though so I'll give that a go but is there a prequel like - Frankenstein - I should watch first?

I haven't seen The Great Dictator yet so thank you for another recommendation!

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8331) 7 years ago

Re: Frankenstein, yes of course, there is the the original Frankenstein from 1931. If you haven't seen it, give it a look first.

Though I suspect you'll find Bride to be a superior film!

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

Haha, we'll see! :)

[–] samoanjoes (51637) 4 years ago

Both Nosferatu's are better than this.

[–] Ace_Spade (9392) 4 years ago

Much as I dig Bela Lugosi's Dracula, yeah, gotta hand it to the Germans here.

[–] jdforyou1983 (1470) 4 years ago

It's a great film