Watch Drácula For Free

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Crappy film

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This alternate 1931 Spanish language version of the familiar Transylvanians' story was shot throughout the night, using the same Universal sets that the American production utilized during the day. Some buffs consider it superior, at least in a technical sense, but for this viewer, it was at least comparable to the Lugosi classic. Not really scary, per se, but atmospheric, literate, and fun.The Count, played with a rather goofy charm by Carlos Villarias, comes to London to rent Carfax Abbey, and works his spell on local beauties such as Eva (Lupita Tovar) and Lucia (Carmen Guerrero). Those brave souls willing to fight him are asylum administrator Dr. Seward (Jose Soriano Viosca), Evas' handsome suitor "Juan" Harker (Barry Norton), and the determined, knowledgeable vampire hunter Van Helsing (Eduardo Arozamena).Running approximately a half hour longer than the Lugosi / Tod Browning version, this is admittedly rather plodding, and thus not to all horror fans' tastes. For a while, it consists of more talk than action. But the characters, and performances, are entertaining, with Arozamena frequently mugging for the camera, Villarias keeping that silly smile on his face, and the majority of the cast playing it quite straight. Pablo Alvarez Rubio is wonderful as the nutty, bug munching Renfield; Dwight Frye may be more iconic in the role, but Rubios' performance is no less amusing. Some people will appreciate the attire of the ladies in this version, which is decidedly sexier.An effectively roving camera operated by George Robinson is certainly an asset, with credited director George Melford and company making full use out of the existing sets.Two years later, leading lady Tovar (who only recently passed away, at the impressive age of 106) married associate producer Paul Kohner.Seven out of 10.

The Spanish edition of 'Dracula' from 1931 has become something of a legend. It came at a time and to an audience who had seen all the Universal films religiously with multiple viewings and so in a lot of ways it feels contemporary and fresh. It is getting past this freshness that becomes the tricky part in critiquing it and comparing it to the Tod Browning version which is the sole reason this film exists. Famously shot when the English language cast left home for the night this version might actually be better than the iconic Lugosi original if only from a technical stand point. This 'Dracula' has a lot of frightening imagery and some extremely impressive sequences but I still feel like it is in the shadow of Browning's picture( and I may be in the minority for saying that.) That isn't to say however that this film isn't without merit. It too is a masterpiece of the golden age of horror. Comparisons are really an inevitability when it comes to discussing this film and they really should be. This movie is in some ways a lot stronger film. It's a lot more elaborate and drawn out and the peripheral cast is a lot more talented and into their roles. It doesn't quite have that slow hypnotic build that the best moments of the Lugosi film have but it is a very effective horror film especially when it wishes to stage it's menace. A breathtaking sequence that is among the best of this era is when Carlos Villiarias' Count is introduced for the first time. It doesn't have that slow hypnotic build that Browning and Karl Freund invoked it draws you in flamboyantly into a very different and loud Dracula. I for one loved it. It's a movie that savors it's horrors.One of the reasons this Dracula feels the most contemporary is that it actually benefits from sort of escaping the scrutiny the censors had. The sexual undertones are a lot more blatant and the violent implications are a lot more gruesome. This Dracula knows it's all about sex from Lupita Tovar's dresses to the wide eyed gaze of Carlos Villiarias. The one thing the film doesn't have is Bela Lugosi and really I feel it's what keeps the film from being the superior vampire classic. Villiarias is a filthy Dracula with a gaze like rape, no charm and no subtlety like Lugosi had. Lugosi's take is just more romantic and fascinating. Villiarias used to get my vote for worst screen Dracula and although I think that was an unfair assessment I think he does have some moments where he might seem a little too cartoony and wired in the part. He's more like a Renfield than a Dracula. But I've come to appreciate it, especially when you look at all the different interpretations of the character. He's not a Lugosi mold vampire but he's still an effective terror figure. I'd say he's much closer to Max Scherk than a lot of other interpretations of Dracula and that is praise worthy. The animal vampire is just as interesting as the suave cultured one. Lugosi is the better of the two but Villiarias is good too. This film is much more than a companion piece. It is a fascinating and frightening horror film in it's own right. Rather than use it as a critique of the Browning film I think it should be used to see what stylistic differences were made. I think that is where the film's staying power comes from.

Common knowledge would have it that this is the superior version of "Dracula," shot on the same sets as the timeless Lugosi/Browning version during the night. Well, for films shot with the same script, these two are rather different. Spanish Dracula is generally better paced, despite being nearly a half an hour longer, with a few scenes cut together. The camera is more active, overall, though not by much. A lot of the dangling story threads in the English version are resolved. We find out just what the heck Renfield was doing to that unconscious maid. (Just freaking her out, apparently.) The Lucy subplot is actually resolved, with a simple scene of a sad Harker and Van Helsing leaving a tomb. We find out why Dracula left Mina just hanging around the abbey at the end. (He was going to finish the job but the raising sun forced him into his coffin.) The additional scene of Van Helsing giving the dead Renfield his final rites is poignant. There's a new, nice scene of Renfield being interviewed where he reverts to a normal, calm disposition before overcome by the presence of a fly. Lupita Tovar is an improvement over Helen Chandler. Tovar's Eva is much more energetic and, once under the count's sway, actually acts like a seductive, evil lady vampire. Van Helsing even has to ward her off with a cross! These are all pluses but this take lacks some important details. Carlos Villarias has nothing on Bela Lugosi. Instead of Lugosi's natural, sinister charisma and commanding presence, Villarias mugs for the camera, doing a lot of eyebrow and face acting. Pablo Rubio goes way over the top as Renfield, screaming hysterical laughter, acting like a total nut and not in a good way. Seward's staff seems even more incompetent here. With the exception of a few shots, this version seriously lacks the atmosphere of Browning's film. A shot of fog billowing through an iron gate is the sole moment of foggy, black-and-white ambiance. So it's about an even split. From a technical perspective, this is the stronger film, but it lacks the ingredients that made the English language film special.

I can in no way believe that there are critics out there that found this superior to the English language version. Although it's 30 minutes longer, the Spanish Dracula added no new story; just stretched out some of the scenes in the English Dracula, with characters explaining things that needed no explanation. Browning's English Dracula was leaner; the Spanish version was at times, a bit on the dull side.My biggest complaint, however, was that the acting was REALLY over-the-top. Seriously, I thought Lugosi and company were a bit hammy, but the cast of the Spanish version was laughable (especially the count himself!). Really, Bela was spooky; this count was cheezy.My 4/10 is not in relation to the Browning version. I'm rating it as a film independent of it's English cousin. Because it was slightly dull & overacted, I can't really seriously recommend seeing it. (The Browning/Lugosi version would get an 8/10.)