Reviews & Ratings for
Son of Dracula More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

71 reviews in total

---

15 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Dracula: Father, Son and Evil Spirit, 7 March 2003
Author: lugonian from Kissimmee, Florida

"Son of Dracula" (Universal, 1943), directed by Robert Siodmak, from an original story by Curtis Siodmak, the third in the cycle of Universal thrillers to center around the Dracula legend, and the first of the 1940s, ranks one of the best in the series. Its star, Lon Chaney Jr., famous for his previous role in the horror cycle as Lawrence Talbot in THE WOLF MAN (Universal, 1941), which would be followed by some more sequels throughout the 1940s, might have seemed an unlikely choice in playing the blood- sucking vampire, but on the contrary, Junior Chaney brings new life into the old vampire, sporting the usual black cape and an added touch of a mustache. Overlooking the hypnotic glassy eye stare created at best by Bela Lugosi in Dracula (Universal, 1931), he very well has proved himself as the fine horror film actor, for the time being anyway.

Unlike the previous Dracula outings (Dracula and Dracula'S DAUGHTER), which had taken place either in Transylvania or England, SON OF Dracula is set on American soil and stays there. It begins somewhere in the South where Frank Stanley (Robert Paige) and the family physician friend, Doctor Harry Brewster (Frank Craven) are at a train station awaiting for the arrival of an honored guest to Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), Count Alucard, whom she had met previously while visiting in Budapest, and is to be driven over to the Caldwell estate, but all they find are his crates and boxes (some of which consists of his native soil). That very night after a gathering in her home, Katherine's father (George Irving) mysteriously dies, with Dr. Brewster examining the body and finding two marks found on the late colonel's neck. Having noticed earlier on one of the crates that the name of Alucard spelled backwards is Dracula, Brewster decides to telephone Professor Lazio (J. Edward Bromberg), the well-known authority of the Count Dracula legend, who, after learning telling him all the details, warns Brewster that Katherine is in great danger, and intends on leaving Memphis to pay Brewster a visit to see what can be done. But it's too late. Katherine, who has a morbid fascination with death and eternal life, has already abandoned her fiancé, Frank, whom has loved her since childhood, to marry Count Alucard. They ghoulish couple obtain a honeymoon cottage in an old house at Dark Oaks. Frank follows them there to get Katherine back and threatens Alucard to leave town. Ignoring his threats, this leaves Frank to take out his revolver and shoot Alucard, but in turn he has killed Katherine, who was standing behind her husband. Finding that the bullets have gone through Alucard and into Katherine, Frank rushes out of the house to tell Dr. Brewster what has happened. Brewster comes to the cottage to find Alucard, and much to his surprise, sees Katherine very much alive. When Frank arrives with the authorities, they find Katherine dead in her coffin. After the arrival of Professor Lazio, more dark secrets are eventually revealed.

Reportedly dismissed as just another horror film upon its release, SON OF Dracula does have its share of bonuses that would have made the 1931 Dracula a visual experience had such advanced technology in special effects been available, along with some real clever touches, including the visiting count using an alias by spelling his name backwards; a very creepy musical score, compliments of Hans J. Salter, dark atmospheric background and fine effects ranging from a cloud of vapor forming into the presence of Dracula, to his transformation from bat to human figure, etc. Aside from Lon Chaney's carnation of Dracula, Louise Allbritton stands out a close second with her creepy appearance, ranging from her unusual dark and gloomy hairstyle to icy facial expressions. Even before she becomes the wife of the mysterious Count, her Katherine is already obsessed by the supernatural. Her sister, Claire, played by Evelyn Ankers is the logical half of the Caldwell sisters, and although she doesn't get to belt out a scream or two as she did in the aforementioned films, her presence adds to the story, as does J. Edward Bromberg's Professor Lazio, the authority of the Dracula legend. Bromberg's role could have very well been Professor Van Helsing (as previously played in the first two Dracula films of the 1930s), but instead, his role was inspired by him. Robert Paige, another Universal contract player, does well with his Frank Stanley performance, rising above the usual mediocre love interest-types of the day.

