Son of Dracula

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.

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.

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…

I'd heard a lot about this film and even though I love Nilsson, I expected very little of it. Out of curiosity, I found a copy on Ebay and bought it. When i watched it today, it was everything i'd expected, but I really enjoyed it.

It's the type of film that needs to be taken for what it is: rock musicians doing a campy horror film in the 70's.

So the plot was weak, but the music was excellent. The acting was not awesome, but I didn't think it would be.

If you really like high quality movies that require a lot of brainpower, I'd suggest passing this one up. But if you just want something fun and some great tunes, I'd check it out.

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.