Reviews & Ratings for
Son of Dracula More at IMDbPro »

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
If only, if only..., 2 February 2001

Author: fast_n_bulbous from Horse Cave, KY US of A

We all have them, you know...those movies that for whatever reason we somehow managed to miss in the theatre and can't find available on video and never gets shown on TV. This one, for many years, was mine. My holy grail film.

I have loved the music of Harry Nilsson for 30 years, and the Beatles as well both solo and collectively even longer. When I read about this film in the pages of the late, lamented Creem magazine, I couldn't wait to see it! When I was a teenager, my friends (well, the cool ones anyway) had the (excellent) soundtrack album with its generous helpings of film dialogue, so I knew lines from SoD long before I saw it. But it rarely (never where I could see it!)was shown on TV and was not available through normal video channels...I finally got a copy through a video service that specialized in foreign Kung Fu and porn (!). Breathlessly, I put it in the VCR, hit play, and...

Well, lets just say it wasn't exactly worth the wait.

Son of Dracula is, I am sorry to say, just a terrible film in nearly every respect. It looks cheap and is horribly acted by everyone involved, especially Harry, whom I regard as one of the finest songwriters ever, but is no actor. Ringo is, well, Ringo. It's hard to dis the likeable Mister Starkey and be convincing about it, and he gives a typical Ringo performance here-no more, no less. He gets by , as always in his non-drumming endeavors, on his charm. I had hoped that it would be better served by the direction of Freddie Francis, the Hammer horror veteran, but SoD just looks so shoddy that it is obvious that he couldn't care less and was just picking up a paycheck. The story is a jumbled, confusing mess, and the makeup is ineptly done. Perhaps this can be excused a little by the fact that SoD was intended as a spoof, but even on these terms it is a failure.

That being said, SoD is not entirely without merit-it's great to see Nilsson perform "live" (he never did so during his real career) with an all-star band, and there is a clever scene where Harry puts the bite on a nubile young female while T.Rex's "Chariot Choogle" from his "Slider" LP is playing in the background (they even show Harry putting the needle on the record, which sports a T.Rex Wax

Co. label-unseen in the USA and very cool for this fan of not only Harry but Marc Bolan as well).

I can't recommend this to anyone but hardcore Nilsson fans (we are few in number but ardent nonetheless!), and even then with a caveat; my advice is don't expect much and you won't be disappointed. Much.

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Hmm...Maybe It Should Have Been Called "Song of Dracula.", 19 June 2006

Author: Fred (thurberdrawing@yahoo.com) from Long Island, USA

I'm giving this a "six" because anybody who seeks out this movie will know, more or less, what he or she is getting into. The Nilsson songs do work with the melancholy of this plot: Dracula's son, who was conceived with a non-vampire woman, wants to cease being a vampire so he can experience love. Nilsson's performance isn't demonstrative and I found his remoteness appropriate. Ringo was a wizard in MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR and he's Merlin here. He's not emoting incredibly, but he is playing a comic role straight, and this, too, works for me. (By the way, check out THAT'LL BE THE DAY, in which Ringo plays a down-and-out Holiday Camp musician. It is truly a serious performance. Also, consider the part in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT with Ringo walking by the river, throwing sticks and kicking stones. He can act when he wants to.) The other actors deliver the archaic dialogue in almost classical style. Again, there is a melancholy to all of this. It is nowhere near as self-conscious as most deliberately extreme movies. The reason for this is that the director, Freddie Francis, born in 1917, had been directing for many years and had a lot of experience. There are some really interesting camera angles. The plot is nuts, but the filming is almost hallucinatory. At one point one of the mad doctors is in his office and the camera backs up to show a portrait in oils, in a gilded frame, of what appears to be the Frankenstein monster in a three-piece suit. There's a close-up of it a minute later and it resembles the Kaiser. I had a grainy copy of this movie and am wondering if the painting was one of these optical-illusion things people used to put on their walls (such as the one where, at first glance, you see people sitting at a table with candles and another look reveals a giant skull) or if the grainy quality of the DVD made me see it wrong. Even if I was wrong about it being the Frankenstein monster, I am amused at the fact that a picture of the Kaiser is on the scientist's wall in a movie taking place in 1974. (And Frankie DOES appear later on.) Yes, it's sub-par. But there's a certain genius in it nonetheless. And the music is sweet.

