I would really like to hear the opinion of this movie from someone who actually speaks Spanish, as that would be a better clue as to whether it is actually a good movie or not. I'm not completely fluent in Spanish, but I speak enough that if the acting sucks, it will ruin it for me.
shareI don't believe speaking Spanish is a pre-requisit for enjoying this film, which is great, I might add. You can tell alot about the acting by the diction of the phrasings and mannerisms. The atmosphere alone makes this worth watching as well as Lupita Tovar! Dig it.
share[deleted]
I actually speak spanish (I'm from Paraguay), but I'm not completely fluent in english, so we are in a kind of same situation
I just bought the double-disc 75th aniversary of "Dracula" (it also contains the spanish version), and there are only three things I found great, about the spanish version:
1) The settings (Well, we know they used the same of the english version).
2) The DVD print quality (MUCH better than the Lugosi's version).
and the most important:
3) Miss Lupita Tovar (Absolutely gorgeous, sexy, not exactly a good actress -well, she was only 20 when the movie-, but very charismatic and lovely. It's so delightful to see her in the interview -of the '90s, I think- contained into the DVD special features. Did you know she's still alive? She's currently 96! Long life to her! I hope God bless her!).
To be honest, I didn't like the movie. And believe me: I DO LOVE almost every single thing made in early '30s! But, as a latin person, I tremendously appreciate the fact they decided to make a version of "Dracula", in my language, even 47 years before I was born!
Probably, the main reason for me not to like the movie, it's Carlos Villarías. In first place, he didn't have AT ALL the looks to play Dracula. Absolutely unattractive! He looks more funny or pathetic, than scary, misterious or intriguing.
And his performance! One of the worst I've ever seen in movie history.
I wish I helped you, at least in some way, with my humble opinion
Miss Yvonne De Carlo ROCKS!!!
I also speak Spanish but I don't think that you have to know the language to spot the inadequacies of the cast. Browning's actorsa retain their vintage theatical dignity whereas the lot assembled here come across as village community players. of the type who put on some performance of the Passion of Christ during their Easter holidays. The mugfest exchange between Van Helsing and Dracula in the mirror scene is hilarious, and that transcends anyone's knowledge of Spanish.
And if you know Spanish, it becomes even worse. Nobody seems to speak the same accent: Renfield sounds like a Luis Ciges comedy character from central Spain, the rest are Mexican, Cuban, Argentinean...And the Spanish text used is no better: sometimes it is ridiculously overblown, at others it's comically casual and vernacular and this combination of different modes affects the overall atmosphere: at one point, Dr. Seward, to indicate how far Transylvania is, makes a nonchalant sweep with his fingers,for all the world like Agustín González in a Berlanga comedy.
And the line readings! One can barely follow Harker at times and the guy who plays Van Helsing has a pleasingly resonant voice but the use he makes of it is incredibly ponderous. Before staking Dracula, he pauses, raises his head and says something as obvious as "And now...I shall put an end...to his reign of terror!" in a loud, slow, measured tone, like an announcement over the loudspeaker that absolutely must be understood by everybody or like somebody dictating a text.
I think the guy that played Dracula made him look too much like an evil madman with the wide/wild-eyed expressions. Bela did it better.
shareI am a Spanish speaker from Spain and, during the last week, I have watched both versions (in their original languages). I think that Browning's is far better than Melford's due to superior acting. Lugosi and Van Sloan make their characters so charismatic!
There are a few things that I like better in the Spanish language version: sound effects, the use of the light and lingerie. Renfield is ok as well. But all that doesn't make for generally mediocre acting. I like this film as a curiosity related to the English language version, but not by itself.
http://jorvaor.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!A4F38CCBF7246EAC!442.entryAnimadrid 2008
I have yet to find someone who is a native Spanish speaker and doesn't think this movie is a joke, me included. The acting is atrocious overall, the lead being the worst offender. The mix of accents (Spanish, Mexican, Argentinian, and the odd English-speaker with a ludicrous pronounciation of Spanish in bit parts) hurts the ears, and furthermore, the pacing is lethargic and the editing is just one tiny step above Manos: The Hands of Fate level. This is not a movie, it's a staring contest. Most of it plays like this: mastershot, cut to closeup of character A making goofy faces, cut to closeup of character B making goofy faces, cut back to closeup of character A making goofy faces, cut back to closeup of character B making goofy faces, cut to mastershot, start over.
The good things: the fact that it has the scenes in the correct order unlike the botched in post-production Browning version, the fact that it does have the additional scenes that were cut from the Browning one, the detail of the carriage driver having his face covered, the complete lack of armadillos, and the decent cinematography though actually not superior to its English language counterpart. The rest is the pits.
This is not my signature. This is IMDb's automatic translation of my signature.