Bela Lugosi's Dracula is the standard by which all other Dracula stories are measured, but it has basically 3 fundamental flaws:
1) Plot lines are not developed very well
2) It deviates from vampire legend and from the Bram Stoker novel
3) It lacks the religious undertone of perverted resurrection
Some spoilers follow-
1) Plot lines not developed- for instance- Lucy Westenra dies after one vampire bite instead of having a slow torturous death that involves heroic efforts from 3 suitors and recruiting of Van Helsing. There doesn't really seem to be a good reason to write Van Helsing in the first place.
2) Plot deviations- for instance- Dr Seward should be Lucy and Nina's contemporary, but he is portrayed as Nina's father. Renfield is unrelated to the rest in the story and is separately recruited by Dracula, but in movie he acts as the real estate agent (Jonathan Harker's role)...
3) Religious undertones- Dracula is a story about an anti-Christ who is resurrected to undeath rather than to life. The parallels to Christ are numerous- he lives after death, he is both corporal and spirit, he must be invited to enter a house while Christ bids us to invite Him into our heart, etc and the contrasts are also important- he hates light where Christ is the light of the World, he gropes about in darkness, he seeks to destroy, he pollutes blood.
Bela Lugosi's acting is superb, almost too good. The book's Dracula is repulsive while Lugosi is suave. The book's Dracula speaks English perfectly, while Lugosi has permanently cursed the character with a Romanian accent.
The movie is tremendous, but the book tells a different story. Watch the movie, but read the book, too. Both are great in their own rite.
1) Plot lines are not developed very well
2) It deviates from vampire legend and from the Bram Stoker novel
3) It lacks the religious undertone of perverted resurrection
Some spoilers follow-
1) Plot lines not developed- for instance- Lucy Westenra dies after one vampire bite instead of having a slow torturous death that involves heroic efforts from 3 suitors and recruiting of Van Helsing. There doesn't really seem to be a good reason to write Van Helsing in the first place.
2) Plot deviations- for instance- Dr Seward should be Lucy and Nina's contemporary, but he is portrayed as Nina's father. Renfield is unrelated to the rest in the story and is separately recruited by Dracula, but in movie he acts as the real estate agent (Jonathan Harker's role)...
3) Religious undertones- Dracula is a story about an anti-Christ who is resurrected to undeath rather than to life. The parallels to Christ are numerous- he lives after death, he is both corporal and spirit, he must be invited to enter a house while Christ bids us to invite Him into our heart, etc and the contrasts are also important- he hates light where Christ is the light of the World, he gropes about in darkness, he seeks to destroy, he pollutes blood.
Bela Lugosi's acting is superb, almost too good. The book's Dracula is repulsive while Lugosi is suave. The book's Dracula speaks English perfectly, while Lugosi has permanently cursed the character with a Romanian accent.
The movie is tremendous, but the book tells a different story. Watch the movie, but read the book, too. Both are great in their own rite.