Rating: - Entertaining vampire yarn
Dracula shows up on a southern plantation to claim his vampire bride in this enjoyable slice of horror from Universal Studios. Surprisingly, the special effects are pretty good for the era, and Lon Chaney, Jr, doesn't make a bad vampire. It's no masterpiece, but it's fun.

---

Rating: - His Father's Son
Universal's 1943 "Son Of Dracula" is a great contribution to it's stable of gothic horror films. Universal departed in several ways in the creation of this film. Firstly, the story is placed in a contemporary southern setting in the U.S., rather than in the non-descript "euro setting" of many of it's other gothic films. This film also features the first "man to bat" transformations that still hold up today. It also expands the vampire legend by adding to the film vampire's powers not only the ability to transform into bats or wolves, but also to a swirling mist, also visually well executed by the film's makers. An interesting controversy surrounds this film and most horror film buffs know what I am talking about. But believe me, despite traditional arguments to the contrary, as to whether the vampire of the title is actually Dracula or his son, the answer is actually left ultimately for the viewer to decide. In an exchange between vampire hunters Dr. Lazslo and Dr.Brewster, Count Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards),is described as being either Dracula himself or a "descendent" of Dracula- it is never actually determined which in the film it is. However, I believe most viewers, like myself, are satisfied that the vampire in question is indeed Dracula himself. The story line is completely orginal and well done in that it explores the relationship between human beings and the undead on an entirely new level with a human being "willingly" becoming a vampire in order to obtain eternal life- an interesting take on the Dracula formula, raising interesting questions about human existence, recalling "Faust".
Lon Chaney Jr.'s performance, despite what some critics have dismissed as a bad case of miscasting, in fact, brings a youthful power to the role that would later be improved upon by Christopher Lee in Hammer Film's 'Horror of Dracula" in 1958. His Dracula is both cruel and powerful, and as is the case with many a vampire, he has a weakness for a beautiful neck. In this case that neck belongs to the wonderful Louise Allbritton, playing a victim who in her own way victimizes Dracula himself-but enough about the plot, lest I give it away. Son of Dracula is well worth seeing. It is a great example of Universal's second cycle of gothic horror films released during the 1940s. If you love vampires, you'll love "Son of Dracula'. Highly recommended.

---

Rating: - The real Dracula would never claim Son of Dracula
It's hard to imagine a more lackluster Dracula film than 1943's Son of Dracula. The plot is pretty straightforward, but the whole premise is almost laughable. The special effects, while campy by today's standards, would have been a plus had the film not relied on them far too heavily. Only the strangely soothing voice of Frank Craven in the role of Dr. Brewster won me over, but his positive contributions are more than offset by Lon Chaney, Jr.'s incredibly boring performance. The strange resemblance of Robert Paige to TV's Gomer Pyle offered me more excitement and food for thought than this movie ever did.

First off, the vampire in this film is not the son of Dracula; he is a Count Dracula, but his utter lack of presence and personality makes him nothing like the Count Dracula of Bram Stoker and Bela Lugosi fame. Apparently, the Count has basically bled his Transylvania home region dry and has decided to seek fresh, new blood in America - Louisiana, to be exact. His brilliant method of concealing his identity is to call himself Count Alucard (which any fool can see is Dracula spelled backward). Having developed some sort of relationship with heiress Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), he journeys to her estate in Louisiana and promises to reward her devotion with the gift of eternal life. Katherine's fiancé Frank Stanley (Robert Paige) naturally doesn't take these doings sitting down, and in his murderous hatred of the Count he ends up shooting Katherine (in his defense, he had no way of knowing that the bullets would travel through the Count's body without effect). Dr. Brewton (Frank Craven) is the only person with suspicions as to the true identity of Count Alucard, and he calls in the assistance of the European Professor Lazslo (J. Edward Bromberg) . The professor's main job in the film is to go around saying things such as Ha! I could have told you that would happen! Van Helsing, he isn't.

The film does introduce a couple of new vampire concepts, including a new means for killing a vampire. Much more memorable, however, is the vampire's ability to take the form of a hazy mist, a power that allows Count Alucard easy access to his enemies. The movie also goes out of its way to reveal the transformation of the vampire to and from its bat form - this is pretty cool the first couple of times but soon grows old. The main problem with Son of Dracula, however, is (and some will disagree with me on this) Lon Chaney, Jr. Count Alucard couldn't scare a flea off of a dog, much less strike fear or any other sort of emotion (besides unbearable boredom) in the hearts of viewers. Sure, he sneaks up on his enemies a time or two in the form of a mist, but he does nothing but offer vague threats to those who would challenge him. Even those bland threats are offered in a voice free of any sort of European accent (despite the fact Alucard has just come over from his Eastern European homeland).

