User Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

Katherine "Kathy" Caldwell (Louise Allbritton) is the fiancée of Frank Stanley (Robert Paige) and sister of Claire Caldwell (Evelyn Ankers) and lives in Dark Oaks farm, where her father runs a plantation. After traveling to Budapest, Kathy invites her friend Count Alucard (Lon Chaney) to visit Dark Oaks. On the day of the arrival, the count is the guest of honor of a ball in the farmhouse, but only his luggage comes in the train. During the night, Alucard that is actually Count Dracula arrives and kills Kathy's father. The family friend Dr. Harry Brewster (Frank Craven) suspects of the mysterious Alucard and asks information about his family to his friend Prof. Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg). Meanwhile Kathy is the heiress of Dark Oaks and she secretly marries the Count Dracula. Frank follows her and accidentally shoots Kathy to death. When Dr. Brewster meets Kathy at home, he realizes that she got married to Dracula and is also a vampire.

Directed by Robert Siodmak, "Son of Dracula" has good story, atmosphere in the Louisiana swamps and special effects. However, Lon Chaney Jr. is miscast, creepy but too old to be the "romantic pair" of Louise Allbritoon and without the style of Bela Lugosi. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Filho de Drácula" ("The Son of Dracula")

For those who like atmospheric horror, Son Of Dracula is a treat.

Count Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards) goes to Louisiana to make willing Louise Allbritton his bride. But she has other ideas up her sleeve.

This film features the first man-into-bat transformation ever seen on camera. In Dracula (1931) no transformations were shown on screen. Both John Carradine and Bela Lugosi would get similar treatment over the next five years.

Lon Chaney Jr. Plays Count Alucard, the son of Count Dracula. His father Lon Chaney had been cast as the title character in Dracula (1931) but died of a throat hemorrhage on August 26, 1930 at the age of 47 before the filming could begin.

The production animating Alucard's bat transformations, while special effects also construct his ability to float over water. While low-fi, the tricks are fun to watch, adding a pinch of cinematic sophistication, which helps to sell the fantasy of Dracula.

The special effects wizard on Son of Dracula was John P. Fulton, who began his career as an assistant (uncredited) on the landmark film Frankenstein (1931) and eventually rose to become the head of Universal's Special Effects department. His innovative work on early films like The Invisible Man (1933) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935) helped lay the groundwork for the astonishing modern effects he created for Son of Dracula. Fulton went on to win three Academy Awards for his special effects work on later films, including The Ten Commandments (1956) in which he created the celebrated parting of the Red Sea sequence, which left audiences gasping in amazement.

Son of Dracula remains an underrated eerie gem of the classic horror genre with the dark undercurrent of a noir. Over the years fans and critics of the genre have rediscovered the film and have come to appreciate Son of Dracula as a unique and satisfying contribution to Universal's horror canon.

Having already appeared as The Wolf Man, The Mummy AND Frankenstein's Monster, Lon Chaney dons a black cape to play yet another classic Universal horror character, Count Dracula (NOT his son, as the title would have us believe). Travelling under the oh-so-clever pseudonym of Count Alucard, Dracula arrives in America, the guest of occult obsessed beauty Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), who intends to marry the vampire and gain immortality.

For much of its running time, Son of Dracula is quite a shambolic affair, the sloppy plot seemingly going nowhere slowly. Eventually, the story gets a little more interesting, as Katherine's sinister intentions become clearer, but, even then, Chaney's lacklustre turn as the Count drains proceedings of much of its lifeblood. Where the film does succeed is with several well-crafted scenes of the macabre—the best being Dracula's silent glide towards Katherine across a swamp—and with its enjoyable special effects, including cinema's first transformation from man to bat, some atmospheric shots of Dracula in mist form, and a few hilarious rubber bats on wires.

I thought Lon Chaney, Jr. was a terrible casting choice. He was hardly menacing with a tremendously dull character and with no sophistication. Dracula is supposed to be from Transylvania but he sounded like he was from the mid-western U.S. He even looked dull, not like a villain or even a leading man. The special effects were top notch for the time period and the sets were wonderfully moody and mysterious. The male costuming was good but the female costuming was excellent with flowing dresses. Actually, I am surprised that the censors allowed the very sensual dresses. The whole "Alucard" idea was slightly interesting but they should have stuck with the classic story. The cinematography for indoor scenes was flat but the outside scenes were the most attractive.

