I heard some people say, that this version is better than the american one, and I can't understand how anyone could make this assumption. The story is pretty much the same, the atmosphere is solid, but not as thick as in the american version. One thing though, that separates this one is awful acting. Maybe the actors aren't that bad, but they are definitely miscast, especially Dracula, Van Helsing and Renfield. Renfield here looks like an actor, trying to portray insanity, mostly by just laughing out loud. In Browning's version he looked insane. His unnatural smile and his penetrating gaze were downright creepy, and the transoformation he underwent throughout the film was astonishing. Van Helsing and Dracula here look like comedic actors. Especially Dracula, when he's trying to be creepy, it's so cringeworthy. Their legendary faceoff became a mockery. I swear you could mistake it for a parody of the american version, if it was any bit funny. Edward Van Sloan had an incredible charisma. In his performance you could read wisdom, bravery, cihvalry. And Bela Lugosi was probably the best casting choice in history, and I can debate anybody, who disagree. If anything, this film has made me realise, how much the american version of Dracula relied on acting to build its horror. Made me appreciate that film even more. But this version, it doesn't really bring anything to the table. Considering the story is about the same, there's really no point in watching this film for anybody.