Holy shit balls did this suck! Likely I’m just speaking from a modern perspective but the only scene that was generally filled with some sort of real tension was the point at which Van Helsing (terrific haircut on that actor) discovered Dracula was a vampire with the mirror. Everything else was poorly acted, edited, and shot. The special effects and general cinematography was poor, like I was watching an amateur stage play. The music was terrible to boot. The never ending same damn violin strings over and over and over with no pause through out the entirety of the film. Didn’t matter what sort of scene it was, it was the same damn high tempo with rises and fall in volume on a loop.
Did this ever really scare people other than children ‘cuz it’s laughable. I’ve watched other old films before and they were good for what they were at the time but this didn’t come close to reaching those levels. Tell me I’m wrong and an idiot. How does something so bad become so iconic.
General classic movies that don’t live up to the hype or just don’t age for shit discussion I guess.
Nathan Long
It really boils down to a bunch of factors, and how much filmmakers have refined things since the early days. I think you're being a bit too harsh on them all things considered
>people were more easily entertained by low production values because they had never seen anything comparable >most actors were classically trained theater performers first, so that carries heavily into their film acting >refinements like timing, dynamic camerawork, sound effects, and special effects were in their infancy
Brody Brown
ITT underage b& posters only.
Lucas Gonzalez
I don't like "Dracula" (as 1931 movie) too. Only good thing is Lugosi here. Out of these 30s classics, year later they released "The Mummy" which was basically reskinned "Dracula" set in Egypt, but "The Mummy" still holds up with great makeup and even impressive special effects for 1932 when Imhotep/Ardath Bey turns into skeleton at very end. youtube.com/watch?v=jROg4OxlQls
Matthew Cox
The best 1930s Universal monster movies are the ones James Whale directed. Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, and The Invisible Man are masterpieces.
Aiden Nelson
I’m probably being far to harsh admittedly. But I’ve seen quality production values and better acting with movies from that era. It’s astounding people could be generally scarred of something so silly at the time.
Friday the 13th original is the same. It was fucking terrible yet it was successful. Nothing special about it. The gore was even laughable and hardly there.
Anthony Phillips
This is the correct answer. Though I enjoy the Mummy for its make-ups effects and setting.
Eli Rogers
Naw the movie sucked. Get over it ya old fart.
Caleb Howard
garbage media today isn't engrossing or believable you really have to be smooth brain to have fallen for this shit back then
Eli Mitchell
Val Lewton>Universal
James Taylor
WHO!?
That’s generally impressive for the time and seeing flesh degenerate and rot away must have been somewhat horrowing for some at the time.
Cameron Rivera
Hammer makes the Universal monster movies obsolete, they at least have blood and tits
I was really shocked at that scene in which Johnathan Harper offered to buy off Dracula by giving him his black servants and Dracula responsed by telling him he needs to drink the blood of humans to sustain his life
Chase Butler
Modern movies couldn’t pull off that same shot as well.
Jeremiah Ross
watch the mexican version. but remember, they hadnt developed the language of cinema quite yet. Citizen Kane helped move it along. and of course euro cinema