The movie was not scary but was moderately interesting.

Producer Carl Laemmle Jr changed history of horror cinema when he hired director Tod Browning to make the first official adaptation to Bram Stoker's classic novel "Dracula". This was the beginning of Universal Studios' tradition of Gothic horror that reigned triumphant through the 30s and early 40s. Robert Siodmak's "Son of Dracula", an alternative sequel (it doesn't make any reference to the earlier "Dracula's Daughter") to Browning's classic, is probably the last classic in the long line of films Universal produced about the monsters they gave life in the 30s.

"Son of Dracula" takes place decades after the first film, when the Dracula's story is now considered a mere myth. The story begins with the arrival of Count Alucard (Lon Chaney Jr.) to America, as the mysterious Carpathian noble has been invited to the country by Katherine 'Kay' Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), a young rich woman with a morbid interest for the supernatural. Soon Kay finds herself in love with the strange Count, something that worries her boyfriend Frank (Robert Paige) and family's friend Prof. Brewster (Frank Craven), as they suspect that there's something wrong with the strange foreigner.

Director of many B-Movies before this job, Robert Siodmak would become Universal's most important exponent of the noir style and "Son of Dracula" definitely forecasts his brilliant future in the genre. The film shows his great talent to combine haunting and atmospheric visuals with a great screenplay (by his brother, Curt Siodmak), and it moves away from the series' roots in German Expressionism to what would be called Film Noir, creating what seems to be the missing link between Universal's horror films and their subsequent Noir movies.

While Robert Siodmak's talent is almost unquestionable, the films owes a lot of its success to Curt Siodmak's cleverly written script. Just like in his previous "The Wolf Man", the story is charged with a dark pessimistic feeling of dread that gives the film a unique feeling (contrary to most Universal horrors, there's almost no comedy) that rather than making the film dull or boring it enhances its captivating charm. With clever plot twists and a good dose of suspense, Siodmak's plot also feels like horror themed hard-boiled fiction.

Many has been written about Siodmak's choice of Lon Chaney Jr. to play the Count's descendant, but while there's no doubt that he was not the best choice for the role, he wasn't really too bad in it. Sure, Chaney's appearance suits better the bulkier monsters but he gets the job done and his sad face suits the dark theme of deception the movie has. Robert Paige as the film's "hero" (for lack of a better word) is very effective and his usual co-star Louise Allbritton makes a great femme fatal. Frank Craven and J. Edward Bromberg are brilliant as the vampire hunters and it could be said that despite the miscast of Chaney the whole cast makes a great job.

"Son of Dracula" is a top-notch film considering it was conceived as a B-movie. Robert Siodmak makes great use of his resources and the film rivals the first film in quality and overall composition. One of the better sequels of the Universal Studios' films, it's main flaw may be that those expecting a typical Universal horror may be disappointed by its dark Noir theme and its pessimistic tone.

Often forgotten among the many other films in the series (not unusual considering that the first two Frankenstein sequels were masterpieces), "Son of Dracula" is a worthy sequel to Browning's classic and definitely superior to the previous "Dracula's Daughter". A must see for fans of Robert Siodmak who will find the roots of his style deep in this film. 8/10

Robert Siodmak directed this second sequel to "Dracula", casting Lon Chaney Jr. as Count Alucard(backwards!) who arrives at the southern plantation Dark Oaks at the invitation of Katharine Caldwell(played by Louise Albritten) who is engaged to Frank Stanley(played by Robert Paige). Alucard however wants Katharine, who then marries him, though as it turns out, this is all part of a morbid plan... Frank Craven & J. Edward Bromberg play Alucard's opponents, who learn the truth of his identity. Evelyn Ankers is sadly wasted as Katharine's sister Claire. Reasonably good film has fine atmosphere and a polished look, with an unconventional story, which is also muddled, since it is not clear exactly who this "Dracula" is, or if indeed he is related to Lugosi. Some supporting characters are weak as well, though Chaney does give the lead role a good try. Last of the series too.

