Review: Universal's Dracula (1931) and Dracula Untold (2014)

I recently had a good friend visit Seattle, so we went sightseeing and ended up at the EMP Museum. There we saw the currently running horror instillation "Can't Look Away," which examines our fascination with the horror genre.

,

The entire exhibit was fascinating, but it made me especially reflect on the influence of the Universal monster films; our images of Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein's creature are all so thoroughly shaped by these movies.

Universal was also one of the first companies to create a "shared universe." As the science-fiction site io9 reflects: "The original Universal Monsters series (1931-1945) featured the first crossover between established characters in movie history with Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man (1943), and eventually threw Dracula into the mix in House of Frankenstein (1944) and House of Dracula (1945)."

Now, 83 years later, Universal is trying to make a new monster movie shared universe, and they're bringing back all of their classics... but for a new audience. One that is used to superheroes and vampires that sparkle. Out of morbid curiosity, I pulled out my anniversary copy of Universal's 1931 Dracula and decided to compare it to my screening of Universal's recent attempt to launch a new monster movie series, Dracula Untold.

So, is the original classic as good as we remember? And is the new Dracula the start of Unversal's return to monster movie greatness... or just horrifying?

1. Dracula (1931)

As I mentioned previously, I often feel that a Dracula movie is a Dracula movie. Though the 1931 Dracula is one of the first of its kind, it still ends up being familiar and predictable if you've read Stoker's novel or watched pretty much any Dracula movie ever. That said, there is a reason that this film is a classic. Bela Lugosi is absolutely brilliant as the titular vampire. No one can glare creepily like Lugosi can.

However, the stellar performance also goes beyond that. The subtle details of how Lugosi carries his body (slightly angled and twisted when he's more vampiric, upright when he's appearing more human), his accent (more subtle than the parodies often suggest), and his suave aristocratic nature: all of them just scream "the perfect vampire." This scene where he first is forced to tip his hand to Van Helsing shows how well Lugosi balanced the role:

And it's not just Lugosi. While the human characters are acted fairly stiffly, the vampires are all played with distinct acting choices. Everyone manages to mimic Lugosi's eyes well, and the actor who plays Renfield, Dwight Frye, is second only to Lugosi in performance. The acting between the human version and the part-vampire version of Renfield is very distinct; when he's a vampire, he skitters like a spider or crab, visually very inhuman. It works incredibly well.

The movie's plot moves fairly slowly and predictably, but in today's day in age, this film isn't really "about" the plot. Instead, you can't help but focus on the gorgeous Golden Hollywood visuals.

The black and white is used well with shadow and framing, and the early use of the dissolves act as both ambiance and special effect.

Also, so much of this film's script is now iconic. For example, who could forget these classic lines?

• "The children of the night. What music they make."
• "The blood is the life, Mr. Renfield."
• "I never drink... wine."
• "The strength of the vampire is that people will not believe in him."

The script clearly captures the film's atmospheric mysteriousness, as well as the staples of vampire mythology. For decades since, directors and writers have drawn on them to inspire other vampire stories and films. Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, for instance, used some of these lines wholesale, as well as a parallel use of shadow like in the images above.

The film is worth a watch for its iconic history, but I wouldn't call it a perfect film. Besides being a bit slow, some of the scenes are missing clarity in details or logic. There is also something bizarre about a vampire movie where no biting, blood, fangs, or bite-marks are shown. Instead, stage-play-like, the characters simply describe what they see, with the bites and bodies out of view of the camera. While it would perhaps not have seemed so strikingly absent in the 1930s, today the film seems positively G-rated. 

The ending also seems awfully abrupt. Maybe it's that I can't help but compare Draculas to Draculas, but the dramatic (if mildly cheesy) fight between Dracula and Van Helsing in the Hammer Dracula seems more fitting. In the Universal film, the staking of Dracula (like all the film's violence) happens off camera, then Mina and John Harker walk up the castle's gloomy steps solemnly.... and it's over. Universal's The Wolf Man also had a fairly abrupt ending, but plot-wise it seemed more fitting and much less jarring. 

There are some famous and worthy moments, and it is definitely worth the watch. I do think some of the later Universal monster films are more complex and complete, but it is clear that this Dracula set the tone and was the beginning of it all.

2. Dracula Untold (2014)

Dracula Untold, on the other hand, wants to be any movie but a Dracula movie. Mostly, it seems to want to be 300, Batman Begins, or Star Wars. First time director Gary Shore seems to take most of his inspiration from Zach Snyder (which is not necessarily a good thing), using unreal lighting and color along with slow-motion and shaky cam to create the most boiler plate "this could be any movie" Hollywood movie ever. But the odd thing is that there are actually some neat ideas in Dracula Untold. Sort of.

Vlad Tepes is the ruler of Transylvania who is both loved by his people and feared by his enemies. He is nicknamed "Dracula," which we learn means "son of the dragon," but is commonly mistranslated as "son of the demon." We told all of this in a stylized Snyder-esque opening montage that occasionally feels like watching a video game cut scene. We suddenly cut to a mysterious cave, where Vlad and a few of his men are investigating mysterious deaths. After bats fly out of the cave in a style reminiscent of any Batman film, it comes as no surprised that the men are slaughtered by a shadowed figure, with Vlad barely making it out alive.

