Dracula - The Legacy Collection (Dracula / Dracula (1931 Spanish Version) / Dracula's Daughter / Son of Dracula / House of Dracula)

Description

Feature titles include: Dracula (1931), Dracula (1931) - Spanish Version, Dracula's Daughter, House of Dracula, Son of Dracula

Customer Reviews:

Fangs a lot, guys - the DVD disintegrated!.......2007-08-28

Was it the fumes from the garlic crust pizza? We will never know. All we do know is, when we opened the creaking plastic case, we were horrified to discover the DVD peeling like a vampire in full sunlight, the layers separating, making it unplayable.

Strangely, we've ordered the other DVDs in this series and haven't had any problems, so we're chalking it up to a manufacturer's error, not Holy Water. We're shipping it back to Amazon, and hoping for a refund - we know Amazon has a stake in good customer service. We're positive, you could say - O Positive.

The First. The Best........2007-07-20

When you think of Dracula, you think of this film. With a very strange release date of February 14 1931, it's 76 years old. And still influences the horror genre today. There are 3 versions of the original in this set. The English version, starring the only true Dracula, Bela Lugosi, with or without a music score written by Philip Glass, and the simultaniously shot Spansh version with Carlos Villar.

The Lugosi version is probably the most famous Dracula in the world today. Every pop-culture image of Dracula, with the midnight black hair and dapper evening dress and pronounced widows peak was modeled after this film. Oddly enough, though Dracula is usually depicted today with his widows peak, Bela didn't have one. I don't know where it came from.

There are those that consider the Spanish version to be a better film, but I disagree. Having just watched it for the first time last night, right after I watched the English version, I have to say I liked the English version more, due to it's better acting as the three principal characters.

Eduardo Arozamena's Van Helsing was good, but Edward Van Sloan's was just a little bit better. Arozamena just had too many goofy looking facial expresions for my taste, where Van Sloan had an air about him that told you this guy knew what he was talking about, and if you were smart, you'd listen to him and live longer.

Dwight Frye captured Renfield much better than Pablo Alvarez Rubio. Where Rubio laughed maniacally, Frye had an evil sounding laugh. Now I know this movie isn't scary anymore, not with all the real horror in the world, but the scene where police discover Frye's Renfield in the ships hold is one of the only scenes left in any movie that can make my skin crawl. The way Karl Freund, the veteran cameraman, framed him, the way the light hit just so, that evil laugh and his eyes growing madder by the second. Has to be seen. Frye looks like he'll jump through the screen and kill you any second. Probably caused a few heart attacks in 1931.

Lupita Tovar's Eva was far superior to Helen Chandler's Mina, and Barry Norton was far less annoying than David manners as Juan and John Harker, respectivly. Chandler's performance was as dry as sandpaper, while Manners' attempts at being macho and manly were laughable. Manners was about as macho as my kid sister.

An often overlooked character is Charles Gerrard's Martin, the asylum's security chief. Gerrard was far more entertaining than his Spanish double.

The Spanish version, I thought, had a better script. Plus, the benefit of shooting at night, after the English version was done for the day. The Spanish crew would come in, see what the English had done and then try to top it. Visually, in some places, they did. Specifically when Dracula woke and left his coffin. But the reason I like the English version better is exactly the reason I don't like todays so-called horror movies. The acting. The acting and their imaginations were all they had. Little to no visual effects, absolutelly no CGI and director Todd Browning got better results by NOT showing you what happened and letting your imagination run away with you.

And, of course, Bela Lugosi. Carlos Villar had some of the dumbest facial expresions of any vampire I've ever seen. Bela nailed it. He had a charm that all Draculas since lacked. The spotlights on his eyes by Karl Fruend made it almost impossible to look away. And he didn't even need them really. Bela could creep you out without any help from visual effects. He was master of this role. He really, with Frye, carried the picture.

There are plenty of goofs which are quite noticeable in the film. In the scene with John and Mina on the balcony, if you look close you can tell it's in a room painted to appear as if it's outside. You can see where the walls meet in the corner. It's 1931. Talkies and even movies in general were in their infancy. You have to expect a few mistakes. I can live with it. Particularly when you make up for it with killer shots of Castle Dracula in the Transylvainaian mountains. That it one ominous looking building, shot beautifully. Most of Fruend's camera work was excellent. The heavy English mist hanging over the run-down Carfax Abbey and the train station where the rather pretty flower girl met her end. In all, this one opened the door for horror movies of the '30's. I prefered it without the Glass music, as I thought there were times the music was there when it wasn't needed or wanted. Plus the eerie silence is perfect when you watch it in a dark room on a chill October night.

