Best movie of this year hands down!

A Disappointing Continuation

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Although it is somewhat less an adaptation of original Stoker novel, than it is an adaptation of the stage play, itself based on the novel, the 1931 version of "Dracula" does manage to create its own distinctive take on the story. It is also, of course, visibly dated, both in terms of its stylistic choices and (especially) in its use of music, but the film is compelling, nevertheless, and succeeds largely on the strength of its casting. Bela Lugosi never quite escaped the shadow of "Dracula", and Dracula never quite escaped the shadow of Lugosi. Regardless of how many others might play the role, there is still something intrinsically identifiable about this version of the character and, even though much of the horror and sexuality of later cinematic incarnations is muted, here, this version does remain one of the most iconic landmarks of vampire cinema.

"Dracula" is a classic character in itself, Bela Lugosi's portrayal of this famous character will continue to be my favorites. This was truly a role he was born to play, the way he carries himself with such sophistication and completely memorizes his audience. The scenery was stunning and Dracula's castle was absolutely breathtaking, and made you get the vibe it was trying to give off. While the acting and scenery were fantastic, it was very slow, and I felt like most parts dragged more then others, and it personally made me lose interest very quickly. However overall, the film was pretty amazing. This film will continue to be a classic and put all the remakes to shame.

Dracula I can't seem to remember the last time I watched one of these early 20th century movies and witnessed writing containing parallel roles to each and every character offering the actors enough range and space to let the role sink in; Tod Browning played it smart here. Dracula is witty and to-the-point (just like its main character) and also surprisingly gripping, hats off to the screenplay writers as they never manages to let the movie fade away from the audience by taking maximum risks as possible like, Dracula and Van Helsing's early and near experience to death encounters, keeping the audience on the edge of the seat. It also has some fine detailed work as it flaunts the characteristics in the physical way instead of explaining it to the audience verbally; for instance, Dracula walks through the web or the description of Mina's nightmare. Dracula is filled with horrifying characters, (their acts and not some shady make-up) genuine actors and Tod behind the screen convincing enough to let the audience enter his nightmare.

ANYONE And I Mean Anyone - That Rated "Dracula" Less Than 6 Stars Should Not Be Allowed To Review ANYTHING At This Website...There Should Be A Field That One Has To Click When Subscribing To IMDB, That Indicates Your AGE..!Then When Reviewing A Movie - The READER Has A Barometer Of Which To Base The Writers Review On..!I'm 66 Years Old Now And For The Lets Say, The Past 20 Years American Movie Making, And The Caliber Of It's Actors Is An ABSOLUTE JOKE...In Fact it's Downright F-ING Pathetic..!"How DARE YOU - You "Articulate Incompetents"...Go Smash A Car, Or Blow Up Your MOTHER - You CGI PUNKS..!The Future In Film - May NEVER Come Back To AMERICA EVER AGAIN..!