The supporting cast includes Samuel S. Hinds (Judge Simmons); Etta McDaniel (Sarah); Patrick Moriarty (The Sheriff); and Adeline De Walt Reynolds as Queen Zimba, the fortune telling gypsy, who after warning Katherine of her destiny and danger in marrying a corpse, she is met with a destiny of her own when encountered by a vampire bat that puts an end of her fortune telling forever. Reynold's brief bit as the fortune telling old hag is reminiscent to the kind of role Lucille LaVerne (of silent and early talkies) that made her famous.

Regardless of the misleading title, Count Alucard is never mentioned as Dracula's son, but as Count Dracula himself. SON OF Dracula, at 78 minutes, is the last really good and near original Dracula film of the 1940s. Before Bela Lugosi would do one more encore as Dracula in 1948's ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, the Dracula character would be revived again in two quickie installments (HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN in 1944; HOUSE OF Dracula in 1945) with John Carradine taking over as the Count, but only minor secondary performances.

SON OF Dracula, which formerly played on the cable television's Sci-Fi Channel and American Movie Classics, is currently available on video cassette through MCA Home Video. This sure makes recommended viewing for a dark and gloomy Halloween night, or any night for that matter, particularly for any classic horror movie lover. (***)

---

15 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Brilliant sequel to Universal's classic!, 15 August 2006

Author: José Luis Rivera Mendoza (jluis1984) from Mexico

Producer Carl Laemmle Jr changed history of horror cinema when he hired director Tod Browning to make the first official adaptation to Bram Stoker's classic novel "Dracula". This was the beginning of Universal Studios' tradition of Gothic horror that reigned triumphant through the 30s and early 40s. Robert Siodmak's "Son of Dracula", an alternative sequel (it doesn't make any reference to the earlier "Dracula's Daughter") to Browning's classic, is probably the last classic in the long line of films Universal produced about the monsters they gave life in the 30s.

"Son of Dracula" takes place decades after the first film, when the Dracula's story is now considered a mere myth. The story begins with the arrival of Count Alucard (Lon Chaney Jr.) to America, as the mysterious Carpathian noble has been invited to the country by Katherine 'Kay' Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), a young rich woman with a morbid interest for the supernatural. Soon Kay finds herself in love with the strange Count, something that worries her boyfriend Frank (Robert Paige) and family's friend Prof. Brewster (Frank Craven), as they suspect that there's something wrong with the strange foreigner.

Director of many B-Movies before this job, Robert Siodmak would become Universal's most important exponent of the noir style and "Son of Dracula" definitely forecasts his brilliant future in the genre. The film shows his great talent to combine haunting and atmospheric visuals with a great screenplay (by his brother, Curt Siodmak), and it moves away from the series' roots in German Expressionism to what would be called Film Noir, creating what seems to be the missing link between Universal's horror films and their subsequent Noir movies.

While Robert Siodmak's talent is almost unquestionable, the films owes a lot of its success to Curt Siodmak's cleverly written script. Just like in his previous "The Wolf Man", the story is charged with a dark pessimistic feeling of dread that gives the film a unique feeling (contrary to most Universal horrors, there's almost no comedy) that rather than making the film dull or boring it enhances its captivating charm. With clever plot twists and a good dose of suspense, Siodmak's plot also feels like horror themed hard-boiled fiction.

Many has been written about Siodmak's choice of Lon Chaney Jr. to play the Count's descendant, but while there's no doubt that he was not the best choice for the role, he wasn't really too bad in it. Sure, Chaney's appearance suits better the bulkier monsters but he gets the job done and his sad face suits the dark theme of deception the movie has. Robert Paige as the film's "hero" (for lack of a better word) is very effective and his usual co-star Louise Allbritton makes a great femme fatal. Frank Craven and J. Edward Bromberg are brilliant as the vampire hunters and it could be said that despite the miscast of Chaney the whole cast makes a great job.