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Sad waste of celluloid, 10 June 2006

Author: davidfsf from United States

Imagine "Rocky Horror" with every drop of vitality, wit and cinematic talent sucked out by a toothless vampire, and you begin to approach the experience of watching "Son of Dracula." As a die-hard Nilsson fan (is there any other kind?), I can't even recommend this film to fellow completionists who simply *have* to see this movie. You really aren't missing much. Ringo, buried under a mass of grey hair, long beard and pointy wizard's hat, is unrecognizable - that is, until he opens his mouth and his completely inappropriate Liverpool accent slurps out. (How's this for a sample of dialogue poor Ringo must spout: "Mercury, my Mercury, you are subdued tonight... To what import might you tonight transcend?") Nilsson's line delivery is so limp and monotone I was convinced someone else had dubbed his voice from a bad Japanese horror flick. He displays none of the energy and humor which so defines his music, even when lip-synching to his own songs. There is zero camp value here; I can't believe anyone could classify this as a comedy. The storyline is utterly pointless ("biological" son of Dracula must decide whether to become lord of the Netherworld, or undergo a procedure to become human so he can feel love for groovy chick), with werewolves, mummies and Frankenstein's monster thrown in for no discernible reason. I give it 2 stars, one for the fact that the picture is visible, and one for the fact that the dialogue is audible. I hate to advise obsessive collectors like myself to stay away, but if you never manage to hook up with a copy of this off the internet, trust me, you are missing very little.

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Good for a Larf, 16 November 2004
Author: schadenfreude714 from Northern Michigan

Yes, this is indeed a movie, albeit one very difficult to get your hands on--try the internet, it was never officially released on video. This is basically a plot less showcase for the musical genius that was Harry Nilsson. He plays the son of Count Dracula--named Count Downe [groan]--who wants to be mortal so he can marry this woman he's in love with. Or something like that. Ringo Starr looks after Count Downe as Merlin the Magician--with pasty makeup and a fright-wig beard--for some reason, but it really doesn't matter. In fact, there are no full-fledged musical numbers--just Count Downe appearing on-stage at some club and performing--with the exception of his Pete Hamm cover "Without You," in a particularly sappy scene.

It also features strange attempts at comedy. Count Downe's butler uses the word "contretemps" in conversation, then the word appears at the bottom of the screen with a question mark beside it. And the fact that at the end of the credits, Merlin appears in an animated sun and shrugs in an oh-so Ringo way, just proves that--despite its many schlocky tendencies--it is worth a look, if it's not too much trouble.

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
SON OF Dracula (Freddie Francis, 1974) *1/2, 14 May 2008

Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@melita.com) from Naxxar, Malta

To begin with, several people involved in this ill-advised and little-seen venture – a fusion of Gothic horror and rock music – have connections with other films featuring some of the monsters who appear in it: Freddie Francis helmed the likes of THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN (1964), Dracula HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968) and LEGEND OF THE WEREWOLF (1975); Suzanna Leigh had been the heroine of LUST FOR A VAMPIRE (1970); Freddie Jones had appeared impressively as the creature in FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED! (1969); Dennis Price did an extended cameo in THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN (1970) and, for Jess Franco, played Van Helsing in VAMPYROS LESBOS (1970) and the Baron in Dracula – PRISONER OF FRANKENSTEIN (1971) and THE EROTIC RITES OF FRANKENSTEIN (1972)! In retrospect, other contemporary films attempted this formula – namely PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974) and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (1975) – with considerably more successful outcomes.

Personally produced for Apple Films by ex-Beatle Ringo Starr (who here appears as Merlin, the famed magician of Arthurian times!), the title role – which comes equipped with a lame pun on the character’s name, Count Downe! – is filled by singer/songwriter Harry Nilsson decked-out with a hirsute look and, understandably, his performance is a pretty bland and completely forgettable one (a good thing, therefore, that the film-makers’ original plan to have David Bowie in the lead didn’t pan out!). Nonetheless, Nilsson does get to perform a number of good tunes during the course of the film (though stymied by the poor sound quality of the edition I watched!) including “Without You”, which has become perhaps his most representative song; among the session musicians one can also recognize other popular figures of the era such as guitarist Peter Frampton and drummer Keith Moon! By the way, Mrs. Michael Caine (Shakira Baksh) also appears as Merlin’s feline housekeeper.

Culled from a worn-out VHS – in which dark scenes come off as extremely blurry – and slightly damaged to boot, as I said, the version of SON OF Dracula that came my way proved far from ideal viewing. Still, the film itself is a bit of a mess anyway: Dracula Snr., depicted as a Max Schreck lookalike, is killed by Jones’ Baron Frankenstein – the villain of the piece, with evil dwarf Skip Martin for an assistant; Price, on his last legs, turns up as Van Helsing (the film, in fact, was clearly shot in 1972 but released after his death) and Leigh is his luscious secretary – who attracts Nilsson’s amorous attentions…so much so that he decides to renounce his vampiric ways (except that with it goes his claim to immortality!); however, this occurs at a most inopportune time – as several monsters have been convened in order to crown him their overlord (a title which Frankenstein actually covets himself)!

