IMDb > House of Dracula (1945) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
House of Dracula
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
House of Dracula More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 9: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]
Index 84 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A great old-fashioned horror flick if you ignore the plot holes

7/10
Author: dgeer80 from PopcornMonster.com
28 April 2004

This film marked the end of the "serious" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one "last" time.

I say desparate, because in the previous film, "House of Frankenstein," both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.

However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing "Moonlight Senada," on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the "Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde" type character was also done very well.

And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one "last" time.

*** out of ****

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A great old-fashioned horror flick if you ignore the plot holes

7/10
Author: dgeer80 from PopcornMonster.com
28 April 2004

This film marked the end of the "serious" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one "last" time.

I say desparate, because in the previous film, "House of Frankenstein," both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.

However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing "Moonlight Senada," on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the "Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde" type character was also done very well.

And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one "last" time.

*** out of ****

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A FINE MONSTER MESS

10/10
Author: bob brasher (bbrasher1) from Chicago, Il., USA
14 January 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie has the look and feel of having been put together in a matter of days-kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. In spite of this, it's still a classic-ranking among my favorite Creature Features. *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD******* Count Dracula and Larry Talbot; aka Wolfman, arrive at the laboratory of Dr. Edelman seeking a cure for their nocturnal anti-social behavior, such as killing people. In the meantime, kindly Dr. Edelman discovers the body of the Frankenstein Monster. Becoming obsessed with bringing it back to life( a common character trait among scientists, mad or otherwise), he goes against his better judgement, resulting in monster mayhem and madness. One of the final Universal classics of it's time (Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein followed 3 years later), it rates a 10 with this reviewer. Onslow Steven steals the show as good doctor gone bad after being infected by the blood of Dracula and becoming a half- werewolf/vampire creature, coming to a tragic end. At 1 hour 7 min. it packs quite a punch. A worthy addition to my video collection.

Rating: ***** out of *****

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

One "funnest" horror movies of all time (not necessarily the best, but funnest)

10/10
Author: Classic Camp from Virginia Beach, VA
28 January 2000

Despite all of the comparisons to House of Frankenstein, this movie outshines its predecessor and is one of the funnest monster movies in the Universal Monsters series, and sadly, the last. O.k. so it doesn't exactly stack up to something like the Bride of Frankenstein as one a classic to revered by fans of all movies, but with a cast of Dracula, The Wolf Man and Frankenstein's monster (What? no mummy?) you can't help but enjoy this schlock fest! And unlike House of Frankenstein, the monsters in this movie interact a lot more. But this movie also offers some unique story lines for both Dracula and the Wolf Man who both go to Dr. Adleman for cures of their afflictions. While the Wolf Man actually does find a cure, Dracula injects his blood into the doctor and that's when the real fun begins! I highly recommend this movie to fans of classic horror movies. But remember, I never said it was good, just fun.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

The last gasp of the Universal Horror movies.

4/10
Author: JoeB131 from United States
7 July 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Not counting the Abbot and Costello abuses of them, of course.

Here we have once again, John Carradine playing Dracula (no explanation of how he got better from being skeletonized in "House of Frankenstein") and Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf Man (again, he got killed by a silver bullet then, but is much better now.) They all meet in the house of Dr. Adelman, who apparently thinks there is no monster he can't cure from his affliction. Even Frankenstein's monster, which he finds under his house. More plot convenience than a 7/11.

Adelman is unique in that he comes up with supposedly plausible explanations for why these supernatural creatures should exist and tries to find cures. Dracula only wants to make time with his nurse, and infects him with vampirism. He does cure the Wolf Man, though. (Or maybe not, because he's back to being a Wolf Man in the Abbot and Costello film.)

Alas, the poor monster. He's given nothing to do other than being reanimated in the boring predictable climax.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Studio Cashing In On Franchises

5/10
Author: getyourdander from United States
13 May 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

John Carradine is enlisted here as Universal tries to cash in on a lot of monsters bringing in Dracula, Frankenstein, & The Wolf Man together. The story is sort of cobbled together. There is very little new ground covered in the script.

Lon Chaney Jr. as Lawrence Talbot /Wolfman is easily the films greatest asset. We get a hunchbacked Nurse that Dr Edeleman he is going to fix. He doesn't get too it because he decides to try and fix Dracula, Frankenstein & the Wolfman. This is an early case of multi-tasking going too far. The performances by the cast are OK but reflect the script they have to work with here.

Glenn Strange gets to be the monster in this one. In the end, the film has the monster on fire. That is the typical ending but there is not much of the rest of these monsters being fixed.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

What a way to go out.

10/10
Author: heisalexh from Toronto, Canada
16 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The film should have been named "HOUSE OF DR. EDELMAN" because that's who the central character is. Two of the main Universal classic monsters show up to Edelman's seeking release from their cursed life, those being Dracula and the Wolfman, while the body of the Frankenstein Monster is found nearby (quite convenient) however Dracula is not sincere to Edelman and donates a little blood to him. Slowly, Edelman goes crazy, but with enough time to help old Larry Talbot at least.

Not a great film, very poor when stacked against other Universal classics, but still fun and nostalgic to watch. John Carradine is not nearly as good as Bela Lugosi when it comes to the titular character.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Decent entry, if not overtly spectacular

Author: slayrrr666 (slayrrr666@yahoo.com) from Los Angeles, Ca
30 October 2008

"House of Dracula" isn't all that bad of a film and is rather decent at times.