"Son of Dracula" is a top-notch film considering it was conceived as a B-movie. Robert Siodmak makes great use of his resources and the film rivals the first film in quality and overall composition. One of the better sequels of the Universal Studios' films, it's main flaw may be that those expecting a typical Universal horror may be disappointed by its dark Noir theme and its pessimistic tone.

Often forgotten among the many other films in the series (not unusual considering that the first two Frankenstein sequels were masterpieces), "Son of Dracula" is a worthy sequel to Browning's classic and definitely superior to the previous "Dracula's Daughter". A must see for fans of Robert Siodmak who will find the roots of his style deep in this film. 8/10

---

13 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Son Not Like Father, 11 September 1999
Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC

Well, Universal brought us Dracula's Daughter first and then felt compelled to find his lost son seven years later. One can only thank the powers to be that we didn't get movie titles like Dracula's Niece or Godfather of Dracula. This film details the story of a rich American woman, played with gusto by Louise Allbritton, who sends for Count Alucard(Dracula backwards) to make a pact with. She fears death and wants to be given the Count's knack for eternal life. She marries this Count, yet wants to be rid of him after she receives her "gift." The Count is played by none other than horror legend Lon Chaney Jr, possibly creating the huskiest Dracula ever on screen. Chaney is decent in the role, although it is clear it was a role made for another actor...like a John Carradine, slender and articulate. Chaney is forceful in some of the scenes and does an adequate job considering the muddle of a script involved. Certainly not Universal's best, but certainly watchable and entertaining.

---

11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
A Classic Of Its Kind !, 1 March 2003

Author: rudystevens422 from PA. Home Of The Blob

An incredibly atmospheric film! One of Chaney's best! Cinematography and direction are excellent! This was a third in the line of Dracula films for Universal. The story line does not take place in the Carpathian Mountains but in the deep south. Count Alucard arrives at his new destination seeking new blood! The six foot two and one half inch massive Lon Chaney Jr. strikes an imposing figure as Count Alucard, both brutal and powerful! Chaney makes a convincing member of the undead! Chaney was a major horror star at Universal, when he was making this film. He would become the fourth legendary horror king in American cinema after his father, Bela Lugosi, and Boris Karloff! All the actors are excellent. Louise Allbritton is very alluring and beautiful, as Katherine Caldwell Thirsting for knowledge about the undead! Her performance is also superb! Robert Paige is stand out in his performance as a man on the brink of madness, as he is slowing going insane! A truly incredible performance! The dark moodiness of the film transcends perfectly! There are many great atmospheric scenes to name just a few, when Chaney materializes on the top of a coffin, that has just risen out of the swamp, and when Allbritton passes though the bars to see Paige. The misty vapor that leaves the coffin and transforms into a bat! And the transformatiom scenes from man into bat are excellent! The film has some film noir overtones, director Robert Siodmak, went on to do the incredible film noir classic (THE KILLERS).The incredible ending is one of the best in Universal horror! This film is a truly underrated classic!

---

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
"Put it out!", 11 August 2006

Author: dr_foreman from Brooklyn, NY

I thought "Son of Dracula" was the pits when I was a kid. I simply found it slow and tedious and lacking in the kind of mesmeric atmosphere that makes the best vampire entertainment really tick. But, reviewing the film recently, I found myself enjoying it thoroughly. Go figure...

It's still no masterpiece, of course. Shoehorning Count Alucard/Dracula into a Louisiana swamp-and-plantation setting has always struck me as a weird and arbitrary move. (Though Dracula does get some interesting dialog about how he's attracted to America because it's a youthful and vigorous land.) And the human protagonists are too drippy for my tastes. The supposed hero is Frank Stanley, but his character is too thinly developed to be truly sympathetic. In fact, in an early scene he expresses a sort of jerky glee when the local voodoo woman drops dead of a heart attack, so I suppose you could say he's aggressively unsympathetic!