It's hard to believe that the same writer who gave us the novel Donovan's Brain and the script for Universal's classic The Wolf Man could have produced such a limp story as this. Perhaps he realized just how incapable Chaney was of playing a decent vampire and decided the extra effort to actually write a good story would not be worth the trouble. This may not be the worst Dracula movie ever made, but it may well be the most painfully boring one.

---

Rating: - Eerie Horror Story with Surprising Twists on an Old Legend
"Son of Dracula", is often dismissed in film critic circles as minor league Universal horror especially in the light of the earlier classic Lugosi and Karloff efforts. However I find this little production has much to offer old time horror movie fans. While not essentially "horrific' or even your standard Vampire tale, it is filled with good performers who take their roles very seriously, wonderfully atmospheric sets which add greatly to the eerie qualities of the story, and a refreshing new turn on the Dracula legend by having the unlikely Lon Chaney Jnr in the lead as the mysterious "Count Alucard".

Universal Studios, long the home of old style horror movie making always had a way of making many of their lower budget productions have a polished look about them. "Son of Dracula", is a classic example of this as it has that great look about it which greatly adds to the enjoyment of the story. The story revolves around a decaying plantation, "Dark Oaks", in the deep South complete with eerie old mansion, misty swamps and wilderness. Living at the mansion are Col. Caldwell (George Orwell) and his two daughters, Katharine (Louise Allbritton), who is fascinated with all things to do with the spirit world and Claire (Evelyn Ankers). Katharine has just returned from Europe where she met and fell in love with the mysterious Count Alucard (Lon Chaney Jnr)in Budapest. Her interest was aroused more from her passion for the occult than anything else and she sees the Count as a way of expanding her knowledge of the supernatural. There is something very unsettling about the Count however and upon his arrival at the plantation things start to go horribly wrong with first the Colonel's death by mysterious means and then Katharine spurning childhood sweetheart Frank Stanley (Robert Paige) and marrying the Count. In an attempt to break them up Frank accidently shoots Katherine and discovers that the Count himself is one of the "undead" and is in America to seek out fresh blood that his Hungarian homeland no longer provides him with. Teaming up with Doctor Brewster (Frank Craven) the family physican, and with the expert advise of the visiting Professor Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg) Frank decides to track down and destroy Count Alucard before he spreads his evil further over the county. He however is further plagued by Katharine who as one of the undead keeps reappearing and further adds to Frank's torment. Only after locating where the Count is resting during the day does Frank than have the means to destroy him and he succeeds in burning the Count's coffin before he can return to it at daybreak upon which the Count disintergrates into a skeleton. Frank then also sets aside his own wanting for Katherine and sets fire to Katherine's resting place also to enable her to move from being an undead disciple of the Count.

Much discussion has been placed on the weakness of Lon Chaney's Count and while he most definately lacks the continental slant to the character so profoundly put across by Bela Lugosi he nevertheless does a good job as this descendant of the original Count Dracula. What amazes me about this production is that even though numerous people in the story are bitten by the Count never do we see an attack actually take place on screen. Chaney's transformation into a flying bat is one of the major highlights of "Son of Dracula". It is very smoothly portrayed on screen to great effect. Louise Allbritton, projects just the right cool and icy qualities as the female lead Katherine who becomes one of the "undead". There is a hint of mystery about her that keeps the viewer's interest involved with what is going on. The always excellent Evelyn Ankers, who starred in many classic Universal productions, most notably "The Wolfman" but this time in a supporting role, also does great work with her limited screen time as Claire.Both women are beautifully dressed by Vera West with a lavishness that almost indicates the level of a "A" production. Tightly directed by Robert Siodmak the eerie setting and feeling of peril is really played up to create just the right mood. Count Alucard's appearances out of a misty cloud of vapour in the Doctor's house and out in the swamp where he rides his emerging coffin to the shore are superb pieces of special efects wizardry and are a clever new turn on the Vampire legend.