**SPOILERS**

Arriving at the home of Dr. Franz Edelmann, (Onslow Stevens) in his seaside home, Count Dracula, (John Carradine) discreetly seeks a cure for vampirism. He starts work on a potential cure involving blood transfusion, the Wolf Man, Lawrence Talbot, (Lon Chaney Jr.) arrives at his estate looking for a cure to lycanthropy. Working with the two patients, he discovers a possible cure in a mold found near the laboratory, and after searching the area, he finds the Frankenstein Monster, (Glenn Strange) buried nearby. Becoming obsessed with reviving it, Dr. Edelmann keeps neglecting Dracula and Larry's requests, and after demanding that they get their treatment instead of him working on the Monster, they turn on each other in a climactic showdown.

The Good News: This was a rather decent film. There is one main idea that is quite creative and imaginative. This is the first film to openly propose the idea of vampirism as a blood disease, and one that can be transferred from person to person through the exchange of bodily fluid, something that would be taken up by later genre works but rarely as directly as this. There's even a microscope slide of the parasite that is believed responsible for the condition. It works in some rather nicely used ideas and comes across as a rather nifty idea, even if some of the execution is a little stale. The fact that each of the creatures has at least one standout scene is a nicely done idea. The Wolf Man has a marvelous scene where he transforms inside a prison cell to the doubting members of the search party and goes crazy. Dracula's initial appearance of appearing as a bat and flying toward a prone figure sleeping and then appearing in human form looks really impressive. The Monster rampage is well handled and an appropriate amount of destruction is caused. The large bat that Dracula transforms into always looks decent for once, and is quite realistically done. It's a thoroughly decent affair.

The Bad News: There are several things that weren't all that great about this one. The fact that the film combines so much potentially intriguingly plots and ideas that it really doesn't know what to do with them. There are several different back-stories that have to be mingled together and which should be clear enough to mix well together and seem coherent. This really doesn't have any of that. The plot is rather flimsy and doesn't really give a preferential treatment to any of the stars, and instead concentrates on one then another and then includes all three in the ending. The monsters only seem to get engaged with each other for the smallest possible reason makes it a big distraction. The ending is for once a big let-down, and seems entirely like it was changed at the last minute. There's a few other small things that weren't all that spectacular, and pretty much also contribute to this.

The Final Verdict: It's quite a decent film and manages to get through most of the time with an entertaining style. Nowhere near the classic status of each monsters' debut features, but it's a nice enough watch for fans of the monsters and of Universal films in general.

Today's Rating-PG: Violence

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Things take a bad turn for the count ...

4/10
Author: Noel (Teknofobe70) from Bromsgrove, England
16 August 2005

Okay -- the title "House of Frankenstein", was a reference to a line from the original Frankenstein movie. When they follow it up with a movie entitled "House of Dracula", which makes no real sense, you know that it's just beginning to turn into a franchise.

Without explanation, Dracula is back, and he's calling himself Baron Latos. He infiltrates the home of a Doctor Edelmann, with the claim that he is seeking a cure for his vampirism. Edelmann has a hunchback nurse who assists him (what is it with hunchback assistants in these movies?), but what Dracula is really interested in is his other, more beautiful assistant. At this point, Larry "Wolf Man" Talbot returns (again, no explanation given) and just happens to be seeking the same doctor for a cure to his lycanthropy. And then he just happens to fall into a cave in which plants can be grown to help him, which also just so happens to contain the Frankenstein monster. Dear God, when will it end ... sure, the other Universal monster sequels were silly, but this is just ridiculous.

First the good stuff. There are some great settings, and the vampire bat effects are slightly better than usual. Some of the other effects are pretty neat too. John Carradine isn't bad as Dracula once you get used to him, but still nothing like as brilliant as Lugosi was. In my opinion, Onslow Stevens plays a much better vampire in this movie, although he has exactly the opposite problem to Carradine -- all of the creepiness and none of the class. None of the performances are that great, but it's more due to the atrocious script than anything else -- the female parts are particularly badly written. But stupid as it is, it remains reasonably entertaining for the most part. The best thing about it is it's short length.

Now the bad stuff ... it's not creepy, it's poorly written and it doesn't work. I was hoping the three monsters would begin some kind of a supernatural struggle for power, but it doesn't happen. The focus is almost entirely on Dracula, who isn't particularly well portrayed. On the other hand, this is the only movie in which Dracula infects another man, but it is done via a blood transfusion rather than a bite as Universal were always uncomfortable with the possible homosexual subtext. Larry Talbot is decent as always as the Wolf Man, but he plays a comparatively small part. Once again the part of Frankenstein's monster is reduced to the anti-climatic closing moments. For God's sake, Glenn Strange was fantastic as the creature! Why not give him more screen time? It's unfortunate that the series had to end on this note (not counting the classic comedy "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein"). In the end it just fizzled in the sunlight and died, much like Dracula himself.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

surprisingly decent sequel WARNING!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!!

Author: callanvass
15 August 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

surprisingly decent sequel is well made and very watchable and fairly enjoyable the plot is okay and the direction is steady but this time around the plot focuses more on Lawrence Talbot and trying to cure him the acting is really good Lon Chaney Jr gives another delightful charming performance here and is still threatening as the Wolf Man he gives his last performance here SPOILERS!!! as Lawrence Talbot and it was a good one! John Carradine is amusing and also delightful as Dracula he too as a certain charm that you can't resist liking he did a great job here overall Martha O'Driscory gives a decent performance here and is kinda pretty she did okay Lionel Atwill does great again in a part time role too bad he wasn't on screen much Onslow Stevens is this show in my opinion eh stole the show here he gives a wonderful performance ! as the mad doctor Glenn Strange is okay not very good as he monster overall a decent little sequel that's worth the watch **1/2 out of 5

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 6 of 9: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history