The sequel, Dracula's Daughter, featured Gloria Holden as a female bloodsucker who delivered a Lugosi-esque performance that sat very well with me. She had an old world elegance about her on her quest to rid herself of the curse of the vampire, accompanied by her creepy man servant Sandor, played by Irving Pichel. Edward van Sloan returns as Van Helsing and delivers another fine performance as he helps Otto Kruger's Jeffery Garth rescue his love Janet, played by Marguerite Churchill, from the evil Countess who, unable to rid herself of the curse, seeks to use Janet to lure Garth into her trap and make him her undead husband. Fine film.

Son of Dracula, starring Lon Chaney Jr. was not so well done. I found it a valiant effort that, sadly, fell on it's face. I think at this point Universal had begun what was inevitable. Keep making sequels until we suck every dime we can from the Dracula name. In this one Count Alucard (spell it backwards) comes to, wait for it, LOUISIANA!!! Yeah, stupid ain't it? Weak script and even weaker acting. I have much respect for the junior Chaney, but this role wasn't for him. He just didn't have the vampire charm of Holden and the master, Lugosi. In one scene towards the beginning, Alucard knocks at the door of the plantation house and is told by the butler that the elderly family patriarch has died and the family is not accepting visitors. In responce Chaney's Count angrily bellows "Announce me!" Lugosi would have just stared at the butler until his will overpowered him. The only thing that saved this movie at all was the very creepy Bayou bog that Alucard kept his coffin in. There is a killer visual of Chaney floating across the bog that is actually very good for 1943. But that's all the movie has. Watching it I could tell they were getting away from the acting and more toward throwing money into a movie with the "more is better" mindset. Sometimes it is. This wasn't one of them.

As bad as Chaney was in Son, John Carradine's portrayal of the vampire king in House of Dracula was worse. He dosen't even look creepy. This film is related to Dracula in that he's in it and his name's on the box. Mostly it was about the Wolf Man who starred in it along with the Frankenstein creature in a second attempt at joining all of Universal's heavy hitters in one movie. By now the magic had been lost. The tagline featured Dracula! The Frankenstein Creature! The Wolf Man! A Mad Doctor! A Hunchback! Dracula sucked, the Frankenstein Creature was barely in it, The Wolf Man carried it, the Mad Doctor didn't even get Mad until the very end, and the Hunchback wasn't evil. She was the doctor's poor nurse who had a severe medical problem. Other than her spinal issues, I thought she was quite pretty.

On the first disc you'll find all the extras. There's a fairly good documentary hosted by Carla Laemmle, a trailer for the Dracula re-release, a poster montage, and a commentary track with film histoian David J. Skal. The only reason I didn't give it five stars is lack of mention of the sequel films in the documentary Road to Dracula. In all the other Legacy sets the sequels are at least mentioned in the commentaries, if not gone into in depth. But when the only reason I'm down-grading a star is because of the documentary, dosen't that tell you what a classic this is? Still a killer movie 76 years later.

GREAT.......2007-03-25

GREAT MOVIES
IT SEEMS THE HORROR ACTORS BACK THEN PUT THEIR ALL INTO THEIR CHARACTERS

Great Horror Classic.......2007-03-15

This Legacy collection of "Dracula" isn't really as bad as most folks would think. Even though, the restored version of "Dracula" is better (cause all they did was "brighten" it up thats it), and they won the Rondo Award for it, and it is better than this version of the movie.However, dont over look it because of that alone. Its a wonderful set with other movies that make up for it, try finding the movies on your own and be successful!..trust me!, it would be very hard to do so today on DVD..so, buy the set on that alone..highly recommended!!

The blood is the life.......2007-02-28

Bram Stoker's vampire novel has been remade dozens of times, but perhaps the best adaptation is the classic Bela Lugosi version. And "Dracula - The Legacy Collection" collects not only Lugosi's movie and the Spanish version, but three inferior sequels that are still moderately entertaining -- basically a vampire-lover's delight.

A solicitor, Renfield (Dwight Frye), is travelling to Count Dracula's castle for a real estate deal, despite the locals freaking out and crossing themselves whenever Dracula's mentioned. He soon finds out why -- the Count (Lugosi) is a vampire, who enslaves a mad Renfield to his will. Soon after, a ship with a dead crew (and Renfield and Dracula in the hold) arrives in England.

