Listen to them, Flickcharters of the night! What ranking they make! Yes, it’s that day again: the ninth annual Halloween Flickchart Horror Franchise ranking is here.
Last year we began a sub-project of working through all of the classic Universal horror franchises, starting with the Wolf Man films. This year, we turn to arguably the most famous and iconic figure in all of horror literature and horror cinema: Count Dracula! Vampire fiction stands right alongside zombie fiction as one of the most visited horror subgenres, and the blood-drinking aristocrats of the monster world have had several surges of popularity throughout the decades, leading to diverse takes on the material from Anne Rice to Stephen King to True Blood, Twilight, and The Vampire Diaries.
But it all really begins with Dracula. While not really the first vampire (the concept traces back into the folklore and mythology of multiple cultures), it was Bram Stoker’s novel that served as the definitive work and centralized the lore in a widely accessible format, similar to how J.R.R. Tolkien would define western fantasy with his famed The Lord of the Rings. Stoker’s titular Count moved vampires from purely monstrous to something more complicated. Count Dracula is a refined man of culture, with a gentlemanly suave making him alluring and sultry.
It is this characteristic, above the fear of crosses, running water, and the need to drink blood and sleep in coffins that truly shaped vampires in the collective conscious. This dichotomy of lustful allure and monstrous desires has run through most vampire fiction ever since.
While there are literally 100 different films featuring Dracula on Flickchart, this article will confine itself to those produced by Universal. A future definitive ranking of all Dracula films may come someday, but that would be outside the scope of this Universal project. For the first time we must feature multiple repeat films, as Dracula appeared alongside the Wolf Man in some films from The Wolf Man ranking.
9. Van Helsing (2004)
While the Marvel Cinematic Universe has become the go-to definition of a cinematic universe, Universal beat them to the punch by many decades. Though the early iterations had a loose definition of canon, they were still crossing their monsters over. But even before the MCU, Universal had schemes of reigniting the shared monster concept, and it culminated in Van Helsing.
Banking on Hugh Jackman‘s star power at the time, the film takes the action approach by turning the famed vampire hunter from Stoker’s novel into a grumpy yet wise-cracking hero who has to team up with Kate Beckinsale and David Wenham to take on the evil schemes of Count Dracula. Featuring Frankenstein’s monster as an important plot point, as well as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Van Helsing seeks to channel the shared monster energy of yesteryear.
Unfortunately, director and writer Stephen Sommers turned in a sloppy work. With a generic script, horrible effects, and an overall lack of understanding about why the Universal monster films work, Van Helsing is a drag. Helsing gets bare characterization, seemingly written as an amnesiac simply because Jackman’s Wolverine was one, and there is an utterly unsatisfying resolution to that mystery. Jackman is charismatic enough, but even he can do little with this paltry material. Kate Beckinsale seems just as lost, and Wenham tries to channel an Igor-like sense of goofy humor as the Q to Helsing’s Bond, but is mostly unmemorable.
The introduction sequence of the film is a fun throwback to the ending of Frankenstein, but that’s about where the fun ends. The action is generic, Richard Roxburgh‘s Dracula is forgettable, and the plot and characters leave little for you to sink your teeth into. None of the foreboding sense of horror is in this movie, and it is best left forgotten as a relic of its era.
- Global Ranking: #6,616
- 20/100 on Flickchart’s Dracula filter
- Wins 25% of its matchups
- 4261 users have it in their top 20
8. Dracula Untold (2014)
Seemingly not satisfied with the failure of Van Helsing, Universal tried again to reboot the Universal monsters as a shared universe. This time, it followed on the success of the MCU. But once again, they failed to capture the audience imagination. Universal actually got rid of the shared universe connections in Dracula Untold before release, thinking they could do better with The Mummy (spoiler: they did not).
Dracula Untold is yet another generic action film bereft of any compelling elements or any understanding of why Universal monster films work. This one aims to be an origin story for Count Dracula, casting Luke Evans as Vlad “the Impaler” Dracula and making him a noble hero who takes on vampirism as a way to save his people from the evil invading force that is the Ottomans. There are literally no plot twists or turns past that. That single sentence so thoroughly describes everything that happens that it is simply sad.
The script attempts to have some internal conflicts for Dracula in the form of being tempted by his dark powers and having a seeming brotherhood with the Ottoman leader, played in a hilariously over-the-top turn by Dominic Cooper (who also looks scarily like Evans). But neither of these elements are particularly compelling. Cooper is barely in the film, and there isn’t any real temptation for Dracula because of how damned noble the film makes him. Everything he does is written to be so clearly justified that it doesn’t feel like meaningful conflict in the slightest.
