Dracula '31 vs Dracula '58 vs Dracula '92

1. 92

2. 31

3. 58

1. ’31

2. ’92

3. ’58

2 and 3 may change depending on my mood, but the Lugosi will stay at the top.

1931
1992



I have not seen the one from 1958

Wow, that's a tough choice. I love all 3. '31 is tops regardless but '58 and '92 change on my mood at the time of viewing it. I'd probably go with this:

'31 - 10/10 (Lugosi IS Dracula, plus I'm very drawn to Renfield (Dwight Frye), I'm also a big fan of Edward Van Sloan's Van Helsing)
'58 - 8/10 (Cushing makes this one, no offense to Lee who is also excellent)
'92 - 7.5/10 (Oldman is tops, but some of the casting choices "ahem - Keanu" are a little off)

My problem with it is that it's a bit dull until he shows up, which is more than 20 minutes in.

1. 1931
2. 1992
3. 1958

1. Horror of Dracula (1958) by a very narrow margin. Sure, it manages to be even less book-accurate than the Lugosi one, but I just have a little bit more fun with this one, and it has cinema's greatest Van Helsing, bar none, in Peter Cushing.
2. Dracula (1931) Definitely more atmospheric than the Hammer version, particularly in the castle scenes, which feel very authentic. But, once the action moves to London, things get really slow and stagey for quite a while. I do slightly prefer Lugosi to Lee, but they're both pretty close in my mind as the image of Dracula. Dwight Frye is pretty much the Renfield as far as I'm concerned, though; and while I prefer Cushing's take, Edward Van Sloan is a stoic and memorable Van Helsing.
3. Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) On a purely technical level, this one is damned near a masterpiece. It looks sumptuous, the score is breathtakingly beautiful, and a few key performances (Oldman's despairing, multifaceted Dracula, Hopkins' detached and academic Van Helsing, and Tom Waits' grotesque Renfield) really put some riveting work on display. However, it's got some serious flaws that in all objectivity I couldn't overlook. Keanu Reeves is just dreadful as Jonathan Harker, and Winona Ryder isn't much better as Mina. There's also some distractingly silly-looking make-up design choices. There's that awful hairdo on the elderly Dracula and the oddly Sasquatch-like wolf make-up in that seduction/rape scene. (I know it's supposed to be bat-like, but all I could see was Bigfoot plowing a lady in a garden...) Plus, people tend to wildly overstate this movie's accuracy to the book. Yeah, it includes all the main characters who are usually cut or composited in adaptations, but that's really about it, it deviates wildly outside of that.
4. Drácula (1931) because I like being pedantic. It's pretty much just the Lugosi version, except Carlos Villarías is no Bela Lugosi.

1958
1931
1979
1992 (Stupid choices by Coppola damage it)

Not a fan of any of them.
I think the 1958 version offers the most threatening Dracula and the best Van Helsing.

Lugosi is better in Abbott and Costello as Dracula. The 1931 he's not really all that sinister or demonic.

The 92 version--ugh-- awful.
How about the Langella version?

Great location shooting but I am not a fan of it either except the cape flying away at the end was neat.

They do not like to show the outsider as bad--the 1958 version being more of a regional film-they were able to do it
even though the story is kind of wonky--they go to Dracula, attack him, and then give him the means to seek a new victim!
Not a good script.
But the author of The Vampire Cinema complained that Dracula is supposed to be a like military warlord and Machiavellian enemy
and they rarely show that!
The Dracula in Blacula is closer to that then the more famous ones.

The Dracula in the 1992 version is the good guy!

Even the Jack Palance version for tv gave him some sympathy.
What happened evil incarnate?

He's bad in the Monster Squad.
It's rare they show that.
The Count on Sesame Street is more scary than the Oldman Dracula.