Rating: 3/5
Hooptober 3.0 | 28/31 | Classic Universal horror | Before 1970 5/5
Dr. Harry Brewster and Frank Stanley wait at the train station for a friend of the Caldwell’s named Count Alucard. When they check with Charlie, the conductor, he has no Count on his passenger manifest. He did notice, however, a heap of luggage on the train belonging to the Count. Matthew brings the luggage on a carriage to Caldwell’s New Orleans plantation, called Dark Oaks. Katherine meets him, followed by her sister, Claire.
Katherine wanders into the swamp and to Queen Zimba’s cabin. Zimba had a vision of a noble house in ruins. She warns Katerine that she must stop Alucard before it is too late. Before she can finish, a bat descends on the cabin and on Queen Zimba, who dies of a heart attack.
The Caldwells throw a ball to celebrate Alucard’s arrival, with dozens in attendance despite the Count’s absence. The aging Colonel Caldwell exits the party early to rest. Alucard emerges from the shadowy swamp, glimpsing at the camera just over his shoulder. He shifts into a bat to sneak into the house.
Katherine and Frank, her fiance, take a walk outside, where Frank voices his worries about Katherine. Ever since she went to Budapest and met the Count, she’s changed into someone her friends and family don’t recognize.
A servant tells Katherine about the Colonel’s death, noting two peculiar marks on his neck.
What is Katherine planning with the Count? What does she know of his genuine family, which Brewster learns by reversing Alucard’s name? D-R-A-C-U…
What manner of man is this Count Dracula, or what manner of creature is it in human form? I feel the dread of this horrible place overpowering me. I am in awful fear and there is no escape for me. I am encompassed with terrors I dare not think of. — Bram Stoker, Dracula
The film explores the thin veil between reality and superstition — what one can know versus what one can apprehend. Those who believe in the occult are not safe from it — in fact, their belief may lull them into a false sense of security.
The film briefly touches on class — a man confesses to murder, but his associates assure the sheriff that he’s innocent and not to bother. The sheriff reminds them that money doesn’t make a person any more or less liable to murder.
The film’s plot is solid, albeit unexciting. No one’s performance is outstanding, but Lon Chaney Jr. is pretty dull as Dracula. He’s at his best when he can go big, and this film doesn’t afford him the opportunity. He isn’t Dracula in House of Dracula, maybe because he plays The Wolf Man instead.
If you haven’t noticed, Universal has made it a habit of regularly returning to their monsters. Understandably, they had stepped away from horror and saw their profits dip. They showed a Dracula/Frankenstein double feature, an immense success. So, they set up a slate of new horror films. Among those was the Son of Dracula.
Historians often group this movie with other 40s Universal Horror movies, which are not well-liked, except for the outstanding Son of Frankenstein. In recent years, some critics have reevaluated the film, comparing it with director Robert Siodmak’s excellent noir films. While it’s easy to praise the lighting and atmosphere, only so much filmmaking can compensate for a routine story.
That said, there are a handful of scenes, where relationships and betrayal are at the forefront, where the movie shines.
I like this movie! Despite its flaws, it maintains more consistent intrigue than Dracula’s Daughter, even if it lacks the homoerotic undertones that I associate with Dracula.