Here’s an example of a famous horror film, one that features great atmosphere, a handful of memorable scenes, and one of the most iconic performances in the history of film, that really isn’t all that good of a movie. The film works as more of a classic piece of history that influenced a lot that came out after it, especially work in the horror genre, and especially anything involving vampires. Bela Lugosi became stuck to this part for the rest of his life, and the director Tod Browning would never again make anything as famous (although Freaks has gained a cult status). But looking at it as a movie, just a single solitary movie, it must be pointed out that, especially considering how well James Whale’s Frankentstein holds up, Dracula is a bit of a disappointment, with its share of mis-steps.

I had seen this movie once before when I was a lot younger, and all I remembered was the tremendous scene where Renfield (Dwight Frye) goes up to Transylvania to spend the night with Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), who’s looking to buy some property in England. Their initial meeting and following discussion, still the best thing in the movie, reeks of atmosphere, suspense, gothic horror at its best. The sets are huge and fantastic, and Lugosi is really odd and scary. These two scenes are what most people probably remember since they’re at the beginning of the movie. But sorry, folks, there’s another hour of the movie after that. And it’s not pretty.

Dracula lacks a little thing called energy. The movie moves at a pace of a glacier. And that wouldn’t be all that bad if there were a good story and good performances to go along with it. Bela Lugosi is great, and Dwight Frye is fantastic playing a man who slowly starts to go mad. But everyone else in the movie, especially the guy playing Jonathan Harker, is a complete dead zone, lacking personality in every facet. And most of the dialogue scenes are awkwardly staged and performed, as if director Browning was terrified of the new addition of sound in movies. He doesn’t seem to really put a lot of effort into the dialogue scenes, and the movie falters very much due to this carelessness. Visually the movie isn’t all that interesting, apart from a couple of tracking and crane shots. The Spanish version of the film, also on the DVD, despite having a lackluster actor playing Dracula, is much more visually stimulating and inventive.

Other things… the complete lack of music. I don’t need music filling up every frame, but there is essentially nothing from beginning to end in terms of music. How about racketing up some tension? Some mood? Nothing here. However, Philip Glass created an entirely new score for the film in 1999, and that material is featured on the DVD as an alternate audio track and it completely ruins most of the movie (I listened to a few scenes with the music). His music doesn’t work, but some creepy 1931 music could’ve done the trick. The special effects are kind of tacky, which is a given for the year this was made, but nothing really special or unique is really even done. A small fake bat flapping up and down on a string gets a little old after five appearances. Not scary, not particularly inventive. And what’s with the end? Dracula is murdered off-screen! We don’t even get any kind of satisfying resolution! Van Helsing sticks a stake through Dracula’s heart off-screen, and we hear this awkward whimper… fade out. What?!? Terrible!

Frankenstein and its sequel Bride of Frankenstein are horror classics of the 30’s… movies with great production value, tremendous performances, and, most notably, a lot of heart. The end of Bride of Frankenstein is absolutely devestating. Dracula, on the other hand, really is remembered mostly for Bela Lugosi’s classic performance, which still holds up. But that’s basically it! The movie is not only anti-climactic, but it leaves you feeling… nothing. The film definitely has influenced a lot of work since, but as a vampire picture, as a horror film, as a movie, it’s not a very good one. And it should’ve been great.