"Son of Dracula", while not the best Universal Vampire story still packs a punch in the atmosphere it creates in its deep south setting and terrific special effects. It is a film rich with atmosphere and a fast moving mystery story that will keep your interest. I love all of Universal's horror outings and "Son of Dracula", definately deserves to be better known among the great collection of films produced by Universal's horror film unit in the 1930's and 40's. Sit back and allow yourself to be transported to the eerie old south for this Vampire tale with some surprising new twists in its telling.

---

Rating: - "I see you marrying a corpse...living in a grave"
After having read countless scathing reviews of this film over the past twenty years, I finally decided to purchase "Son of Dracula" just to see how terrible it really was (I'm a classic horror movie freak, so I end up buying them all anyway, regardless of quality). I was quite surprised to discover that SOD is actually one of the best of the Universal cycle of monster flicks from the 30s and 40s, and one of the very few movies from this time period with a genuine air of chilling menace about it ("The Mummy" and the original "Frankenstein" being two other stand out exceptions). Yes, I know this is a bold statement, but I stand by it after having watched SOD numerous times.

No, Lon Chaney Jr. was not the best choice of actors for the role of Dracula (he is credited as "Count Dracula", not "Alucard"...anyone who actually pays attention to the movie will discover that "Alucard" is a cover that Dracula is using while causing mischief in the deep south, and the "Son" part of the title derives from a misconception of the Doctor Lazlo character, who believes that Alucard is a descendent of the famous bloodsucker and not the vampire king himself). Anyway, back to Chaney's performance...as miscast as he was (in all of his "beefy", "beer bloated" glory), I still think he comes across as more DANGEROUS and more EVIL (and, in some ways, more lusting and sexual) than the quite frankly (forgive me) CORNY cliche of Bela Lugosi's interpretation of the character. Don't get me wrong, Chaney was definitely no Christopher Lee, but like Lee, he played his vampire character more in the vein of the original Stoker conception: he is a tough guy on a mission, with no regrets or guilt, no sense of inner torment over his condition (ala Gary Oldman in the 1992 Coppola version, and countless actors before and since)...he truly enjoys his exhalted position over the human cattle and has no qualms about killing them!

The plot in a nutshell: a southern heiress with an interest in the occult (played by the gorgeous Louise Allbritton) eagerly awaits the arrival of the mysterious Count Alucard, a man she has previously met on a vacation in Budapest, Hungary. She is interested in Alucard because she believes (quite rightly) that he can aid her in her black magic pursuits. Despite her intense interest in "Alucard", she is actually in love with her childhood sweetheart, Frank. When Alucard's luggage shows up on a train (sans the Count), Kay is in a tizzy...where could he be? So she goes to an old gypsy witch in the swamp (Queen Zimba, the local fortune teller), who tells her that the Count will indeed arrive...and that this is not a good thing! After croaking some creepy dialog (see the title of this review), Zimba is literally scared to death by a huge bat.

Meanwhile, the Count has already set up shop in a nearby swamp drainage tunnel (where he keeps his coffin), and he's been scoping out the town (he does away with Kay's rich old father, for reasons that make perfect sense later). The Count eventually hooks up with Kay in the swamp, and this meeting is the best scene in the film...Dracula's coffin surfaces in the swirling waters and oozes a fog that materializes in the form of the Count himself (who then rides the coffin to the shore to meet his woman). Kay is apparently under Dracula's spell, and they get married, making Dracula the defacto master of Dark Oaks Estate (a base from which he can suck the blood of the "young and virile race" of the Americans...his own homeland has been drained dry!). Kay's friends and family suspect that something is up, some of them think that she's insane, especially her lover, Frank (Robert Paige) and a prominent local businessman (played by Frank Craven), who also suspects that Alucard is something other than what he appears. Enter Doctor Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg), a native Carpathian and vampire lore expert...

Frank confronts Alucard, a fight ensues, Frank fires bullets into Alucard but they go right through him and end up killing Kay. Frank is jailed, but Kay mysteriously re-appears, apparently still "alive"...and she has a plan: she does still indeed love Frank, and she has only been using Alucard to become immortal so that she can make Frank immortal also and be with him forever! Will he go along with it? Will Lazlo and company be able to save the day? Well, you'll just have to watch the damn movie!!!

This film features many well known Universal actors (including "scream queen" Evelyn Ankers, although she doesn't scream once here), but the real stars of the picture are all of the beautifully creepy, mist-choked, and moss laden swamp sets. The man-to-bat transformation scenes were also quite impressive for 1943.

All in all, a criminally underrated classic.