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.

Any fan of the Dracula movies will certainly find this one entertaining and watchable with a good cast headed by LON CHANEY, JR., looking more distinguished than usual as Count Alucard with his eye on making LOUISE ALBRITTON his plantation wife so he can inherit Dark Oaks.

ROBERT PAIGE, reliable Universal contract player, and EVELYN ANKERS, as Albritton's sensible sister, along with FRANK CRAVEN as a concerned doctor, head the supporting cast. Chaney, unfortunately, is more stiff than comfortable in the role of the vampire count, reciting his lines with a monotonous tone to convey mystery but coming off as sounding foolish rather than sinister. There have been better Draculas, in other words.

The plot thickens as Craven and Paige attempt to get to the bottom of the mystery with the help of a professor who specializes in studies of vampires (J. EDWARD BROMBERG). Together they join forces to destroy Dracula.

Summing up: Nice, atmospheric little thriller from Universal on a B budget directed at a brisk pace by Robert Siodmak.

Like the son of another famous Universal monster, this third entry in the series (not counting the 1931 Spanish Dracula) is a solid film all round: marvelous atmosphere, gripping narrative, superb handling. Watching this soon after THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1943), it is easy to discern the difference a talented film-maker can do (as Robert Siodmak certainly was) as opposed to a journeyman director like Lew Landers. Siodmak gives the film a distinctly noir-ish feel, as opposed to the more traditional Gothic look: apart from the standard shadowy lighting, we get Louise Albritton as a femme fatale and Robert Paige as the brooding hero! The film's musty Southern setting ought not to work but it does somehow, for how can one deny the effectiveness of Dracula Jr.'s coffin rising from the depth of a swamp; indeed, substituting his castle in Transylvania with an equally gloomy and mysterious Southern mansion was an inspired touch.

Much has been said of Chaney's inappropriateness for the part: well, I liked him overall and he was quite effective in his various confrontations with Paige (particularly during the climax, one of the best in the Universal canon) or vampire hunters J. Edward Bromberg and Frank Craven; he may not look like a ladies' man but then Lugosi himself was past his prime in THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE! The rest of the cast is ably filled as well: Paige and Albritton are unusually animated although, admittedly, their roles aren't those of the typical Universal leads; Bromberg makes a fine Van Helsing surrogate and Craven is equally good as the practical town doctor suddenly coming face to face with the supernatural; Evelyn Ankers and Samuel S. Hinds' roles are subsidiary ones and certainly straightforward in comparison but their presence in such films is always welcome.

Count Alucard is invited to Louisiana, USA, by plantation heiress Katherine Caldwell but his name soon attracts suspicion from one Dr Brewster (Alucard spelt backwards is Dracula). Lon Chaney Jr plays the Count, sporting a suave moustache but sadly looking a bit tubby. He doesn't have the passion of Lugosi or the presence of Lee, however Chaney is a horror legend and for me that's good enough. Strangely he travels to the US from Hungry, not Transylvania, and has an American accent, not an East European one. Louise Albritton plays Katherine, a woman of classic beauty. Alucard's transformation effects to both bat and mist are good, as are the film sets. It is also very atmospheric, despite a few weaknesses it is a good and enjoyable entry in the old Dracula cycle.

With "Son of Dracula" Lon Chaney Jr. completed the circle of having portrayed each of Universal's four main monsters (The Wolfman, Frankenstein's Monster, The Mummy, Dracula).

Chaney, who was always in the shadow of his more famous father, gives a chilling performance as Dracula. His slicked back greying hair and sinister mustache and domineering presence only add to his character. Louise Allbritton is good as his chief victim, whom he has followed from Transylvania to the U.S. in search of new victims. Robert Paige is the rejected suitor who is almost drawn into the evil. Evelyn Ankers has little to do as Allbritton's sister. Curiously, Ankers, who was known for her blood-curdling scream in a number of other Universal features, does not so much as raise her voice in this one. As always, Universal provided eerie, dark and creepy settings for the action.

