Copyright 1931 by Universal Pictures Corporation. Madrid premiere: 20 March 1931. Mexico City opening: 4 April 1931. General release in Spain: 28 May 1931. 104 minutes. COMMENT: Lupita Tovar comments in her introduction to Universal's DVD release that everyone involved in this movie didn't just want to make a Spanish-language version of Dracula, they wanted to make a better version. Believe it or not, in this aim they have admirably succeeded. Although filmed on exactly the same sets, this film runs a whole half-hour longer. Some scenes are actually shorter (the shipboard sequence) and one or two have been eliminated (the flower seller), but most run for greater length with absolutely no loss of tension at all. Instead they all generate a powerful increase in audience suspense and involvement. This is due to the combined efforts of imaginative scripting (what a masterstroke are the creaking doors in Dracula's castle!), engrossing acting (I thought Villarias far more menacing than the stagy Lugosi who is forced to rely on artificial devices like make-up and lighting to supplement his appropriately oily voice), stylish direction (Browning's compositions often seem amateurish by comparison) and superlatively noirish photography which strikes exactly the right balance between moody atmospherics and the audience's need to see what's going on (I found Freund's photography often a bit too dark-at least in the current DVD release). So far as the other players are concerned, I thought the lovely Lupita Tovar an equal match for Helen Chandler, that Arozamena filled Van Sloan's shoes more than adequately, and that the rest of the players led by Pablo Alvarez Rubio (as the demented Renfield) and Barry Norton (as our heroine's fiancé) were far and away superior to their counterparts in the Browning version. AVAILABLE on DVD through Universal. Quality rating: Ten out of ten.

Before I begin I want to distance myself - I did not see whole movie and everything I'll write here is based on around half an hour I did see and information from those who did watch the whole thing. For same reason I will not rate it. That 5 above is only because I want it to appear in my rating list.This is not Spanish movie. This is American movie by Universal studio made in Spanish language. Back then they did not use subtitles, but they made movies for each language separately. Browning's Dracula with Lugosi and Melford's Dracula with Avalos are basically the same movie. They were made by same script, with same scenery, same costumes, same equipment in same studio, literally at the same time, just with different actors and director. They fix studio for particular scenes and then "English" crew shoot during the day and when they are done "Spanish" crew takes over for the night. Some fans claim it to be better than original, because crew had a chance to watch shooting of "English" version, learn on their mistakes and improve own version. Also, "Spanish" version is bit longer with more dialogues and has better directing in few scenes.But, half an hour of extra length, more dialogue and potentially better director do not make movie better by themselves. There are two reasons I gave up on this movie after half an hour and then fast forwarded through the rest with few casual stops. This movie is almost scene by scene and word by word copy of "English" version that I saw just few weeks ago, and in almost every aspect it is worse than original, so I was extremely bored by it. Acting is lousy and sad. They had different nations of actors that spoke different and corrupted dialects of Spanish in same dialogues. On top of that Melford did not speak or even understand Spanish at all. Beside directing camera, directing includes directing of actors and dialogues too, and that is not possible if director does not understand them. All in all, bad acting, bad Spanish and 90% of the movie already seen in much better Browning's version make this movie good only for avoiding. I recommend it only to hard core fans of original movie, only as a curiosity because of additional and few better directed scenes, and to Spanish speakers because of quirky usage of language that could be entertaining to native speakers.

Centuries-old vampire Dracula (Carlos Villarias) preys upon the innocent Eva (Lupita Tovar) and her friends. This film is somewhat legendary. Although it was not uncommon for films to be made in multiple languages, this is the one that most people seem to be familiar with. In a fraction of the time, and working in the middle of the night, this crew put together a film that in many ways is superior to the Browning release. Although some shots are a bit rough, probably due to the lack of time for retakes, there is a clear indication that the director was trying to improve upon Browning's work with some clever camera angles and moving shots.For me, what really seals the deal is Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield. I have loved Renfield in every incarnation of "Dracula" from the novel up through modern versions (such as Tom Waits in Coppola's take). But Rubio may be among the very best, pushing the visual madness to its limits. A shame his career is otherwise very undistinguished.Sadly, Tovar's grandson Chris Weitz is known for directing "New Moon" (2009), part of "The Twilight Saga". How can one family make such a great vampire film (despite its flaws) and also one of the worst? A real shame.

I can in no way believe that there are critics out there that found this superior to the English language version. Although it's 30 minutes longer, the Spanish Dracula added no new story; just stretched out some of the scenes in the English Dracula, with characters explaining things that needed no explanation. Browning's English Dracula was leaner; the Spanish version was at times, a bit on the dull side.My biggest complaint, however, was that the acting was REALLY over-the-top. Seriously, I thought Lugosi and company were a bit hammy, but the cast of the Spanish version was laughable (especially the count himself!). Really, Bela was spooky; this count was cheezy.My 4/10 is not in relation to the Browning version. I'm rating it as a film independent of it's English cousin. Because it was slightly dull & overacted, I can't really seriously recommend seeing it. (The Browning/Lugosi version would get an 8/10.)