Worst Universal Monster film
I am a fan of old films but this one is just boring and bad, not terrifying at all.
Nosferatu with Max Schreck as Count Orlok (Dracula) is miles better.
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Dracula (1931) Discussion > Worst Universal Monster film
You obviously haven't seen The Mummy's Tomb, The Mummy's Curse, She-Wolf Of London, The Invisible Man's Revenge, and The Creature Walks Among Us.
Check Out My Bela Lugosi Tribute On YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EspE2_tVYcc
I am talking about the 'main movies', the ones from the Universal Monster Collection.
shareI am talking about the 'main movies', the ones from the Universal Monster Collection.
Fair enough. I won't try to change your opinion, though I don't agree with it, but I think the worst of those is the original Creature From the Black Lagoon.
The Gill Man is fantastic, and every scene with it is great, but the movie is leisurely paced and the actors largely bored-looking Universal contract players.
Check Out My Bela Lugosi Tribute On YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EspE2_tVYcc
share
I disagree. Bela Legosi and Dwight Frye gave classic performances that will always stand the test of time. Nobody will ever surpass the Bela Legosi stare.
I will admit Nosferatu and Max Shreck were scarier.
You can't judge Dracula (1931) by contemporary viewer/audience reactions, audiences in the early 30's pissed themselves in fear in the cinema, there's many reports of people fainting. People were genuinely terrified, you would have been scared too.
shareYou can't judge Dracula (1931) by contemporary viewer/audience reactions
I don't think I can agree with this. I wasn't around in 1931, but, compared to other films from its time period, it just isn't very well made. It's been quite a while since I've seen it, so my opinion might change if I decide to ever watch it again, but it just doesn't hold up very well compared to, say, some older movies, like Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, or other ones from the pre-Code era (like the brutal masterpiece Island of Lost Souls). The version of Frankenstein released the same year as Dracula is far superior.
Also, I believe that saying movies must be judged by how well they were received at the time of their release is insulting to those elite films that still hold up today just as well as when they were made. I don't need to put on 1927 blinders to love the Hell outta Metropolis. It's still a great movie. Dracula may or may not've been any good in 1931, but we should judge it by how well it's stood the test of time. People don't look at Casablanca and say "well, it was good for 1942 standards." No, they say "this flick still kicks ass!" In my opinion, that can't really be said about Dracula '31. Man, I'm just rambling now. share
The previous poster was not talking about the quality of Dracula as a whole, but it's ability to frighten people in 1931. Moviegoers with little to no experience of motion pictures trying to scare them might very well have been terrified simply by images, ominous atmosphere, or concepts of perversion.
With so very little context up to then, audiences would at that point really not put a great deal of importance on the fluidity of the direction or the pacing of the action, as long as there were strong elements to maintain their fear factor, which Dracula certainly has with the transfixing performances of Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye. This was a decidedly short time period which Frankenstein quickly closed the window on.
I challenge anyone to name even ONE film that would be just as frightening nearly 100 years after its release as when it came out. They can still be good movies, but exposure eventually makes all horror films into curio pieces.
I totally agree with you in regards to Nosferatu, that was the first of the classic monster films (although not a Universal picture) that I ever saw as a child and was surprised that a silent film could be so unsettling. Not necessarily scary, but the creepy nature of Count Orlock, he's like a horrible combination of a bat-like creature and the plague.
Dracula, despite being touted as one of the most influential horror movies ever and one of the classic Universal Horror films, has definitely not aged well. Don't get me wrong, you can tell in his performance that Bela Lugosi was born to play the part and is having an absolute ball with it.
Even Dwight Frye as someone else posted gave a hell of a performance as Renfield, and even though (in my opinion) almost all of the main characters aside from Dracula seemed bored and uninterested, Frye was able to make Renfield both insane and tragic. It's a damn shame Frye died in his mid-40's, he deserved more.
I think my biggest problem with Dracula is that there's way too much talking about things, and not even seeing them actually happen. Dracula kills everyone on the ship off-screen. Dracula runs around as a "huge dog" off-screen. Dracula tempts Renfield with rats off-screen. Dracula tries to turn Mina off-screen. Lucy terrorizes children off-screen. Van Helsing kills Dracula off-screen.