It is puzzling, given Chaney's excellent performance, that Universal chose not to make any further Dracula pictures at that time. But then, Hollywood never learned how to fully utilize the considerable talents of Lon Chaney Jr.

Count Alucard (Lon Chaney Jr) finds his way from Budapest to the swamps of the Deep South; his four nemeses are a medical doctor (Frank Craven), a university professor (J. Edward Bromberg), a jilted fiancé (Robert Paige) and the woman he loves (Louise Allbritton).

The film has a few points of historical interest. This was director Robert Siodmak's first film for Universal studios, and was written by Curt Siodmak (his brother). It also happens to be the first film where a vampire is actually shown physically transforming into a bat on screen. For what it is worth, the effects are actually pretty darn good considering the time.

Whether the film is actually good or not depends on how you look at it. For a fun story of a man, the woman he loves, and the vampire who comes between them... well, then it is pretty good. The plot is engaging and moves at a good pace, with Bromberg playing the VanHelsing role nicely.

There are some questionable aspects, though. We are never really told how Dracula survived being staked and burned, and we are expected to believe his best disguise is to write his name backwards. Alucard? Really? I also thought the casting of Lon Chaney Jr was a bit strange -- he does a great job, but he was already known as the Wolfman...

Overall, I think a stronger film than the predecessor (Dracula's Daughter), but not without its flaws.

There are some interesting things percolating around in this Lon Chaney Jr. Vehicle in the Dracula universe, but it's too leaden narratively, overly concerned with lore and rules and explaining them in detail, rather than telling an interesting story. It doesn't help that Chaney himself is horribly miscast as the titular count, but the director, Robert Siodmak, does some interesting things visually, especially regarding the new setting, and there's a surprisingly good ending that comes along. These smaller details do nothing to save the film as a whole, but at least it's not a complete slog.

The mysterious Count Alucard is coming to New Orleans at the invitation of Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), the daughter to a plantation owner who dies mysteriously in flames the night Alucard misses the train and appears several hours later mysteriously and with a tale of missing his car ride. The movie at least doesn't treat its audience like idiots, choosing to reveal to us early that of course this is Dracula. It's just the characters that have to figure it out. We even see a cleverly done (using the combination of animation and a dissolve) transformation of the count from bat to man.

Katherine has a fiancé, Frank (Robert Paige), who stands with her through the tragedy of her father's death, even when she reveals the hidden will that grants her Dark Oaks, the plantation, leaving the rest of the money to Katherine's sister, Claire (Evelyn Ankers). Katherine breaks things off with Frank, though, and quickly marries the strange Count Alucard in a secret ceremony at night, cutting off Dark Oaks from the rest of the world with the count talking about scientific experiments that will occupy them during the day and only having invited visitors at night. The town's doctor, Brewster (Frank Craven), reaches out to a professor at a local university, Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg) about the history of this supposedly Hungarian count, even wondering about the name spelled backwards into Dracula, and the exposition starts.

I thought we were going to get around a lot of it because Brewster is seen reading Dracula at one point, we even get a close up of the text with the heading clear as day. This would imply that the events of the first film were real, and that Jonathan Harker published his diary. Well, that's a neatly clever way to get around all the explanation characters need about the rules of vampires. Except that Lazlo ends up giving all of the explanation anyway. There are certain expansions of Dracula's powers, most notably his ability to turn into fog (something from the book that the films had never been able to implement), but we get a rerun of all of the rules, not just the new ones, and it's not like Bromberg delivers them with panache.

It really drags the film down. Not that it had been great up to this point, but it had been engaging enough, especially regarding the Southern Gothic look of the Louisiana bayou where Dracula stands tall on top of his coffin floating down a small stream. The setting allows for a lot of deep, dark shadows, kind of a prototype noir that Siodmak would later become more famous for like The Killers. Add in men with hats and even a femme fatale in the form of Katherine embracing the life of a vampire, and you're got Universal making a monster noir. I really appreciate that. It's where this movie is best.

There are confusions around a supposed death that Frank blames himself for, the slow realization by the characters of the dangerous evil that has invaded their shores, and we actually get a decent explanation for why the count would want to leave Transylvania in favor of the New World (something we never got in Dracula). Katherine ends up having an interesting hidden motive, but it's just kind of flatly laid out, preventing it from being much more than that.

