Son of Dracula

Son of Dracula sees the Universal Monster series cementing itself into programmer status. I'm continuing to enjoy myself, but we've moved from spooky, shadowy classics to exhilarating camp to films that conjures nostalgia to being a kid watching black and white horror films on PBS at 10pm. Son of Dracula: gateway drug.

Finally, Dracula hits the United States slinking around the southern swamps. A vampire running amok a plantation is a breath of fresh air, all the racism you can sink your fangs into. Lon Chaney Jr kinda sucks (pun intended)

It's actually a bit better than both Dracula and Dracula's Daughter, less reliant on winks at the audience and more on a creepy atmosphere. Both the script and the visuals help it out there. It also has a well done ending, certainly better than the first two films. The acting is a bit weak, though.

It's uneven, but they do a lot of really striking and eerie things with Dracula - the mist effect never ceases to be creepy. It all builds up to a strong and sad conclusion.

I kinda liked this one but it looks like I might be the only one lol. Ok Lon Chaney isn’t the best Drac and did he really need ANOTHER Universal monster after wolfman, Franky & the mummy??? but that said I liked the bizarre Dracula in American plantation era south settings, plus the assorted double crossings and hidden motivations and thought the transformations into mist and/or bat were pretty cool. Vampire turning into mist and slipping through jail bars half century before T1000 did in T2.

Chaney Jr. is completely unremarkable as the vampire, and it's kind of a rehash of the Browning film. But it's well directed by Siodmak and features some gorgeous photography and set design. Worth a watch.

O filho de Dracula estreava há 80 anos no México. E eis que encontrei um Siodmak perdido na minha coleção, não tinha ideia que ele tinha dirigido para o horrorverse da Universal, sua mise en scène expressionista com luz e sombras bem marcadas está toda lá, embora narrativamente o filme seja bem tolinho. Mais ou menos como o Sam Raimi ou a Chloé Zhao dirigindo pra Marvel. Box Ataúde Macabro.

A step down in the franchise. Dracula, going by the ridiculous nickname Alucard and weakly portrayed by the far from menacing Lon Chaney Jr., is an extra in his own movie. Thus, "Son Of Dracula" works best when Frank and Doctor Brewster are at the forefront and is given color by the former's unraveling and the latter's search for the truth. The twist is decent, Siodmak strikes up notable atmosphere here and there, and the effects are a mixed bag (the mist's pretty cool, the bat still sucks).

Moves a bit slow, yet has some good visuals and has it's own quality moments. The swamp scene where Dracula floats towards Katherine is utterly fantastic.

Other than more special efx shots of turning into bat&mist & a great coffin hiding place under swamp water (which he contrivedly gives up for no reason), this miscast Dracula engages in too many pedestrian actions (doing his own shoveling, getting legally married) to be impressive/compelling in any way. About 2/3rds of the way in, he’s even more undercut as we discover he’s a dupe for a mortal even more nefarious than he. Still, I have to credit the twist & attempt to do something different.

I almost didn't notice that that was Junior in the title role...almost (so kudos to Siodmak for his valiant attempts at salvaging a miscasting). And let's just hope that this was the very first movie to ever come up with that "Alucard" thing (otherwise they've got no excuse at all). Anyway, lots of nice Expressionist touches in the direction.

Passes the time.

Liked the effects and the cinematography but otherwise quite uninteresting.

I always enjoy Universal horror movies, regardless of how cheesy they seem at times. They kept rowing and rowing to try and make Son of Dracula (1943) make sense, which was the most humorous thing about it. Next to Lon Chaney Jr. trying to be the elegant Dracula. Nah, he's better off playing more monstrous monsters. Still there's nothing like the feel of these old creepers.

Lon Chaney Jr. is indeed one of the worst Dracula's ever. The film itself was pretty decent with lots of effects shots. Overall the film is pretty average bogged down with bland acting and a very miscast Lon Chaney Jr.

Very good for a 43 film.

68.500

Lon Chaney Jr. = worst Dracula ever.

Lon Chaney Jr., whom I often like, is maybe the most unconvincing Dracula ever. It's a pretty dull film in other aspects, too, although not badly made. There are some effective scenes here, though, and the plot takes some unexpected turns.

All these damn 40s Dracula/Mummy/Wolfman films are the same. Just dull. I do like Lon Chaney Jr, but he was a pretty lame Dracula.

Lon Chaney Jr. is a complete bore and he makes a horrible Dracula, which is actually interesting because I dug him as The Wolf Man, even if said movie was also pretty crappy. The only thing worth it in this one is the end scene where Dracula is killed, that was decent.

Chaney is badly miscast, but if you can get past that, this emerges as one of the best Universals of the period. Stylishly directed and photographed, with a memorably melancholy air.

Worst thing in this film is Lon Chaney Jr.. I know he isn't a bad actor, because he was great in the Wolf Man, but he looks more like a whimp librarian type here, than count Alucard. The movie also suffers from over-melodramatisation. At least i enjoyed character and beauty of Louise Allbritton.

Crazy lady dupes Drac to get immortality and have her human lover kill Drac before making him a vampire. Morbid, indeed.