El hijo de Drácula

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.

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.

Lon Chaney, Jr. makes his debut as Count Alucard as Universal Pictures sought to revive the Dracula series. That's Dracula spelled backwards.

The undead legendary count has come to America in response to Louise Allbritton who is a southern belle who dabbles in the occult to the point of morbidity. Allbritton has been acting strange lately which is concerning both her sister Evelyn Ankers and her fiancé Robert Paige. Soon after Chaney arrives both Adeline DeWalt Reynolds, a swamp spirit woman and Allbritton and Ankers father George Irving die under mysterious circumstances.

A change in Irving's will leaves Allbritton the plantation and Ankers all the cash. And then Alucard and Allbritton are married. When Paige suspects something more than an ordinary jilting the action really starts.

There are a pair of Von Helsings in this played by country doctor Frank Craven and Hungarian professor J. Edward Bromberg. As incidents similar to what ravaged his native land start to happen both Craven and Bromberg suspect the undead are alive and well.

Although no one could ever be a vampire like Bela Lugosi, Chaney does a pretty good job in the role completing a monster trifecta of playing Dracula, the Frankenstein monster, and the Wolfman for Universal. He was every bit the horror film master that his father was.

Next to Chaney and maybe in some ways better than Chaney is Paige in this film. Robert Paige who usually played light leading men in comedies and musicals gives a fine dramatic portrait of a man just shattered by the forces he's dealing with and can't comprehend. This might very well have been his career role.

Son Of Dracula has a high place in the classic Universal pantheon of horror films.

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.

MORD39 RATING: *** out of ****

First and foremost, Lon Chaney's underrated performance in this film must be addressed. The name of the movie is "SON of Dracula," and Chaney is playing an off-shoot of the Count, not the actual King of Vampires Himself. It is true that Lon is in a tad over his head, but if you accept that he's not THE Dracula, it's a fine performance.

Who says that vampires must look or speak a certain way? Especially given the understanding as suggested above? A line in this film says that the vampire might be - quote- "a descendant of Count Dracula". And of course, we have the title itself to explain the Count's identity.

Anyway, SON OF DRACULA is one of Universal's best 40's shows, filled with mood and atmosphere. A new plotline is introduced as we have a morbid woman (played wonderfully by Louise Allbritton) who wants to use the Count for her own scheme. It's original, even by today's standards, and a good horror movie.