The resolution is actually pretty thoroughly a downer, and it works. Along with the Southern Gothic vibe of the whole affair, it represents the main joys of the film. Frank has to make a choice. He can follow Katherine into evil, or he can find a way out for everyone. It works.

And yet, there are characters like Claire that go nowhere. There's Lazlo blandly explaining vampire lore. And in the middle of it all is Chaney. He felt appropriate as the out of place American brought to England to reconnect with his heritage in The Wolf Man, but he's just all wrong as a Transylvanian count. Never mind that he doesn't even try an accent (probably a good thing considering I imagine he couldn't have come close to pulling it off), but he's not really suave or charming. He doesn't sell himself as the count, especially in comparison to Bela Lugosi in the first film. This wouldn't be a problem if Count Alucard weren't supposed to essentially just be Dracula again. Dracula's Daughter went in a different direction with its protagonist, but she wasn't supposed to just be another Transylvania countess. She was trying to break with her heritage. Here, Alucard really is just another one, and giving the role to Chaney doesn't work.

Does the whole of the film work? Not really. Chaney's miscast and there's too much exposition. However, it does do well with its setting and its ending. That's not enough to make the whole film worthwhile, but it's enough to keep it from being a complete waste.

"Son of Dracula" (Universal, 1943), directed by Robert Siodmak, from an original story by Curtis Siodmak, the third in the cycle of Universal thrillers to center around the Dracula legend, and the first of the 1940s, ranks one of the best in the series. Its star, Lon Chaney Jr., famous for his previous role in the horror cycle as Lawrence Talbot in THE WOLF MAN (Universal, 1941), which would be followed by some more sequels throughout the 1940s, might have seemed an unlikely choice in playing the blood- sucking vampire, but on the contrary, Junior Chaney brings new life into the old vampire, sporting the usual black cape and an added touch of a mustache. Overlooking the hypnotic glassy eye stare created at best by Bela Lugosi in Dracula (Universal, 1931), he very well has proved himself as the fine horror film actor, for the time being anyway.

Unlike the previous Dracula outings (Dracula and Dracula'S DAUGHTER), which had taken place either in Transylvania or England, SON OF Dracula is set on American soil and stays there. It begins somewhere in the South where Frank Stanley (Robert Paige) and the family physician friend, Doctor Harry Brewster (Frank Craven) are at a train station awaiting for the arrival of an honored guest to Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), Count Alucard, whom she had met previously while visiting in Budapest, and is to be driven over to the Caldwell estate, but all they find are his crates and boxes (some of which consists of his native soil). That very night after a gathering in her home, Katherine's father (George Irving) mysteriously dies, with Dr. Brewster examining the body and finding two marks found on the late colonel's neck. Having noticed earlier on one of the crates that the name of Alucard spelled backwards is Dracula, Brewster decides to telephone Professor Lazio (J. Edward Bromberg), the well-known authority of the Count Dracula legend, who, after learning telling him all the details, warns Brewster that Katherine is in great danger, and intends on leaving Memphis to pay Brewster a visit to see what can be done. But it's too late. Katherine, who has a morbid fascination with death and eternal life, has already abandoned her fiancé, Frank, whom has loved her since childhood, to marry Count Alucard. They ghoulish couple obtain a honeymoon cottage in an old house at Dark Oaks. Frank follows them there to get Katherine back and threatens Alucard to leave town. Ignoring his threats, this leaves Frank to take out his revolver and shoot Alucard, but in turn he has killed Katherine, who was standing behind her husband. Finding that the bullets have gone through Alucard and into Katherine, Frank rushes out of the house to tell Dr. Brewster what has happened. Brewster comes to the cottage to find Alucard, and much to his surprise, sees Katherine very much alive. When Frank arrives with the authorities, they find Katherine dead in her coffin. After the arrival of Professor Lazio, more dark secrets are eventually revealed.

