I have to agree with those who feel that the facial expressions of Carlos Villarias got in the way of his performance - he looks as though he was mugging for the camera, rather than trying to portray the story at hand. Too funny for words are some of his reactions, they look like they belong in another film. Many of the other actors were, IMHO, lethargic copies of the Americans, except for the actor playing Renfield, Pablo Alvarez Rubio, whose animated performance steals the whole show.The camera work is just as static as in the Lugosi version, only occasionally do we see a more fluid shot than in the American version. The story is fleshed out a bit more, explaining a few things that the English version glosses over. But superior to the Lugosi version? Not on your Nelly!!

Carlos Villarias was a better actor than Bela Lugosi, but Villarias was campy at times and had zero sex appeal. He was also less creepy than Lugosi. Instead, Villarias made Dracula more lonely and and relatable. I feel that made Villarias the better Dracula by leaps and bounds. Villarias was the Dracula that Bram Stoker described. To make up for Villarias's lack of sensuality, Lupita Tovar oozed lust. At times, her hair was messy, tousled, and maybe even a little frizzy. Her outfits were tighter, showed more skin, and her body type was curvy and voluptuous. When she dove in to bite Mr. Harker, she looked like a flesh-crazed beast/a sex-crazed nymph and it's the most sexual moment I've seen in any 1930s movie. Dracula's harem girls were also more sensual than those in the American version. As for the camera work, the camera actually moves and there are more camera angles. As a result, you see more of the small details of the set design and more of the disorienting, unnatural shapes that the stairs, archs, etc. make.

I am very happy I had the opportunity to see this (and its American counterpart) in the cinema, especially right before Halloween, and would probably rate this version comparable to the American version, except for the sorely miscast Carlos Villarías. He might be delightful in comedy or dramatic role, but he was out of his depth here.The cinematography in this Spanish-language version of Dracula is sometimes better than the English/ American-language version, and I liked the additional exterior shots, but while the Spanish cast mostly does well, leading vampire Carlos Villarías is sorely lacking in both charm and chill Lugosi brought to the role. While Lugosi was simultaneously sinister and cordial, Villarios looks like he is playing it for kids at a birthday party. His narrow, sloping shoulders were a bad contrast to Lugosi's broad shouldered poise and confident manner. Villarias lacks even the slightest physical intimidation in the role, appearing largely comical. When he is first revealed on the staircase, he looks nearly comical in his postured posing, despite the benefit of experimental (in its day) photography.

This is great movie. It the same script has the one with Bela Lugosi with s.p.a.n.i.s.h actors. In not as good as the Bela Lugosi version. But still this is a great movie. It has a great story line. It is very scary. It is one of the scariest horror movie of all time. It based one of the the best horror stories ever told. The acting is not as good has the Bela Lugosi version. But still it is good acting. If you like scary movies then you need to see this movie. It is a a true horror classic. This movie is a must see. I need more lines. And I am running out things to say. This one of the best vampire movies ever made. Great movie.