Movie #66- "Dracula" (1931)

Horror films have changed so much over the years that it's tough to comment on one that's over 80 years old.  You want to respect the historical aspect of the film, and still take into account the actual enjoyment of said film.  Even after all those years, there is still plenty to enjoy with "Dracula".
First, Bela Lugosi is Count Dracula.  This is truly the performance of his life, inhibiting the iconic figure that would be remembered for generations.  Yes, Nosferatu cut a scarier image, where Dracula was a more subdued and almost sophisticated figure.  He had a grace and elegance to his manner.
"Dracula" starts strong as a stagecoach approaches an eastern European village carrying passengers unfamiliar with the surrounding doom.  The villagers offer a warning, which is not heeded by one traveler.  The dark, eerie tone that is set gives the viewer great hope.  Then the film shifts from to England, which changes the tone of the film.  We now get a brighter, mostly indoor setting and a slower pace.  "Dracula" is based on the stage production that starred Lugosi, and unfortunately the movie embraces a stagy quality.  Van Helsing is introduced, immediately identifying the Count's secret, spending a fair amount of time explaining his theory.  No one believes him, which leads to more explanation. 
Beyond Lugosi, Dwight Frye is also entertaining as the insane Renfield.  His acting serves as a bridge between the silent era and the talkies.  "Dracula" may no longer be a scary event and some may snicker at the effects (you can see the wires on the bats, but I saw wires during "Firestarter", so that problem obviously wasn't cured in 50 years).  However, "Dracula" is one of the cornerstones of the horror genre, mainly for the performance of Lugosi. 

Rating: 7/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 61