As usual, the vampires stand head and shoulders above the boring humans. Some people are critical of Chaney's performance, but I think he's pretty good. He's definitely a different sort of vampire from Lugosi - he's less ethereal, and more aggressively powerful. You could say he foreshadows Christopher Lee's forceful portrayal of Dracula in the 1950s-70s films from England's Hammer Studios. Louise Allbritton is even more effective in her role as the female vampire, and, in an interesting twist, she's allowed to have a set of motivations and ambitions that are totally different from Dracula's. In fact, in many ways she's the main character.

In the end, then, I think this movie stacks up pretty well to other films in the Universal series. It's not as eerie as "Dracula" or "Dracula's Daughter," probably because it's a more modern and technologically advanced film. (The primitiveness of the early entries in the series actually makes them scarier!) But it's certainly easier to watch than its predecessors, thanks to its more glossy look, full music score and occasional nifty special effects. You gotta love that mist stuff...

On a side note, I do think that Cheney is playing Dracula's son, and not the original Dracula himself. I'm surprised to see so much controversy about that point on this site. The film is called "Son of Dracula," after all, and J. Edward Bromberg identifies Alucard as a "descendant" of Dracula. Sure, Alucard admits to being a "Dracula" at one point, but not necessarily THE Dracula. As father and son, they would have the same surname - right? Oh, never mind, this is giving me a headache!

One more odd matter of continuity. Bromberg's character says at one point that Dracula was destroyed "in the 19th century." But, since the Universal films had a contemporary setting, wasn't he destroyed in the 20th century in this particular universe? Just thought I'd mention that.

---

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
A decent Dracula film, 4 May 2004

Author: dgeer80 from PopcornMonster.com

Another cool atmospheric vampire film that's a sequel to Dracula and Dracula's Daughter, but can stand alone since there's no reference to the previous films.

Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Son of Dracula. He's ok as Dracula, but much better as the Wolf Man. Anyhow, He travels under the alias "Count Alucard" (Dracula spelled backwards) to America to marry a woman who is secretly just trying to gain eternal life so that she can spread it to her real love interest who she was supposed to marry in the first place.

This is a pretty original story. And it's the only one of the Universal classic Dracula films where we actually see the vampires turn into mist, and the first one where we actually SEE Dracula turn into a bat. I like this film.

There's an on going debate as to whether the Dracula in this film is supposed to be the same Dracula that Bela Lugosi played. I disagree. The reasons being because we saw Bela Lugosi's Dracula killed and burned in the previous two films. And the vampire expert in Son of Dracula, Dr. Lazlo, said that this one is probably a descendant of the original Dracula. Lastly, I think the title says it all - although there are people who seem to think that this is just a common sequel title used back then and is not meant to be taken literally. But it was taken literally with Son of Frankenstein, and this is a follow up to "Dracula's DAUGHTER" (who really WAS his daughter) so... But anyway, on the back of the video case, it says that Lon Chaney is playing the son of Dracula. So I don't think it can be more clearer that the Dracula we see in Son of Dracula IS the SON of Dracula like the title suggests.

In the end, this film is worth watching if you can take it in its historical context. Otherwise you won't enjoy this film, because it's not up to today's standards of horror. But for the time period, this film was a good horror film.

8 out of 10.

---

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Big Drac Attack, 10 December 2002

Author: telegonus from brighton, ma

When Lon Chaney, Jr., looking like he's just eaten about two dozen Big Macs, introduces himself at the Louisiana estate of Dark Oaks, as Count Alucard (spell it backwards), the fun begins. For those who like atmospheric horror, Son Of Dracula is a treat. The Siodmak brothers, director Robert and author Curt, both worked on this one. Made during the Second World War, at a time when Universal was producing mostly inferior horrors, this is one of the studio's best efforts of the period, with cinematographer George Robinson's camera prowling the homes, woods and bayous of American South with the surefooted gracefulness of a black panther. The acting is fine, with even such limited players as Robert Paige, Evelyn Ankers and Louise Albritton all turning in good work. Character actors Frank Craven and J. Edward Bromberg make a nice vampire-hunting duo, and their scenes together suggest a real alliance and not merely two actors going through the motions. Big Lon, as the Count, is very effective. He lacks Lugosi's old world charm, but makes up for it in bulk, drawing nicely on the natural arrogance that some big men are prone to, his vampire is a baleful figure, often prone to violence. There's more local color than one might expect in this sort of movie, with the character of the swamp-dwelling Queen Zimba providing an interesting link to the Cajun and Voodoo traditions. By today's standards I suppose Son Of Dracula is none too frightening, though it nicely suggests the link between horror and everyday life, normal emotions and regional traditions, which, while this might not mean much nowadays, certainly resonated in the America of sixty years ago, which it effectively evokes.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
One of Universal's best, 5 November 2001

