La maison de Dracula

It is an open house for the Frankenstein monster, Dracula, and the wolfman again in this follow-up to House of Frankenstein, again directed by Erle C. Kenton. Though not as polished and exciting as HOF, House of Dracula is by no means a disappointment. This time round a kindly doctor played by Onslow Stevens agrees to help not only Dracula with blood transfusions and the like but also Larry Talbot, played again by Lon Chaney. Assisted by his hunchbacked nurse, nicely played by Jane Adams, and his other nurse, the luscious Martha O'Driscoll, Stevens works hard to help both monsters with success and failure. John Carradine again plays Dracula, and he is enigmatic. The story deals mostly again with helping Talbot fight the curse of the full moon. Dracula's role is larger here than in HOF, and Carradine plays the vampire with subtlety. Glenn Strange is back as the monster, but his part is smaller than it was in HOF. As with most of Universal's horror pictures, there is a generous dose of eerie settings and dark atmospheres. A lot of fun!

Much of what is written here is useful, but I'd like to add a few comments. Interestingly for Universal horror fans, House of Dracula is the only film in the Frankenstein series that does not star Karloff or Lugosi. The absence of these two horror heavyweights makes the film seem more disjointed than other entries (though still fun.) (John Carradine, I think scores best, while Mr. Chaney, Jr., is merely repeating himself. House of D also introduces a female hunchback!) I wonder if Karloff and Lugosi are both absent because they were working on "The Body Snatcher," which was released the same year and is arguably Karloff's last great horror film.

Universal was known for strong production values on their products, even for their "B" pics. This entry, the last serious film in the talkie horror cycle had those elements, but they were rushed. The action was rushed. The music was rushed. Even though the score was stock music from several of the predecessor films, the themes were played way too fast this time. This is most evident during the chase scene where the whole village pursues Dr. Edelman through the cemetery back to his castle. The violinists must have had severe cramps after that sequence.

The last 5 minutes were even worse than the average serial chapter. Erle Kenton usually did much better as he did with House of F and Ghost in previous attempts. This was a bad imitation of Ford Beebe. It was just a collision of story and budget that was done on the cheap.

It seems like Universal was in a great hurry to get out of the horror business. This could have been a much better film with slowing down the pace (and music) to allow some of the flow to make sense.

There were some good scenes, for example when Baron Latos was seducing Nurse Morrell, the piano changing from Beethoven to Satan's music was well done. Carradine's overall performance as Dracula was quite good. It deserved to be in a better film.

House of Frankenstein was a much better film than House of Dracula simply for having a better pace. I wonder if anyone in the horror unit looked back at this last chapter with regret.

That said, the horror cycle was a pretty good ride. No other studio put out a similar product on a consistent basis, with the possible exception of SOME of the Lewton films at RKO. I still watch House of Dracula even with its shortcomings. It's like an old friend that comes over for a visit; even if he's not your BEST friend, you understand him and are comfortable with him. That's still not a bad thing.

House of Dracula works from the same basic premise as House of Frankenstein from the year before; namely that Universal's three most famous monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man are appearing in the movie together. Naturally, the film is rather messy therefore, but the fact that all three monsters are there is usually enough to ensure that the film's sixty seven minutes don't become boring. It's obvious that the idea of making another monster mash came into the writer's head before an actual plot did, as the yarn we're given isn't exactly without holes. The plot sees Count Dracula arrive at Dr. Edelman's home asking for a cure for his vampirism. Then, what can only be described as a coincidence, sees Lawrence Talbot, a.k.a. The Wolf Man turn up asking for a cure for his affliction! It turns out that Dracula is on the prowl for Edelman's daughter, but Talbot really is serious. When it turns out that he can't be stopped from turning into a wolf, The Wolf Man throws himself into the sea...where he ends up finding Frankenstein's Monster.

Overall, this film isn't as good as the earlier House of Frankenstein. The 1944 film put its plot together better than this entry in the series does, as the plot here doesn't give equal time to each Universal monster. Dracula's plot is the biggest at first, but soon fizzles out only to resurface at the end. The Wolf Man is the star of the show, but his story never really develops, and is essentially just another version of the plot he always finds himself in. Frankenstein's Monster is given the coldest hand, as he appears in the movie merely as an afterthought, and an obvious excuse to ensure that all three monsters appear in the movie. The story of the doctor who binds all three together is the most interesting, but this is a little disappointing as he isn't the reason why people will see this film. The acting is good enough, with John Carradine showing his sinister side and Lon Chaney Jr once again making sure that his character is bathed in tragedy. Glenn Strange is given nothing to do, and Onslow Stevens proves the real highlight as Dr Edelman. Overall, this film won't do much for anyone that isn't a fan of Universal horror; but as silly monster movies go, House of Dracula is worth seeing.

This is the least of the Universal horror films featuring any of the "Big 3"==Frankenstein's monster, Dracula and the Wolfman. Despite John Carradine's Dracula being killed pretty thoroughly in the last film, he's back again. And, Frankenstein is here as well. However, what's totally new is the type of doctor they meet. This guy is interested in helping the monsters to become good respectable citizens and sets about ridding them of their evil ways. Of course, like always, the good intentioned doctor is a real idiot and he really is doing Dracula's evil bidding--as he wants Frankenstein revived so he can serve him in his plan for global evil. Sure. Whatever. Anyway, apart from the odd plot, there's really nothing new here. It's a decent film sure to please fans of the genre, but is about the most skipable monster movie Universal made featuring any of the Big 3.