I've read that supposedly the 1931 film Dracula was based off of the stage play rather than a straight adaptation of the book, so perhaps that's why everything in the movie is just talking and innuendo. I understand that terror is different based on the time, special effects weren't as good and so when it first came out the film was probably very scary, but it's definitely not aged well. Not bad, just....
In my opinion, the worst of the Universal Horror films was House of Frankenstein. I get that by that time they were becoming B movies and not one of the true classics, but that film is honestly an abomination, even by standards of the time.
Can't be too careful with all those weirdos running around.
"I think my biggest problem with Dracula is that there's way too much talking about things, and not even seeing them actually happen. Dracula kills everyone on the ship off-screen. Dracula runs around as a "huge dog" off-screen. Dracula tempts Renfield with rats off-screen. Dracula tries to turn Mina off-screen. Lucy terrorizes children off-screen. Van Helsing kills Dracula off-screen."
You have to remember this was 1931 and sound pictures were still considered new. As for off screen killings, I haven't seen the final script so I don't know if these were filmed then cut or not. Also the picture didn't have a big budget. There were no CGI in those days. The first time I saw it, it scared me.
"Listen, I don't tan, I don't burn, I implode."
You obviously haven't seen The Mummy's Tomb, The Mummy's Curse, She-Wolf Of London, The Invisible Man's Revenge, and The Creature Walks Among Us.
Those are all very good movies with the exception of She-Wolf of London, which is merely watchable.
share
There's really no such thing as a bad Universal Monster film, but I stick to my statement that Dracula is better than all those films, and quite a few more.
Check Out My Bela Lugosi Tribute On YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EspE2_tVYcc
I also like all the "Universal Horror Films" from "Dracula" to
"The Creature From the Black Lagoon."
First there's all the films with real monsters.
Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, The Wolf man, The Mummy, The Invisible Man, The Ape Woman, Night Monster, Man Made Monster, Mad Ghoul, Lagoon Creature.
Special Mention:
The Creeper films. Though the Creeper is not actually a real monster, he's just a crazed disfigured mad killer, but he comes across as a monster.
Murder in the Rue Morgue, Gorilla sent out to kill is a kind of a monster.
Next there's the Science Fiction stuff:
The Black Cat, The Raven, The Invisible Ray, Life Returns, Black Friday, Mad Doctor of Market Street, Strange case of Dr RX, The Spider Woman Strikes Back.
And then the murder mysteries:
Secret of the Blue Room, Missing Guest, Murders in the Blue Room,
The Man who Reclaimed His Head, Horror Island, The Black Cat (1941)
the Inner Sanctum films, The Cat Creeps.
Of all the Universal horrors, these are the ones I find the
least entertaining from all the others.
Life Returns
She-Wolf of London
Pillow of Death
There's really no such thing as a bad Universal Monster film
I agree with this.
WE GOT MOVIE SIIIIIGN! share
Maybe you have become desensitized to violence. The simple fact that there is a creature that is killing people is terrifying.
"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts
I personally feel it's a very fine film that's incredibly influential and is a must see for any self respecting Dracula lover(s) out there.
In fact I will say that this is one of the three screen versions of Dracula that is absolutely essential viewing for such fans of the character and of the vampire genre as a whole. The other two are 'Nosferatu' with Max Schreck and 'Horror of Dracula' with Christopher Lee. This is THE trio of Dracula films that must be watched by those who are interested in any or all things Dracula in my opinion.
Of course one would also do very well to see the other Dracula film versions which feature portrayals of the character by actors Jack Palance, Louis Jourdan, Frank Langella, Klaus Kinski and Gary Oldman. But I would probably venture to say that none of these versions are quite as essential as the first three films that I originally listed are. I'm sure there are those who will disagree with that assessment though.
"Life IS pain highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something".
This is my favorite universal monster movie
shareWell, I think I'm in that small minority that prefers the 1931 Dracula to the much more lauded Boris Karloff Frankenstein...
AS for worst Universal monster film, I think it's a dead heat between She-Wolf of London, House of Dracula, and The Invisible's Man Revenge...
[deleted]
[deleted]