A little history (because I'm a geek who likes to share the stupid knowledge in my head). Carl Laemle oversaw Universal in the early 30s when they created some of cinema's most iconic creatures (Dracula, FRANKENSTEIN and THE MUMMY), along with a few sequels (BRIDE OF FRANK, Dracula'S DAUGHTER). By the later 30s, he had been ousted and the studio he created taken over. This new leadership began to revamp their monster movies in a way that we would now call "reboots", by taking the same monsters and putting them in entirely new story lines and settings, with new characters. This essentially starts with the success of SON OF FRANKENSTEIN, which led to THE MUMMY's HAND. After creating a new monster icon in THE WOLF MAN, Uni finally set its' sights on their original monster success, the one and only Dracula, who gets his own reboot in SON OF Dracula.
They cast Lon Chaney Jr in the title role (the only man to have played all 4 of the classic Universal monsters) and brought him to the US (much as they did with the Mummy series), in a story that sees Dracula begin an unholy matrimony with a morbid young woman, who will ultimately prove to be his undoing.
As a lover of Universal monsters, I enjoy all of them and their sequels for the Saturday night fun they provide and the memories of how I responded to these movies as a kid. As a current viewer, I can see that this movie is really a mess. After the success of the original Dracula, Uni never seemed to know what to do with the character, which becomes even more evident with the Carradine portrayals in the monster mashes. Unlike the much better plotted Mummy and Frankenstein series, there is no real continuity, at all, in the Dracula story. Moving the story to the states takes away a sense of the sinister mystery that made the original movie work so well. I can understand that they were going for the same foggy, exotic atmosphere in a cheaper budget setting, but the vampire just feels so out of place here.
Lon Chaney is one of my favorites from this era, but just doesn't do a suitable job as the Prince of Vampires. There is none of the suave romanticism, or any sense of pure evil. He's essentially a guy in a cape, who can transform into a bat now and then. I will give credit for the bat transformations, which naturally seem a bit hokey now, but must have been revolutionary at the time and still have a certain charm to them. The other actors are just as bad. None of the main characters are really likable in any way. Our heroine would be a "goth girl" in today's movies and comes off just as pretentiously obsessed with things in which she really doesn't seem to have any real knowledge. Her boyfriend comes off as a jerk on more than one occasion and is not someone I want to "win" in the end. The only characters who seem to resonate, at all, are the doctor and the professor (our Van Helsing roles).
I love the Universal monsters and would even count some of the 40s sequels as among my favorite classic movies, but I put this towards the lower end of the output. Yes, it's a fun movie for monster kids, but not one of the studio's best efforts.
They cast Lon Chaney Jr in the title role (the only man to have played all 4 of the classic Universal monsters) and brought him to the US (much as they did with the Mummy series), in a story that sees Dracula begin an unholy matrimony with a morbid young woman, who will ultimately prove to be his undoing.
As a lover of Universal monsters, I enjoy all of them and their sequels for the Saturday night fun they provide and the memories of how I responded to these movies as a kid. As a current viewer, I can see that this movie is really a mess. After the success of the original Dracula, Uni never seemed to know what to do with the character, which becomes even more evident with the Carradine portrayals in the monster mashes. Unlike the much better plotted Mummy and Frankenstein series, there is no real continuity, at all, in the Dracula story. Moving the story to the states takes away a sense of the sinister mystery that made the original movie work so well. I can understand that they were going for the same foggy, exotic atmosphere in a cheaper budget setting, but the vampire just feels so out of place here.
Lon Chaney is one of my favorites from this era, but just doesn't do a suitable job as the Prince of Vampires. There is none of the suave romanticism, or any sense of pure evil. He's essentially a guy in a cape, who can transform into a bat now and then. I will give credit for the bat transformations, which naturally seem a bit hokey now, but must have been revolutionary at the time and still have a certain charm to them. The other actors are just as bad. None of the main characters are really likable in any way. Our heroine would be a "goth girl" in today's movies and comes off just as pretentiously obsessed with things in which she really doesn't seem to have any real knowledge. Her boyfriend comes off as a jerk on more than one occasion and is not someone I want to "win" in the end. The only characters who seem to resonate, at all, are the doctor and the professor (our Van Helsing roles).
I love the Universal monsters and would even count some of the 40s sequels as among my favorite classic movies, but I put this towards the lower end of the output. Yes, it's a fun movie for monster kids, but not one of the studio's best efforts.