The film also fails as an action story. The idea of a powerful vampire mowing down soldiers like Dynasty Warriors doesn’t seem like an idea entirely bereft of potential. But the filmmakers couldn’t seem to think of anything past having him constantly turn into a swarm of CGI bats and punch people. The action scenes get boring very quickly and feel low-effort. Since these are supposed to be the centerpieces of an action film, their failure quickly pulls the entire thing down.
This one gets mild bonus points for the vague attempts at historicity and letting Charles Dance lend his gravitas to the original vampire that cursed Dracula. At least it isn’t as horrendously stupid as Van Helsing, but it commits the sin of being extremely bland. It lacks intriguing shots, memorable battles, or depthful characters. And once again, it isn’t scary. Trying to make a Marvelized version of a horror character just seems like a wrong approach.
- Global Ranking: #13,705
- 37/100 on Flickchart’s Dracula filter
- Wins 38% of its matchups
- 5 users have it in their top 20
7. House of Frankenstein (1944)
We reviewed this film in The Wolf Man ranking and have largely the same thoughts this time around. While it wants to boast that it’s the first major crossover film for Universal, it so thoroughly separates the portions featuring each monster so as to feel like two different films mashed together. The entire first half of the film is the only portion to feature Dracula, and he is resurrected and vanquished before Frankenstein ever walks across the screen.
Examined as a Dracula film, it’s a rather bland outing for the Count. A mad scientist breaks free of prison and recruits a hunchback to help him, and they just happen to stumble upon a traveling showman who somehow has the corpse of Dracula. They kill the showman, revive Dracula, and attempt to bend Dracula to their will. John Carradine‘s first go as the famous Count has none of the gravitas of Bela Lugosi, and he honestly isn’t given much to do. The film also has his destruction occur purely because Dracula forgets to get out of the sun in time, making the Count look like a fool.
Apart from the occasional neat shot here and there, and Lon Chaney‘s presence as Larry, House of Frankenstein is largely a drag of a movie. Given that Universal had to piece this together in a haphazard manner, it’s not surprising that it simply doesn’t work. While it actually has some decent shots, unlike the two more modern films, it isn’t really any less bland than the two films below it.
- Global Ranking: #4,100
- 14/100 on Flickchart’s Dracula filter
- Wins 40% of its matchups
- 7 users have it in their top 20
6. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
The comedy hijinks of Abbott and Costello don’t seem the most natural fit for horrific monsters, but they were under contract with Universal, and using all of the studio’s assets to make money seemed to be Universal’s priority even back in the 40s. Abbott and Costello famously hated the concept, and it made the production quite troubled. Still, this was one of the highest-grossing films in the entire Universal roster and it seemed to click for people.
The satirical parody seems to overly mock Universal’s own monsters to a point where one wonders what the point is supposed to be. Abbott and Costello manage some funny moments here and there, and the script has some good jokes. Yet the entire film is so goofy in tone that it feels low stakes and lacking in consequence.
As far as Dracula goes, this is the only time Bela Lugosi ever officially reprised his role. Like in the other crossover films, Dracula is used as the schemer, manipulating the other monsters and humans to accomplish his vague ends of ruling the world or some such. It is fun to see Lugosi back in the role, and he’s never asked to do anything too overly comical, unlike The Wolf Man and Frankenstein. For fans of Dracula, this film probably does the least damage to his character.
The film is funny enough that it isn’t entirely a slog. It has the potential of being something iconic in its own way. But Abbott and Costello’s resistance to the subject and a script that doesn’t get as sharp and wry as it could hold this film back, even if it does give us one last good hurrah for Lugosi’s Dracula.
- Global Ranking: #1,372
- 5/100 on Flickchart’s Dracula filter
- Wins 33% of its matchups
- 42 users have it in their top 20
5. Son of Dracula (1943)
Unlike most of the other Universal monsters, Dracula never really received direct sequels. Dracula doesn’t show up in the two official follow-ups to the original film, at least not directly. In that way, Dracula‘s sequels are perhaps the most intriguing of the bunch. Son of Dracula is the second sequel. Directed by Robert Siodmak, it features Lon Chaney Jr. of all people as Count Alucard, this film’s version of the vampiric count. Long before Castlevania, this film asked you look at what the name spells backwards.
Among the more interesting choices, Son of Dracula is set in the southern United States and follows Katherine Caldwell as an heiress to a Louisiana plantation. She has been secretly dating Count Alucard and invites him to the United States and marries him where he seems to quickly take over her life. Attempts by Katherine’s ex-boyfriend to kill him fail and it seems his power is absolute.
While the film seems to undergo the typical discovery of the vampire and hunt him down plotline, Son of Dracula adds a couple of intrigues to the script and takes the story in some unexpected directions. Combined with Siodmak actually having some visual flair, Son of Dracula turns out to be a fairly intriguing film. Chaney doesn’t quite have the grandeur that Lugosi has, but his own strengths as an actor render Count Alucard into an interesting character. And Siodmak, who would go on to direct some notable films noir, demonstrates his mastery of the camera with some striking visuals.