Author: Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States

Count Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards) goes to Louisiana to make willing Louise Allbritton his bride. But she has other ideas up her sleeve.

Very atmospheric film starts slow but really picks up speed in the middle leading to a great, unexpected ending. Lon Chaney Jr. is (surprisingly) good as Alucard and the atmosphere is just beautiful...swamps drenched with fog and moss. Also Chaney plays Dracula NOT his son (despite the title). This was the first movie to use Alucard as an anagram for Dracula.

This was considered a lousy horror film for many years--most people complained that Chaney looked WAY too healthy to play an undead vampire and they found the plot slow. Now it's getting the recognition it deserves. A well-done, neglected little gem. And, again, the ending is GREAT!

---

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Moody supernatural film is tragic love story of vampires and mortals, 6 February 2007

Author: mlraymond from Durham NC

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This underrated film is often surprisingly effective in evoking a believable atmosphere of the supernatural. Count Dracula arrives in a small Southern town in the U.S. in the early Forties, to marry a wealthy heiress. Their strange courtship, and the jealousy of her former fiancé, set in motion the mysterious and startling events that follow.

Lon Chaney Jr. is effective in the role of Dracula, affecting a rigid, slow moving style of body language, and an underplayed manner of speaking, seldom raising his voice, and standing almost immobile most of the time. The moment when he effortlessly flings the jealous Frank Stanley across the room, with a slight movement of his arm, while standing impassively, barely moving, is extremely effective.

The effects are well done, with some good scenes of Dracula transforming from man to bat and back again. The backgrounds and interiors are excellent, with the music contributing to the eerie tone of the story. The acting is good throughout, with performances of unusual strength for a low budget horror picture of this period.Louise Allbritton is incredible in the role of the vampire bride. Like Dracula, her soft voice and low key manner do not conceal a dangerous quality both alluring and frightening.

The movie isn't quite as good as it could have been, but is nowhere near as bad as some have described it over the years. It works well as a thoughtful, atmospheric little horror picture, with plenty of imagination and talent behind it. Well worth seeing for vampire movie fans and lovers of old Universal movies.

---

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A class universal movie, 17 December 2005

Author: r-c-s from Italy

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, universal movie were classics in their own genre, opening new ways, which would keep feeding the movie industry for decades upto this day. Mileages vary, and some rank most of their movies as mid-card to low budget movies. I think they are (with high & low's ) true classics. Without sky-high budget; without focusing on special effects; without A+ class actors they managed to make a better impression than most A+ level movies, genre-wise. This is the case. Very atmospheric, noir movie, which keeps suspense upto the last minute with proper means. Acting is good. Chaney isn't my favourite Dracula, but he's 10x better than Carradine anyways. Even supporting characters deliver a solid performance. Sub-plots are mixed in well, and none disrupts the movie's equilibrium. Count Dracula hides under pseudonym and emigrates to America, where a young belle heiress with a fascination for occultism is subdued under his powers and even marries him after leaving her beau behind. An aging physician and an Hungarian scholar are soon after him, though. Sofar it looks like your classic D movie, right? SFX are very good, not overdone, not inopportune. The plot is very coherent and develops nicely. Well, it isn't your typical D movie because poor D ends up fooled without even realizing it...the belle planned beforehand to first have D kill her father, thus inheriting vast estates, then to convince her beau to kill D himself, thus leading an immortal life with him as "undead". Does it look too simple again...? Well, in fact the beau does destroy Dracula, but another plot twist lays ahead... Definitely a movie you'd watch twice.

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history