Reportedly dismissed as just another horror film upon its release, SON OF Dracula does have its share of bonuses that would have made the 1931 Dracula a visual experience had such advanced technology in special effects been available, along with some real clever touches, including the visiting count using an alias by spelling his name backwards; a very creepy musical score, compliments of Hans J. Salter, dark atmospheric background and fine effects ranging from a cloud of vapor forming into the presence of Dracula, to his transformation from bat to human figure, etc. Aside from Lon Chaney's carnation of Dracula, Louise Allbritton stands out a close second with her creepy appearance, ranging from her unusual dark and gloomy hairstyle to icy facial expressions. Even before she becomes the wife of the mysterious Count, her Katherine is already obsessed by the supernatural. Her sister, Claire, played by Evelyn Ankers is the logical half of the Caldwell sisters, and although she doesn't get to belt out a scream or two as she did in the aforementioned films, her presence adds to the story, as does J. Edward Bromberg's Professor Lazio, the authority of the Dracula legend. Bromberg's role could have very well been Professor Van Helsing (as previously played in the first two Dracula films of the 1930s), but instead, his role was inspired by him. Robert Paige, another Universal contract player, does well with his Frank Stanley performance, rising above the usual mediocre love interest-types of the day.

The supporting cast includes Samuel S. Hinds (Judge Simmons); Etta McDaniel (Sarah); Patrick Moriarty (The Sheriff); and Adeline De Walt Reynolds as Queen Zimba, the fortune telling gypsy, who after warning Katherine of her destiny and danger in marrying a corpse, she is met with a destiny of her own when encountered by a vampire bat that puts an end of her fortune telling forever. Reynold's brief bit as the fortune telling old hag is reminiscent to the kind of role Lucille LaVerne (of silent and early talkies) that made her famous.

Regardless of the misleading title, Count Alucard is never mentioned as Dracula's son, but as Count Dracula himself. SON OF Dracula, at 78 minutes, is the last really good and near original Dracula film of the 1940s. Before Bela Lugosi would do one more encore as Dracula in 1948's ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, the Dracula character would be revived again in two quickie installments (HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN in 1944; HOUSE OF Dracula in 1945) with John Carradine taking over as the Count, but only minor secondary performances.

SON OF Dracula, which played on the cable television's Sci-Fi Channel, American Movie Classics, and Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: October 1, 2017), as well as availability on both video cassette and DVD, is recommended viewing for a dark and gloomy Halloween night, or any night for that matter, particularly for classic horror movie fans. (***)

I've got to admit first off that I much prefer Universal's Frankenstein series to the Dracula one (same goes for Hammer Horror), but this third showing for the count isn't bad at all. The films following Tod Browning's 1931 original are not as professionally done - but so long as you go into them knowing that you're watching a B-movie, that shouldn't be a problem. Son of Dracula is better than Dracula's Daughter in my opinion, albeit only slightly. The story in this film hits home harder and while it lacks the sensuality of the previous Dracula sequel, that's made up for in several other areas. Unlike the last film, this one doesn't really follow on and is pretty much a solo entry in the Dracula series. We follow a morbid, yet naive heiress, who invites a man named Count Alucard (Dracula spelt backwards) to her U.S. home. Her boyfriend is suspicious of the newcomer, and this suspicion turns to jealously when the Count and the heiress are married. This then turns to tragedy when he accidentally shoots the heiress...

Despite being famous for the role, Bela Lugosi actually only played Dracula once; which is unfortunate, as the rest of the series could have benefited from having him in the lead. Lon Chaney Jr (a man who has played all of Universal's main villains) is a worthy replacement, however; but the Count just doesn't seem as sinister with him in the role. Robert Siodmak takes the director's chair and does a good job with it. The atmosphere isn't as thick and foreboding as his later film, The Spiral Staircase, and the tone is typically Universal in that it's 'fun' - but the film is continually dark and sinister, which is nice. The special effects are good considering the time that it was made, and seeing Alucard change into a bat or appear from a shroud of mist is always a highlight. The story takes in themes of love and selfishness, and the characters are actually rather well done. I can't say that either the characters or the film itself is a patch on the original Dracula book and film, but it was never meant to be and this film is a worthy addition to the Dracula series.