Dracula -Spanish-

Tower of London (1962)

Horror of Dracula The chill of the tomb wont leave your blood for hours.. After you come face-to-face with dracula! Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 09/06/2005 Starring: Peter Cushing Carol Marsh Run time: 82 minutes Rating: Nr Director: Terence Fisher

ENGLISH VERSION BETTER
CARLOS VILLARIAS WAS AS SCARY IN THE MOVIE AS MY MOTHER IN LAW . ACTUALY MY MOTHER IN LAW WOULD LOOK SCARIER . BELA LOOKED THE BETTER PART OF DRACULA ! CARLOS ACTING LOOKED LIKE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO SCARE BUT IT WAS MORE COMICAL . EVEN HIS EXPRESSIONS WERE AMUSING IN THE MOVIE .

In Many Ways Superior to the English Version--But Villarias Kills The Show
Language was no barrier to Hollywood in the silent era: title cards were easily translated from English. When sound began to roar, Hollywood began to fear the loss of its foreign markets--and so, for a brief time, the studios occasionally produced two versions of certain films, one in English and one in another language, most often German or Spanish. Such was the case with the 1931 DRACULA. According to film historian and author David J. Skal, producer Paul Kohner fell in love with Mexican-born actress Lupita Tovar (they later married), and his romantic interest prompted the suggestion that she star in a Spanish-language version of the film. When the English language cast wrapped for the day, the Spanish language cast arrived and worked through the night using the same sets. Most of Hollywood's foreign-language duplicates were forgotten as quickly as they were released, but the Spanish DRACULA would be the exception. Todd Browning, who directed the English language film starring Bela Lugosi, was extremely uncomfortable with sound technology. While the first fifteen minutes or so his film are exceptional, the movie thereafter becomes a filmed stage play--and a very choppy and rather unimaginative stage play at that. Instead of simply duplicating Browning's set-ups, producer Kohner and director George Melford set out to best him, and when the Spanish version debuted most viewers declared it greatly superior to the English version. And in many respects it is. Whereas Browning's version is visually flat and rather slow, the Spanish DRACULA is visually exciting, and although it is considerably longer than the English version the pace never drags. It also has it all over the Browning version in terms of editing, and it has a cohesion the Browning version completely lacks. The supporting cast is also quite fine, with Lupita Tovar a standout, easily besting Helen Chandler's remarkably tiresome performance in the English version. But the Spanish DRACULA has a problem, and it's a big one: actor Carlos Villarias, billed here as Carlos Villar. Villarias had a respectable film career throughout the 1930s and 1940s, but he met his match in Dracula; where Lugosi intoned, snarled, and endowed the vampire with an elegant evil, Villarias goes through the film with a series of expressions that lead one to believe he has just encountered an overflowing toilet. His flaring nostrils and disgusted glances are so incredibly out of place that they quickly become unintentionally hilarious. Lugosi's performance, of course, is generally considered the ultimate statement of the role, and with good reason. In a perfect world, we would be able to snatch Villarias out of the Spanish DRACULA and insert Lugosi in his place; the result would be a truly amazing film from start to finish. As it is, however, we are stuck with Villarias, and frankly he bites. The VHS release of the Spanish DRACULA is out of print, but the film is available on the same disk with the Universal release of the more widely known Todd Browning version. By and large the film quality is remarkably good; it has not, however, received a digital remaster, and at least one of the reels would greatly benefit from it. If you are a fan of 1930s horror, you'll find it more than worth the effort, but I suspect more casual viewers will be reduced to hysterical laughter by the Villarias performance. GFT, Amazon Reviewer

good if you're spanish
I bought the dracula legacy collection and watched the spanish version with english subtitles.I thought it was OK,but seemed too much of a remake of the first one.But if you are Spanish you'll love it!In this film there are things that weren't in the original but it also doesn't have stuff that wasn't in the original.

Average
i just got done watchin this The VHS just came in my mail today and popped it in ..... to me This movie is missin a lotta links... it is Atmospheric at times but as i reviewed the Reviews below some of the reviews actually said this film was more atmospheric then The english version .... which id have to disagree .... i think Tod Browning's version is more atmospheric then this.... and i think Dwight Frye is more up to the act of Reinsfield then Pablos whatever his name is Lol.... but it is a good movie.... i think The english version is better but this is as well a must watch classic horror film... if u ever have a chance to watch it .... then do so its a rareity so Enjoyps.... another thing is (dracula didnt say I Bid you welcome) at the first THATS NOT COOL DOOD thats my fav line in the english version!!!

Not great, but worth viewing for the hardcore vampire fan
True, Carlos Villar's performance as Dracula is this movie's greatest fault. I disagree with the statement that Villar's acting improved as the movie wore on. In earlier scenes I felt he was actually pretty impressive. Villar's approach to Dracula was very different from Lugosi's. Bela's Dracula had a magisterial, imposing presence. It was easy to believe this man had been a king, a general. Lugosi's Dracula was so smooth it was shocking when he'd display anger. Villar, by contrast, plays Dracula as much more feral. When he's not around others - on his own time, so to speak - his facial expression is animal-like. The polished aristocrat is only a facade, used when necessary, whereas in Lugosi we see a true aristocrat with a - usually - well-controlled feral aspect to his personality. Villar's is an interesting take on the character, and to start with it worked well for me, especially as a contrast to Lugosi's interpretation. Unfortunately there's a certain unfinished cast to Villar's features, an almost childlike softness and roundness, and later in the movie, when he's attempting to look intense and dangerous, what he really looks like is a pouting, sulky child.One major gripe I had with this film concerns the first time we ever see Dracula. An important moment to get right, one would think. Scene: the interior of Castle Dracula, the Count's coffin sits in the middle of a gloomy, expansive room - which we will see again in the closing scenes. The coffin lid raises slightly, a hand moves out into the air. So far, so good. If it had been left at that, this would have be an underplayed, very effective scene. Apparently this was thought to be too boring - we actually needed to SEE Dracula here - so immediately is spliced in a scene, obviously taking place in completely different room (Carfax Abbey from later in the film), Dracula rises from his coffin. Only now it's not a coffin, it's a wooden packing crate, as it will be later in the film. Obviously different room, obviously different "coffin." I wanted to scream. Continuity, Melford! I'll give the director the benefit of the doubt this film splice was done or forced by the studio, but it's still shockingly amateurish editing, during one of the film's pivotal moments.The special effects in the movie are better than Lugosi's Dracula. The bats are much more convincing and well-done that the famous - and beloved - rubber-bat-on-a-string of the English language version. Unfortunately the Spanish movie is ungodly slow, much more so than its more famous counterpart. It does, after all, take over 30 minutes longer to tell the same story. It's very talky. The acting, depending on the actor, comes in two varieties: stilted or totally over the top. All in all, a boring viewing experience.I recognize the Spanish language 1931 Dracula for the important cultural curiosity it is. Every true vampire aficionado should have a copy of this movie in their library. As for me, I'm glad I saw it - once.