Draculas Sohn

I keep shouting at sexy movie girls not to go walking alone at night in creepy forests. But they keep ignoring me-- thank goodness! In her flimsy flowing gown Allbritton (Kay) cuts a memorable figure as she traipses through the creepy studio woods on her way to a star-crossed future. Actually, the real star in terms of screen time is Frank Craven as the bloodhound doctor. As it turns out, he's got to put the plot puzzle together. Seems Alucard (Chaney) has followed the mysterious Kay to her southern home to make her his blood-supping wife. Trouble is she's already in love with homeboy Frank (Paige) who's not about to give her up, especially to a weirdo foreigner. Good thing the doc senses something is wrong and goes into action. The ending is kind of surprising and tragic, unusual for the genre.

Many of the gloomy visuals are impressive, thanks probably to director Siodmak, later to make his name in film noir (check out his distinguished list). Plus, the form-changing dissolves are well-done, adding a good spooky touch. However, I can't help feeling Chaney is miscast as the Count. His brawny presence and dialogue delivery lack the wickedly polished undertones needed for such a sinister figure. Then too he gets little screen time to possibly expand. No doubt he's top-billed for marquee value and his Wolf Man reputation. Too bad we don't see more of Madame Zimba (Reynolds). Her old lady hag is about the scariest visual in the 70- minutes.

Anyway, it's a decent horror flick with some good moments even though the central evil fails largely to gel. Plus count me now as a big fan of Louise Allbritton who can come traipse through my woody yard any time.

Before the era of home video formats, people simply had to rely on written reviews of "Son of Dracula," almost all of which were negative. In particular, Lon Chaney, Jr., has endured years of abuse for his performance as Dracula (or his son, depending on your opinion). But now the film is readily available and the truth is easy to see: it's pretty good. Not brilliant, but pretty good. Chaney's performance is actually one of his best for Universal; certainly his most atypical. Chaney excelled at characters who were out of control and childlike, but his Dracula is supremely in control, and seething with menace. It is his iciest, most restrained performance. Those who still berate Chaney for his "lack of range" should be forced to admit that he played Dracula far more effectively than Bela Lugosi could have played Lennie. Interestingly, the rest of the cast is equally "miscast:" doomed hero Robert Paige was normally a musical leading man, while femme fatale Louise Albritton was usually a blonde comedienne. Both are quite effective in the horror genre. Frank Craven does well as the folksy doctor who is forced to take on the Van Helsing role (though J. Edward Bromberg is the official Van Helsing surrogate). This is one of the most unusual Universal horror films, in that it is more horror noir than melodrama--fitting, given that it was directed by noir master Robert Siodmak. It also represents the only time Dracula, or any relation thereof, is seen outside of Europe. "Son of Dracula" contains one of the creepiest scenes in any Universal horror film, the one involving "Queen Zimba" (played by the delightfully ancient Adeline de Walt Reynolds), and the most downbeat ending. All in all, "Son of Dracula" is one of the most interesting Universal efforts from its second horror cycle, and the fact that it has endured such a bad rap over the decades is totally unfair.

Son of Dracula (1943) Lon Chaney Jr. plays Count Alucard, who travels to a Louisiana plantation to unite with a love interest. Katherine is his latest and Alucard takes her as his bride, while having to contend with her former love interest who is intent on defeating the count while saving his childhood sweetheart.

This has got to be one of the worst casting decisions ever, especially in the part of a horror icon like Dracula. Lon Chaney Jr. is a fine actor, and is superb as the dim witted Lennie in the 1939 film version of John Steinbach's masterpiece novel Of Mice and Men. Chaney is fabulous as a hulking mentally retarded man who has a heart of gold, only to be continually harassed by the bully who compensates for his short man syndrome. In 1941 Universal studio wanted to rework and release a different take after the film Werewolf of London (1935) was a financial flop, deemed as too similar to the 1931 version of MGM's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Universal cast Lon Chaney Jr. as the The Wolf Man (1941), with refurbished makeup effects, and a fine script by Curtis Siodmak. Wolf Man is the second Universal installment of the werewolf series, and catapulted Chaney into stardom. Chaney was very effective in the role, and was also well suited as Boris Karloff's replacement in the Frankenstein series in Universals fourth installment The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942). I assume Universal felt Chaney could effectively portray the legendary Count Dracula here, or at the very least could capitalize on his success as the Wolf Man; capitalize on his part as Frankenstein, or continue to reap rewards by trading on the name of his more talented father, horror Icon Lon Chaney. Either way, they were wrong.

Chaney has no sex appeal. He is dull and doesn't attempt a Lugosi-esq accent for this role. In The Wolf Man he is able to imbue a man conflicted with his state, but in this film a man dealing with inner turmoil is unnecessary. The conflicted vampire is taken up in latter films, but in 1943 this turmoil is not the path taken by the director Robert Siodmak, the writers brother. I always thought Dracula to be more suited as a leering manipulator who is desired by the fairer sex. Chaney does not look the part. His face is fleshy and he lacks the charisma that is needed here. A starker facial structure or someone possessing more traditional matinée idol good looks would have been a better fit. Chaney looks more likely as a truck driver, or an eventual Elvis aficionado. His pencil thin moustache does not work, nor does his less than slicked salt and pepper hair. He doesn't have a menace, and his expressions are bland.

I guess I could see Universal taking the Count to New Orleans, and capitalizing the Gothic setting. It worked for Ann Rice in her novels written several decades later, but it doesn't look like he would have enough prey in the backwoods and swamps portrayed here. The swamps look good, and the cinematography is well done, but this local seems to be an odd choice. His wife also looks good; Katherine is hot and does have some sex appeal. Where is her Southern accent? No one in Louisiana has an accent? No one here does, they all seem t come from a soundstage, which I suppose is better than the British accent that normally populates a horror film. The dialogue gets campy near the end when one of the policemen states: "You mean to tell me that skeleton is all that's left of Count Alucard?" "It's got his ring with his family crest on it, the same crest that's on his luggage." I don't know whether that is efficient police work, or an oversight in their hurried quest to pronounce Count Alucard dead. Even harder to stomach is the reworking of Count Dracula name, which is nothing more than spelling his name backwards. Twice Dracula is seen reflected in a mirror. I'm pretty sure this is more of an oversight that a reworking of the details of Dracula legend. The movie used a lot of the flying bat effects. It was a large bat, and seemed to be well done, especially for 1943. I thought the movie did a pretty good job with making the bat transform into the Count. The Count and his bride transforming into wisps of smoke is a little much. I think this is the first film to display Dracula with more strength than a human.

Bottom line: I'll give Son of Dracula a 57. Poor casting of the Dracula is unforgivable. This could have been a much better film. It was well shot, and looked good but Lon Chaney Jr. as the Count is a miss.

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.

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.