There are aspects of Son of Dracula that are goofy and melodramatic. Such is the struggle when you have actors of varying talents in these films. But given how poorly some of these films are made, Son of Dracula stands out for its moody atmospheric moments and not bad special effects. With some tweaks, this might have surpassed even the original.
- Global Ranking: #7,520
- 25/100 on Flickchart’s Dracula filter
- Wins 37% of its matchups
- 1 user has it in their top 20
4. House of Dracula (1945)
The second House film remains the better one. Mashing up all of the Universal creatures again, House of Dracula is a semi-sequel to House of Frankenstein, though is perhaps the closest film as to actually following the events of the previous film. This one is titled features the titular Count as much more of a driving force than in House of Frankenstein. John Carradine returns in the role and gives his best performance, if again not as iconic as Lugosi’s.
While once again centering on a mad scientist’s interactions with the company of Universal monsters, Dracula’s force of will becomes a major feature… as does his surprising desire to be cured of vampirism. If there is anything this film does well, it is demonstrating how all of the various conditions of the creatures are curses that they desire to be rid of. Dracula clashes with the doctor, who immediately searches for a way to destroy Dracula, which fuels the film’s drama.
Director Erle C. Kenton makes this film distinct due to its strong Val Lewton-inspired photography and sense of moral battle. This is a film that understands the darkness of monstrosity and represents it in the visuals of the film and in the conflicts each character faces. This approach is hurt by the fact that none of the characters have particularly compelling characterization, and Dracula’s own desire for a cure is barely explored. But that the film makes such overtures at all makes it more compelling than many chunks of the Universal catalogue. This is the closest Universal got to doing the mashup movie right.
- Global Ranking: #3,889
- 12/100 on Flickchart’s Dracula filter
- Wins 40% of its matchups
- 1 user has it in their top 20
3. Dracula’s Daughter (1936)
With Dracula‘s success, and that of Bride of Frankenstein, Universal began to realize that its troop of monsters could be quite lucrative. Sequels could keep the money flowing. Universal therefore rushed into production a sequel to Dracula, though the titular Count’s death at the end of the first film presented a problem. What followed was a complicated rights battle for a chapter removed from the Stoker novel to use as an adaptation.
Ironically, despite this huge rights battle, modern scholarship finds that the film bears little resemblance to that chapter, and more to the novel Carmilla, one of the first British works to deal with a lesbian relationship. And indeed, the lesbian undertones of Dracula’s Daughter have fueled much of the scholarship on this film in the decades since its release, rather than its content as a follow-up to Dracula.
At the surface level, the film follows Countess Marya Zaleska, a daughter of Dracula and vampire herself who seeks to be free of her father’s influence; even from death he seems able to force her into darkness. Edward Van Sloan returns as Van Helsing, renamed as Von Helsing for no clear reason. Funnily, he begins the film under arrest and must try to convince the policemen that he just slayed a vampiric count rather than a wealthy baron and his servant.
The plotting from there is somewhat bare, as Von Helsing is shoved aside in favor of the Countess’s attempts to cure herself of vampirism or to overcome the temptations of feasting on blood. But the film has attracted attention because of director Lambert Hillyer‘s direction and choices that involve Dracula’s daughter taking a young woman under her wing and eventually succumbing to her desire to feast upon her. One can guess the point of this metaphorical storytelling, especially when looking at the way Hillyer frames the shots.
This is not just a post-release reading, either. The Production Code Administration noticed it during production and made notes about special handling of the scenes to avoid questionable implications. Reviews were split between those who noticed the undertones and condemned them, those who didn’t notice, and those debating whether the film is pro- or anti-lesbian.
None of this would really matter if the film wasn’t shot well, and luckily the power of these sequences and Gloria Holden‘s performance makes it all work. Despite the bland search for a cure that leads towards little, it is the implications of the plot and the imagery that really makes this film tick. While those hoping for more of the actual Count will be disappointed, one can credit this for being a genuinely creative sequel and an attempt to do something different.
This film almost received a remake, as this year’s Abigail began development as one. Began is the key word, as anyone who has seen Abigail knows that it bears essentially no resemblance to Dracula’s Daughter. Its legacy remains its own.
- Global Ranking: #4,164
- 16/100 on Flickchart’s Dracula filter
- Wins 38% of its matchups
- 6 users have it in their top 20
While not the first monster film produced by Universal, Dracula is certainly the first one that can be credited for being truly iconic, and it was arguably the start of the modern horror genre in film. Director Tod Browning first made his foray into sound pictures two years earlier, which led to his relationship with Bela Lugosi. The production of their earlier film was troubled by some of Browning’s odd choices, but it would be these odd choices that got Browning interested in producing an adaptation of the Stoker’s famed story.
