House of Dracula

1945

Action / Fantasy / Horror / Sci-Fi

Plot summary


Uploaded by: FREEMAN

Top cast

Jane Adams Photo
Jane Adams as Nina
Martha O'Driscoll Photo
Martha O'Driscoll as Miliza Morelle
John Carradine Photo
John Carradine as Dracula / Baron Latos
Skelton Knaggs Photo
Skelton Knaggs as Steinmuhl
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
615.6 MB
960*720
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
1 hr 7 min
P/S ...
1.12 GB
1440*1072
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
1 hr 7 min
P/S 0 / 5

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by bkoganbing6 / 10

Another Universal Gothic all star monster rallies

House Of Dracula features John Carradine once again as the eternal count from Transylvania who is seeking out scientist Onslow Stevens who is reputed to be experimenting with things beyond the grasp of accepted science. Kind of like Dr. Frankenstein and along the way Stevens finds the body of the Frankenstein monster which he decides to tinker with in his spare time.

Not that he'll have much spare time because Lon Chaney, Jr. as Lawrence Talbot the famed Wolfman also comes knocking on Stevens's door looking for a cure as well. Chaney is all right of course except when the moon is full and he's not under lock and key.

As we see hanging around all this concentrated evil has its affect on Stevens. Who and what turns him to the dark side is what you watch the film for.

Fans of Universal's classic Gothic horror will be well pleased with House Of Dracula. Lionel Atwill is back as a police inspector with two functioning arms this time. And Stevens has a brace of beautiful nurses in Martha O'Driscoll and Jane Adams. Both Adams and O'Driscoll had modeling backgrounds and Adams's beauty shows through even though she plays a hunchback. Just the girl for J. Carrol Naish from the previous Universal all star monster flick House Of Frankenstein.

I know I was pleased with the film even though the cycle was running down some.

Reviewed by TheLittleSongbird5 / 10

Dracula, Wolf Man and Frankenstein in one film, but the film as a whole didn't deliver as much as it could have done

It is a shame as the cast are capable, the characters are timeless and the Universal monster/horror films have mostly been entertaining. House of Dracula is not that bad and does have quite a few good things, but it was an example of a film that showed so much potential but didn't fully live up to it.

Starting with the good things, the sets are sumptuous and wonderfully Gothic, likewise with the costumes and there is great use of shadowy lighting. The music is very haunting, with inspired use of Beethoven's moonlight sonata, though it occasionally sounds as if it was borrowed from other films. Two scenes are quite effective, the Moonlight sonata scene, which was telling in its psychological eeriness, and the Wolf Man transformation scene. Some of the acting is good, Onslow Stevens sharing the acting honours as an, as said, Jekyll and Hyde character that he attacks with menace and pathos. Lon Chaney Jnr. once again gives a very deeply felt performance as Talbot/ Wolf Man, though not as good as he was in The Wolf Man and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. Skelton Knaggs makes a creepy appearance albeit a brief one and Jane Addams is an enticing and touching Nina. Martha O' Driscoll is both attractive and sympathetic.

Not all the acting works on the other hand. John Carradine has the look, the suavity and visual eeriness for Dracula but not the sinister evil or aristocratic charm, he's somewhat too understated in the role. Glenn Strange has literally nothing to do and spends his entire window-dressing-like screen time looking confused as to where he was. The normally good Lionel Atwill is wasted and lacks energy. The photography has its moments but lacks refinement overall, a lot of the editing looking like it was done in haste. The used footage of Chaney in Ghost of Frankenstein and Boris Karloff in Bride of Frankenstein looked good, but that it was stock was obvious. The special effects are rather cheesy-looking, by today's standards and I imagine also for back then too, usually that's forgivable to me but not so much when the film is technically faulty elsewhere. The script is muddled as a result of trying to do too much, the direction is by-the-numbers and the characters are a case of nice to see them but little's done with them, that they don't share a scene together is a huge missed opportunity. It's the story that suffers the most however, the actual storyline is a tired one but it's also one that's too hurriedly paced to compensate for the too short running time as well as being over-plotted and underwritten. There are a number of plot strands but none of them really are explored, only Chaney's battle with his conscience to a degree resonates. Finally the ending is so abrupt and rushed that it feels like a great big anti-climax.

Overall, an ambitious effort in using characters from three different settings to incorporate them into one big story and a noble effort but comes up short. Not terrible, not great, mixed feelings more like. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Reviewed by MartinHafer6 / 10

the final monster film until they were revived for Abbott and Costello

This is the least of the Universal horror films featuring any of the "Big 3"==Frankenstein's monster, Dracula and the Wolfman. Despite John Carradine's Dracula being killed pretty thoroughly in the last film, he's back again. And, Frankenstein is here as well. However, what's totally new is the type of doctor they meet. This guy is interested in helping the monsters to become good respectable citizens and sets about ridding them of their evil ways. Of course, like always, the good intentioned doctor is a real idiot and he really is doing Dracula's evil bidding--as he wants Frankenstein revived so he can serve him in his plan for global evil. Sure. Whatever. Anyway, apart from the odd plot, there's really nothing new here. It's a decent film sure to please fans of the genre, but is about the most skipable monster movie Universal made featuring any of the Big 3.

Read more IMDb reviews