Draculas Sohn (1943)

Draculas Sohn: Directed by Robert Siodmak. With Robert Paige, Louise Allbritton, Evelyn Ankers, Frank Craven. When Katherine, a beautiful Southern girl obsessed with thoughts of eternal life, invites Count Alucard to come to her mansion in the U.S., she unleashes a Pandora’s box of horror on unsuspecting relatives and neighbors.

“I thought u0026quot;Son of Draculau0026quot; 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…u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eItu0026#39;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 heu0026#39;s attracted to America because itu0026#39;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 heu0026#39;s aggressively unsympathetic! u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eAs usual, the vampires stand head and shoulders above the boring humans. Some people are critical of Chaneyu0026#39;s performance, but I think heu0026#39;s pretty good. Heu0026#39;s definitely a different sort of vampire from Lugosi – heu0026#39;s less ethereal, and more aggressively powerful. You could say he foreshadows Christopher Leeu0026#39;s forceful portrayal of Dracula in the 1950s-70s films from Englandu0026#39;s Hammer Studios. Louise Allbritton is even more effective in her role as the female vampire, and, in an interesting twist, sheu0026#39;s allowed to have a set of motivations and ambitions that are totally different from Draculau0026#39;s. In fact, in many ways sheu0026#39;s the main character.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eIn the end, then, I think this movie stacks up pretty well to other films in the Universal series. Itu0026#39;s not as eerie as u0026quot;Draculau0026quot; or u0026quot;Draculau0026#39;s Daughter,u0026quot; probably because itu0026#39;s a more modern and technologically advanced film. (The primitiveness of the early entries in the series actually makes them scarier!) But itu0026#39;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…u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eOn a side note, I do think that Cheney is playing Draculau0026#39;s son, and not the original Dracula himself. Iu0026#39;m surprised to see so much controversy about that point on this site. The film is called u0026quot;Son of Dracula,u0026quot; after all, and J. Edward Bromberg identifies Alucard as a u0026quot;descendantu0026quot; of Dracula. Sure, Alucard admits to being a u0026quot;Draculau0026quot; 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! u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eOne more odd matter of continuity. Brombergu0026#39;s character says at one point that Dracula was destroyed u0026quot;in the 19th century.u0026quot; But, since the Universal films had a contemporary setting, wasnu0026#39;t he destroyed in the 20th century in this particular universe? Just thought Iu0026#39;d mention that.”