However, there were several curious detours along the way. First, this film is not a direct adaptation of the novel, but rather of a stage adaptation. Rights issues made directly adapting Stoker’s novel difficult. Further, Lon Chaney (senior) was initially cast as Dracula, and it was only his death from lung cancer that prevented him from appearing in the role. Due to Lugosi playing the part on stage for years, he was the clear next choice. While sad for Chaney, it opened the way for what is the most iconic horror performance of all time.
Lugosi’s take on the Count is still the film’s defining feature. He embraced the film’s willingness to accentuate his and the character’s Eastern European-ness. His delivery of Stoker’s iconic dialogue immediately left an impression, one that still lingers in the brain of people nearly 100 years later. From his facial expressions to body language and fierce nature, he still defines the character.
Despite the iconic nature of the role, Dracula is no masterpiece of a film. Perhaps due to Browning’s reported lack of enthusiasm for the project following Chaney’s death, the storytelling of Dracula can feel a bit inert. It provides a rushed rendering of the novel’s plot, combining characters in an unsatisfactory manner and becoming more than a bit staid after Dracula reaches England. Many scenes are shot at wide angles and feature actors standing around and talking with little visual action going on.
That’s not to say Browning’s directorial efforts are entirely fruitless. Dracula does feature some interesting visuals, including the notable pushed zooms onto Lugosi’s face as Dracula wields his vampiric telepathic powers. These shots of light across his eyes are iconic and have been imitated in the decades since. The wide angle shot of Dracula in his cobweb-filled castle greeting Renfield immediately conjures atmosphere.
Despite being the vampire film, it funnily features no transformation into a bat or rat, no bite marks on a victim’s neck or flowing of blood, or none of the darkness one might associate with dark power of a vampire. It is a stale rendition of the story in that regard. It features intertitles and silent scenes of newspapers, seeming to bear hallmarks of the silent era in ways that hold it back. Dracula is far from a masterpiece, despite its well-known nature and Lugosi’s sheer charisma. Still, it stands above most of the rest of its franchise for the strengths it does have, and it is only topped by one other film….
- Global Ranking: #635
- 2/100 on Flickchart’s Dracula filter
- Wins 48% of its matchups
- 134 users have it in their top 20
The king of the list comes out of a very unique trend in Hollywood in the 1930s. Foreign markets were already a key part of the bottom line for Hollywood studios in the 20s. As talkies became prominent, Hollywood faced the struggle of exporting these films, as they could not simply change the language in the intertitles as they could with silent films. Hollywood solved this problem by utilizing the same sets, costumes, and script from their English-language productions, and simply bringing in actors who could speak the necessary languages. By the end of the 20s, Universal was specifically focused on Spanish-language cinema.
This is why this version of Dracula came about. While it is ostensibly just a different-language version of the Browning film, and is often included as a bonus feature on physical media releases of Dracula, it is entirely its own experience. Directed by George Melford instead of Browning, it was filmed at night when Browning’s crew left for the day, making it truly the creature of the night.
Maybe because it was filmed at night, or maybe because of Melford’s greater enthusiasm, the final product is superior to the more well-known version. Melford does not pace his film as lackadaisically as Browning’s. He brings scenes to life with a more enthusiastic and involved cast. Melford’s camera is more dynamic, moving amongst the sets with more varied and interesting shots, not content to simply sit at a wide angle as is often the case in Browning’s film. This more creeping approach lends the entire film a more potent and sinister atmosphere. Lupita Tovar really shines as Eva Seward, the film’s own riff on the main love interest of the protagonist. She is sultry and tempting, making Dracula’s pursuit of her take on a darker, more sexual undertone.
That’s not to say it compares favorably in every aspect. Despite the overall better cinematography, there is arguably no shot as iconic as Browning’s close-ups of Lugosi’s eyes. In fact, this film’s attempts at replicating those shots underscores the biggest detriment: no Bela Lugosi. While Carlos Villarias‘ take on Dracula isn’t terrible, it also isn’t particularly strong. In riding the line between over-acting and strong presence, Villarias falls over it and comes across as rather hokey, like a comedy film’s version of Dracula. He is hard to take seriously as a menacing threat, especially when you compare him to the pure gravitas of Lugosi. Those close-ups of Villarias’s eyes as he uses his psychic powers lack the mystique of the English version.
While you do lose Lugosi, Dracula‘s Spanish version makes up for it in other ways and stands as the best Universal film to feature Dracula. This film is not an all-time great, as Dracula films are surprisingly a weaker wing of the Universal Monsters world. But for the best, most moody take on the material, look no farther than this oddity.
- Global Ranking: #1,741
- 8/100 on Flickchart’s Dracula filter
- Wins 53% of its matchups
- 23 users have it in their top 20
Tell us your thoughts on the Dracula franchise below and rank them all on Flickchart!
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
