Son of Dracula

Starring: Lon Chaney Jr., Robert Paige, Louise Allbritton, Evelyn Ankers, Frank Craven, J. Edward Bromberg
Directed by: Robert Siodmak
Rating: Approved
Genre: Horror
1943

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: Count Alucard is determined to start a new existence in New Orleans, but faces opposition from locals who suspect nefarious dealings.

Review:

Tim: The Dracula franchise got off to a pretty rocky start (after the very good original). It was five years before the first sequel, and then another seven years before Son of Dracula rounded out the trilogy. Those are fairly long gaps and not a ton to show for it. While the original was iconic, Dracula's Daughter could only muster being a decent horror film. Unfortunately, that same fate is reserved for Son of Dracula (they really need to get off the family connections- I'm not looking forward to Uncle of Dracula). This film is perfectly fine, but it's only an average movie. That's somewhat disappointing.

The biggest issue I had with this film is actually the portrayal of Dracula by Lon Chaney Jr. Chaney had found a niche playing monsters- he was solid as Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man. However, I had a really hard time buying him as Dracula. He didn't feel as refined, as coldly frightening as the character needed to be. Chaney has always felt like such a formidable presence, he works better in physical roles like Frankenstein's Monster. Dracula doesn't get his hands dirty. It's his look, his menacing dark powers that make him so scary. Chaney was simply miscast. He isn't believable or particularly enjoyable as Dracula. He shows too much vulnerability on his face (which makes him a very good Larry Talbot). I was actually very surprised to see him in this role and his performance hurt the movie.

One thing I actually liked a lot was the guise of Count Alucard. I think it's clever to spell Dracula backwards, but it's not exactly the greatest disguise- people in the film easily figure it out. It's still cool and makes me smile. Still, the movie benefits from bringing Dracula himself back.

It was interesting to see Dracula in New Orleans. The setting felt a little strange, but it at least gave this film a unique twist. The main story is pretty average. Dracula himself doesn't have a whole lot to do. I wasn't quite clear if Alucard was truly Dracula's son, or if he was actually Dracula himself. It was all a bit confusing, which somewhat bothered me. It didn't feel like the story supported this and the title really should have been something different.

Another issue I had is that in some ways, Alucard is one of the least interesting characters. Katherine and Frank are really more compelling characters. Their arcs are more engaging. Alucard/Dracula just kind of stands around. It was really an interesting approach. I will say that it was incredibly cool to see Dracula transform from a bat into a person (the first time this was ever depicted on screen). That might be the most lasting legacy from this film. The rest of the story is fine, although the ending is pretty good.

This is a decent horror movie. At 1 hour, 20 minutes, it's pretty short. It is mildly entertaining. I certainly didn't love it, though. It's a little disappointing that only the first film of this trilogy was actually good. It felt like Universe really struggled to figure out how to handle this franchise. On the plus side, though, none of these films are bad. Decent, yes, but decent isn't quite good enough.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 6.5



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: Dracula, Dracula's Daughter