Thankfully, a priest at the castle has literally all the answers (which probably would have been useful before going to said cave) about what the creature is: a vampire. He tells Vlad (and the audience) all about the legend - drinking blood, like a demon, incredible strength, immortal, etc.

Look, he even has pictures!

Vlad orders the priest to never tell anyone to avoid mass panic, and then promptly seems to forget about it as he spends time with his wife and son.

"I am going to stare at you lovingly... guaranteeing that
you will be dead by the end of this movie."

However, soon the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire is demanding 1000 boys from Transylvania for his army, including Vlad's son, as a tribute. Vlad doesn't take kindly to this, killing the Sultan's messengers and thus putting all of his kingdom at risk.

Thankfully, Vlad has a plan. Much like in  Byzantium, a much better vampire movie, Vlad returns to the mysterious cave, hoping to gain the vampire's powers. At first, the vampire tries to scare him, but finally agrees to a "game."

"Duck, duck, goose..."

The game appears to be a classic "deal with the devil" agreement: help with a catch. Dracula will drink the vampire's blood, which will give him vampiric power for three days. If he resists human blood during that time, he will return to his human state and be able to live normally. But if he drinks human blood, he'll turn completely into a vampire (and this will somehow free the original vampire from some sort of magic that keeps him trapped inside the cave).

Vlad agrees, earning super speed, strength, a neat "bat sonar" ability using the lives of animals around him, and the ability to both communicate with and turn into bats. He's a regular superhero. Why, we could even call him... "Bat Man"... Sigh...

Vlad makes good on his promise to his wife to "send corpses back" to the Sultan "instead of our son." And so we get a lot of fight scenes. A lot. But odd camera angles, quick editing, and computer-generated effects make the battles all run together and a bit difficult to follow. At one point, Shore films a battle in the reflection of a sword; it's a very unique idea, but good luck figuring out what is going on in that reflection.

There are brief breaks in these shaky/generic battle scenes in order to show Vlad trying to resist human blood (and specifically avoid biting his wife). He does a terrible job of subtlety, though, and his superstitious army figures out what he is and tries to burn him with torches (hey, there's our Universal movie angry mob!). Vlad, naturally, survives and half-admits to his vampire nature, yelling to the crowd: "Do you think you are alive because you can fight?! You are alive because of me, because of what I did to save you!"

"Look at the dental problems I have!"

Another then battle follows (the crowd apparently stops caring that they're being led by a demon). This is the third battle and, confusing editing aside, this seems to indicate that we're on the third (and thus final) day of Vlad's vampire powers. He uses his skill of bat-communication (he's like a Bat-Aquaman) to make a giant hand of bats that comes out of the sky to crush the Turkish army. It's probably the coolest and most unique moment in the whole movie. However, the Sultan must have expected this, um... bat... hand... and so he has a small team infiltrate the castle and kidnap Vlad's son. This leads to Vlad's wife being injured to the point of death.

"Told you..."

She begs him to drink her blood so he can continue to have vampire powers and save their son. He does so, and then continues to turn basically his entire castle into a vampire army.

Okay... that is actually awesome.

A somewhat interesting sword fight and battle later, Vlad is victorious. However, it soon becomes clear that his vampire army is going to be uncontrollable so he sends his son away under the care of the priest we haven't seen since the beginning of the film and uses his weather powers (WHERE THE HECK DID THOSE COME FROM?!) to move clouds so the sun hits himself and the entire army. Yes, the hero realizes that he will become the villain (he renames himself too, embracing the "Dracula" title as "son of the devil") and so dies.

Except not. He lives. Obviously. And we cut abruptly to present day America to see him pining over Mina Harker, who looks exactly like his dead wife.

Smooth operator... 

Comparing these two movies isn't like comparing apples and oranges. It's more like comparing apples and that fake Jolly Rancher flavor that is also called "apple." Dracula Untold is like the bizarro Dracula, completely opposite in almost every way.

- The original Dracula uses a familiar plotline, but does so in a way that is subtle, classic, and timeless. Dracula Untold tries to give us a "new" story. but in a way that is flashy, gimicky, and very dated as 2014.  

- The original Dracula uses subtle camera choices to create picturesque shots are now iconic. Dracula Untold uses jumpy action sequences and CGI to create scenes that are often cool looking but difficult to follow, and will likely seem dated within the year. 

- If Bela Lugosi's aristocratic suaveness and intensity creates an honestly compelling villain, Luke Evan's tragic Dracula back-story, fairly wooden acting, and puppy dog eyes create a fairly boring anti-hero. 

In the end, that's the biggest difference of all: Dracula Untold is essentially an action movie that is reminiscent of so much that we've seen before, and thus it becomes wholly forgettable. Universal's original Dracula movie is something all on its own, and the images, writing, lore, and just overall tone defined for generations what it meant for a movie to be memorable.

So, can Universal build an entertaining cinematic universe off of this movie? Honestly, yes. We've already seen examples of Dracula-as-anti-hero-protagonist that worked well, and I'd probably buy a ticket to see this Dracula fight the Wolf Man in the modern day setting. I'll admit, the idea intrigues me. However, will this Dracula be as influential and classic as other Universal monster films? Absolutely no, not in any lifetime.

 
Dracula (1931) - 3.5 out of 5 bites

Dracula Untold (2014) - 2.5 out of 5 bites