Unfortunately, the plodding film resolves itself in a number of tedious conversation scenes – between Dracula Jnr. and Merlin, between Merlin and Frankenstein, between Frankenstein and Van Helsing, etc.; the resolution, then, sees a happy ending for the Count and his companion – while Frankenstein’s well-deserved come-uppance is amusingly delivered over a game of pool by Merlin’s own hand. In the long run, the mournful ballads work better within the context of the narrative than the rollicking numbers – “Without You”, for instance, serves as background to the demystification/humanization of Young Dracula (a title, incidentally, by which the film’s equally well-known and which got changed presumably as a nod to Mel Brooks’ spoof of Universal’s Frankenstein saga from the same year). By the way, this SON OF Dracula shouldn’t be confused with the stylish 1943 outing of the same name Robert Siodmak made for Universal during the heyday of classic monster movies…

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Well, the music is good., 5 June 2004

Author: dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York

I don't think this film was ever really released widely. It has something to do with Dracula taking over as the head of all the monsters or something, but I'm not sure because its not very good, and I lost interest in anything that was going on.

A good deal of this film is taken over by musical numbers. At the drop of a hat Harry Nilsson will burst in to song, which isn't a bad thing since the music is quite good. The problem is that the rest of the movie is a complete mess. This is more akin to Paul McCartney's vanity projects like Give My Regards to Broad Street, where there's a minimal plot and lots of songs, than anything you could call a real movie. It's a lot of ideas that don't really add up to much.

I can't really suggest anyone actually watch this movie because its a bit of a bore. I give it 4 out of 10 because of the music and the curiosity value, but there always is the album and then again there are some movies best left unseen.

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Fine the soundtrack and forget this movie!, 5 April 2005

Author: dvan1959 from United States

I purchased a copy of the soundtrack in high school and wore it out! I did not get to see this movie when it came out. 31 years later I found a bootleg copy on ebay. Great music, but an awful movie. The story has very little dialog and never goes anywhere. Such a waist of great musical talent. Harry Nilsson's who is one of the forgotten song writers of the seventies acting is so bad that he makes Ringo Starr look good. The song daybreak is a different mix than the album and the camera is so frame so close that you almost don't see Keith Moon playing drums. Freddie Francis who directed this movie is a great cinematographer (The French Lieutenants Women) and camera man (Moby Dick 1956) but should have skip this film project. Fine the soundtrack and forget this movie!

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Very Interesting Note!!, 23 July 1999
Author: Scott29-2 from Philadelphia, PA

According to David Morgan's fine book, Monty Python Speaks, both Graham Chapman and Douglas Adams worked together to create new dialogue for this movie. Based on the version you see, who knows?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Where can I get a copy of this movie?, 19 November 2004

Author: Suzy Pritchard from Mooresville, IN

This was one badly acted movie. I think everyone can agree to that, but I loved it!! I still do. I saw it as a young teenager (3 times). My friends and I were probably the only ones in the theater. It's probably more nostalgia than anything that makes me give it such high marks, but I just can't forget this movie. It had comedy, it was a love story, and it sort of fit in the horror genre (perfect movie fare for teenagers). There is a lot of great music in this video-Harry Nilsson's "Without You" for one. He may not have written the song, but no one can sing it like he does. The song is hauntingly beautiful, a perfect song for the love story aspect of the movie.

I recommend it to anyone who can appreciate a bad movie with a lot of incredible music. It may not be great, but I found it unforgettable.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
This dog ought to bark..., 9 June 2004

Author: walterfive_666 from 13th Floor Elevator, EnRon Hubbard Bldg. Houston Texas

First off, to answer the previous person's question:

"Daybreak" was the only song Harry Nillson specifically wrote for this film. Everything else was already lying around.

Harry had two top-40 songs with this flick; "Daybreak", and the Pete Ham written "Without You", which had originally been recorded by Badfinger the year before.

This film was released on videotape by Apple in 1982 or so. It has never (to my knowledge) been rereleased on either Video, Laserdisc or DVD. Bootleg DVDs of this film circulate among collectors, they are copies of the Video release, and in low-fi mono sound.

Besides very brief cameo appearances by Keith Moon, Peter Frampton, John Bonham, and a few other now lesser-known 70's rockers as the band The Count Downes, this film has little to recommend it. Harry's not convincing in the title role, and Ringo is even more plastic here as Merlin the Magician than he was as Larry The Dwarf in Frank Zappa's 200 Motels.

For die-hard completists only. NOT recommended.

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another review

Related Links