Soon Dracula has moved into his new home, Carfax Abbey, and is insinuating himself with the Seward family -- and especially with pretty Lucy Westenra, who dies of blood loss and is reborn as a vampire. Only the intervention of the mysterious Dr. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) can stop Dracula's attacks in London.

Then there's the Spanish-language one, which is virtually identical and was filmed on the exact same sets, during the hours when the English-language one was not being shot. It's incredibly good, and although it lacks that iconic intensity that Lugosi brought the English-language film, it's full of atmosphere and amazing acting.

And there's an immediate sequel, "Daughter of Dracula," about a beautiful Transylvanian vampire -- created by Dracula -- who comes to England seeking a way out of her eternal torment, now that her "father" has been permanently killed. But her sinister servant wants to keep her enslaved to her bloodlust.

Then there are two inferior sequels: "Son of Dracula," which is basically a whittled-down plot set in the early twentieth century, with an exceptionally wooden "Count Alucard" played by Lon Chaney Jr. He moves in next to an heiress's house, kills her father, and marries her, so it's up to her ex-boyfriend to save the day.

And finally there's "House of Dracula," in which the very popular Dr. Edelmen (Onslow Stevens) gets two requests for supernatural cures from some kind of miraculous mold: Count Dracula (John Carradine), and the wolfman Lawrence Talbot (Lon Cheney Jr). Talbot is suicidal over his transformations, and Dracula is secretly pursuing Edelman's vacuous nurse and driving the good doc insane. And they stumble across Frankenstein's monster too.

It's a mixed bag, vampirewise. The first two are among the best classic horror ever made, but the sequels deteriorate as they proceed -- "Daughter" is a very solid movie on its own, and "Son" is cliche and wooden. By "House," they've decided to just be silly and campy, and throw in as many fictional monsters as they can fit in.

The direction in the first three movies is quite solid, eerie and gothic, with plenty of memorably haunting moments ("I never drink... wine," Dracula says smilingly). Lots of cobwebbed castles, foggy London streets, bats and women drifting around in white dresses. The last two are strictly B-movie fare in terms of directorial skill, and some moments like the flaming mine are simply awful.

Lugosi is simply brilliant as Dracula. While not the stately, imposing figure that Stoker described, he has a blazing intensity that works just as well, as well as great charm. Carlos Villarías is not quite as good, but does an excellent and faithful job in the Spanish version. Carradine doesn't seem to be trying too hard, and Cheney just doesn't work as a vampire (though he's glorious as Talbot).

These actors are backed by casts that range from the sublime (creepy, bug-eating, cackling Frye) to the ridiculous (the dreamy-eyed, hammy nurses in "House"). Gloria Holden deserves special kudos for her tormented, bisexual vampiress torn between good and evil, and Edward Van Sloan as Dracula's nemesis, Van Helsing.

"Dracula - The Legacy Collection" has a dud and a campy monsterfest, but the first three movies are divinely dark horror/suspense movies. Definitely worth getting and enjoying.

The Monster Legacy Collection (Frankenstein / Dracula / The Wolf Man)

Average customer rating:

Superb Collection
Monstrously good
GREAT COLLECTION
Hooray for Monsters!
Damn You, Universal!!!

The Monster Legacy Collection (Frankenstein / Dracula / The Wolf Man)
Starring: Claude Rains , and Bela Lugosi
Manufacturer: Universal Studios
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Horror | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Science Fiction & Fantasy | Genres | DVD | Video

( M ) | Titles | Features | DVD | Video

Sci-Fi & Fantasy | Boxed Sets | Stores | DVD | Video

Horror | Boxed Sets | Stores | DVD | Video

ASIN: B0001CNRNO
Release Date: 2004-04-27

Customer Reviews:

Superb Collection.......2007-06-07

This is a great set to get which contains most of Universal studios greatest horror films. The best of which are: Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein. The DVDs are very well packaged and the films are split into four areas:

DRACULA
Dracula (1931)
Dracula (1931 - Spanish Language version)
Dracula's Daughter (1936)
Son of Dracula (1943)
House of Dracula (1945)

FRANKENSTEIN
Frankenstein (1931)
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Son of Frankenstein (1939)
Ghost of Frankenstein (1939)
House of Frankenstein (1945)

THE WOLF MAN
The Wolf Man (1941)
Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man (1943)
She Wolf of London ((1946)
Werewolf of London (1935)

CLASSIC MONSTERS COLLECTION
Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)
The Invisible Man (1933)
The Phantom of the Opera (1943)
The Mummy (1932)

There are a few of these films that are really terrible.
Noteably She Wolf of London and Werewolf of London. These two are exceptionally bad! However the vast majority are very entertaining and in quite a few cases they are essential classics for any film collection. The quality of the films was fine in my set, but my review is for the British version of the set which also has the extra films mentioned by a previous reviewer.

