The story behind this film must be very interesting. For some odd reason, the studio decided to do a sequel to Dracula (1931) but have a different person play the count AND make everyone think it's Dracula's son, when it's really the old vampire himself!! While this "surprise twist" is hardly a surprise at all to those who watch the movie (especially since the character is named "Count Alucard"--"Alucard" is "Dracula" spelled backwards--what an amazingly clever ruse--NOT),the movie itself is still chilling and lots of fun. While Universal horror lovers like myself find this whole movie to be a step down for the franchise, it's still a decent film that's worth your time.

True, Son of Dracula is not as good as the 1931 Bela Lugosi film, which is one of the best film versions and has one of the best and most iconic Draculas in Lugosi. But it is(in my opinion) much better than its reputation, and leagues ahead of House of Dracula, it's better made, more atmospherically involving, better acted generally, has a much stronger ending and actually knew what to do with the characters.

Son of Dracula does have its flaws. Some of the story does get a bit draggy and confused, Dracula/Alucard's origins could have been better explored. Am also mixed on Lon Chaney Jnr's title role performance, I did appreciate the idea to show Dracula having an inner turmoil(different, as the character is more associated as evil-incarnate, but interesting) and Chaney does portray that subtly and movingly, if though perhaps too subtly in places. Against all this, Chaney has been more involved before and since and it is a role that doesn't suit him, things have been said about him being too healthy-looking but the bigger problem is that he, like John Carradine in House of Dracula(though Carradine looked the part better)isn't sinister enough and lacked the aristocratic charm.

On the other hand, despite the flaws Son of Dracula has much going for it. It looks great, it's stylishly photographed and has sumptuous costumes and quite impressive special effects(for the time)in the transformation sequences but it's the swamp/misty sets and that make the biggest impression. The music is suitably eerie, there's a clever script that doesn't get bogged down by too much talk and doesn't try to do too much and the story mostly is atmospherically compelling with some memorable scenes. The scene in the swamp with Dracula emerging from it on a coffin is beautiful and very haunting, though the scene with Queen Zimba and the lead up to it is one of the creepiest of any Universal horror film and the ending was unexpected and quite emotional. The direction takes a film-noir-ish approach which was incredibly effective, most of the pacing is a long way from dull and the support acting is very good. Particularly good are Robert Paige who plays a tortured character sympathetically and poignantly and Louise Allbritton on entrancing and icy form, but Evelyn Ankers while having little to do is good and Frank Craven and J. Edward Bromberg have fun as the Doctor and Professor.

All in all, a long way from flawless but better than it's given credit for. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Lon Chaney, Jr. makes his debut as Count Alucard as Universal Pictures sought to revive the Dracula series. That's Dracula spelled backwards.

The undead legendary count has come to America in response to Louise Allbritton who is a southern belle who dabbles in the occult to the point of morbidity. Allbritton has been acting strange lately which is concerning both her sister Evelyn Ankers and her fiancé Robert Paige. Soon after Chaney arrives both Adeline DeWalt Reynolds, a swamp spirit woman and Allbritton and Ankers father George Irving die under mysterious circumstances.

A change in Irving's will leaves Allbritton the plantation and Ankers all the cash. And then Alucard and Allbritton are married. When Paige suspects something more than an ordinary jilting the action really starts.

There are a pair of Von Helsings in this played by country doctor Frank Craven and Hungarian professor J. Edward Bromberg. As incidents similar to what ravaged his native land start to happen both Craven and Bromberg suspect the undead are alive and well.

Although no one could ever be a vampire like Bela Lugosi, Chaney does a pretty good job in the role completing a monster trifecta of playing Dracula, the Frankenstein monster, and the Wolfman for Universal. He was every bit the horror film master that his father was.

Next to Chaney and maybe in some ways better than Chaney is Paige in this film. Robert Paige who usually played light leading men in comedies and musicals gives a fine dramatic portrait of a man just shattered by the forces he's dealing with and can't comprehend. This might very well have been his career role.

Son Of Dracula has a high place in the classic Universal pantheon of horror films.