There are many many extras including documentaries and audio commentaries that make this set worth getting. The busts of Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolf Man are very well made and the whole set looks excellent on the mantlepiece.

I have watched every film in the set now and can't recommend this strongly enough.

Monstrously good.......2005-12-18

I am a big fan of the classic monsters and monster movies. Interestingly, I am so without having seen any of them, practically! I mainly know them from later movies, from comic books, and from books. (I read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, for instance.)

So I jumped at the chance when I found out of a great opportunity to get a whole bunch of the most classic monster movies at once on DVD, and even at a excellent price. It has three or four Frankenstein movies, and the same for Dracula and Wolf Man. It also has small busts of those three gentlemen, in surprisingly fine quality. This is the MONSTER LEGACY COLLECTION.

If you can get it, I recommend the UK edition, which has four extra films, The Mummy, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Phantom of the Opera, and The Invisible Man. It is not quite as easy to find, but I found it at Blah DVD.

I don't know why I, like many people, have such an affinity for monsters. They just be weally weally cool.

What is a monster? Is it an evil creature or person? Is it a deformed creature/person? Is it something inhuman? I am not sure what the basic of it is. But at least this collection is a good start to any research. :)

GREAT COLLECTION.......2005-08-26

I bought this collection when it came out and found no problem with the discs. It was shipped by Amazon and came rapped and boxed in perfect condition. None of the DVDs were loose. For the quality of the transfer, I find it very good. All in all I find it a great collection (I wish Universal could have done the same thing with The Creature, Mummy and Invisible Man collections).

Hooray for Monsters! .......2005-05-14

If you grew up any time between the 50s and 70s, chances are you've seen each and every one of these movies on TV. If you were lucky, one of your local TV stations even had a weekly horror movie show - complete with a wacky host to introduce the films.

Well, those days are gone. Monsters have been replaced by hatchet-wielding maniacs in hockey masks, and your wacky horror movie host has been replaced by cable, infomercials and whatever else has prompted TV stations to give up on creating any sort of interesting local programming. It's a shame that you rarely see the classic Universal horror movies on TV any more...but it's also what makes The Monster Legacy Collection such a Godsend.

This set is, very simply, a must for anyone who grew up loving old black & white horror flicks. Over the course of six discs, The Monster Legacy Collection gives you very nearly all the films featuring Universal's 'Big Three' Monsters: Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolf Man. (The one omission being "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein," but this set is about the monsters - not A&C - so no quibbles from me.)

Of course, in this set you get all the original films in which the monsters appeared. With the likely exception of "Bride of Frankenstein" - a rare case of a sequel besting an original - critics would consider these the highwater marks of the lot. For my money, though, including all the films in the series is what makes The Monster Legacy Collection so worthwhile. So what if "Dracula" is actually a better film than, say, "House of Frankenstein?" Film historians may turn up their noses a bit at the latter, but it's actually more fun to watch because, well, it has more monsters! Through the six discs included in this collection, we see how Universal turned its monsters - the main characters in its great, classic films of the 30s - into fodder for kiddie matinees in the 40s. More importantly, we see just how well the later films have held up. They may lack the subtlety and art of the earlier films, but damn if they aren't great popcorn entertainment! As big studio exploitation flicks, they stand as classics in their own right. Hats off to Universal for including every one of them in this set.

And, just in case all the films for the three Top Monsters wasn't enough, this collection also includes a couple of flicks that are related by studio and theme even if they weren't part of these series. Both "Werewolf of London" and "She Wolf of London" are included in the 'Wolf Man' set. Add various documentaries, previews, commentaries and other extras, and you have a box set that's sure to please the Classic Horror fan or introduce the unfamiliar to these films in grand style. Buy this thing now while it's still in print!

Damn You, Universal!!!.......2004-11-07

I ordered this dvd on Oct. 22nd and it came on Nov. 1st. All of the dvds work with the exception of the Dracula disc two, it only plays on 1 of the 3 dvd players that I have. I hope Universal doesn't want to get into a lawsuit. I might return it here i might just go to target. I think the dvd was loose is because it was packaged in newspapers, not packing beans. I wish the Laemmles hadn't sold the studio in 1936, things would have been much different.

DVD:

DVD

DVD