Movie Talk - Universal Studios' Dracula Movies

Dracula: Hmm... I'm quite good in the novel, it seems.

Well, it’s time to return to the Universal Monsters once again. Since I’ve gone through my favorites like the Frankenstein Monster and the Wolf Man, it’s time to touch upon the Count himself: Dracula or Vlad the Impaler. He was the one who started it all with Dracula released in 1931. Even though he’s not the first vampire to hit screens (there was Nosferato in 1922), he’s definitely the most remembered and most parodied.

Now, of all of the monsters, he’s probably my least favorite. Even though he was the one who got this all started, he’s on the low end of the list. He’s not bad, per se, but he lacks something the other monsters don’t lack. I think it has to do with the fact that he is just an evil predator. He’s just going around taking advantage of anyone and killing them. The rest of the monsters have more going on than just being destructive. The Frankenstein Monster’s a destructive but naïve dude, the Wolf Man is a dude struggling with the beast inside, and the Gill-Man (who I’ll get to later) is just a dude who wants to be left alone… and get a hot lady on the side. Drac’s just evil and that’s it. Still, are the movies good? Let’s find out.

On today’s list is the following: Dracula (1931), Dracula’s Daughter (1936), and Son of Dracula (1942). Now, I do remember seeing Son of Dracula when I was younger. I hadn’t seen the 1931 movie until a few years ago when my sister got us that big collection. As for Dracula’s Daughter, I didn’t see it until a few days ago where I watched all three movies back to back. I was going to watch the Spanish version of Dracula, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet. It’s basically the same as the 1931 version but with Spanish actors. The same sets are even used for it.

Dracula (1931)

The movie starts out as Renfield (Dwight Frye) visits Transylvania to see Count Dracula (Bela Legosi). The Count is trying to buy an Abbey in London. Renfield then is enthralled by the Count’s supernatural abilities and basically becomes his henchman. The two then travel back to London via ship, and Dracula “snacks” on the crew during the trip. When they make it to London, Renfield is the only survivor and gets put in a mental asylum. Dracula then starts to pursue more victims. One of them is Mina, the daughter of Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston). When weird things start to happen to Mina and others around London, Seward and another colleague, Professor Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), start to investigate and find that Dracula’s behind it all.

I like how Van Helsing's standing. "Yeah, I'm posing like a boss!"

While I’m not the biggest Dracula fan, this was a nice, moody movie. The story is fine, but the thing that helped push it through was the cast. Bela Legosi *is* Dracula. Whenever you think of that classic version of the character, it’s pretty much Legosi. The look, the voice, and the overall creepiness is there and it’s still effective. Another one who really shined for me was Dwight Frye as Renfield. When we get introduced to him, he’s just a plucky real estate dude. When Dracula gets his fangs into him, he turns into a freakin’ nutball and it is really interesting to see. I also liked Van Sloan as Van Helsing. He later plays roles like this in other movies, so it was nice to see where that got started. Seeing Mina go through what essentially is a pretty disturbing incident was interesting.

Van Helsing: You're not going to break out into song and dance, are you?

Renfield: I don't know... I just might do it!

The setting is perfect. It’s dark and pretty moody. The castle where we first meet the Count and his wives (daughters?) is pretty creepy. We don’t get to see Dracula transform into anything since the technology wasn’t there yet, but we get an idea of those things happening. As for my dislikes, it can be pretty slow at times. It also doesn’t help that there’s no music during the movie itself. We only get in the credits, and that music was also used in The Mummy.  Since this was so early in the sound era, the music wasn’t added in. Also, I’m still not a big fan of Dracula. I already went into why earlier. Other than those things and small nitpicks, this is a nice movie with some good atmosphere and good performances.

Dracula’s Daughter (1936)

This movie is a straight-up sequel to the 1931 movie. It takes place right after Professor Von Helsing (Edward Van Sloan and yes, they changed his name) staked Dracula. Helsing is found by the cops and taken into custody. Helsing contacts a colleague, Dr. Garth (Otto Kruger), to help him out. Meanwhile, Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden), a daughter of Dracula, takes Dracula’s body and burns it thinking it may free her from the hunger for blood. She actually wants to be free of the curse, but the drive and Sandor (Irving Pichel), her creepy servant, keep that from happening. While Marya does her rampage, she also goes to Dr. Garth to see if he can help her. Unfortunately (for the Countess), her hunger for blood gets in the way and she ends up becoming the villain of the story. She tries to strongarm the doctor into being her lover by kidnapping his assistant and fleeing to Transylvania.

Marya, I don't know how you put up with your assistant. He just looks shady.

While this movie may not be as classic, it does succeed in being a nice sequel. The story is actually pretty good this time around. We get a reluctant vampire in the Countess. Gloria Holden did a wonderful job playing her. When I first saw the trailer, it makes you think she’s going to be as bad as her father, but that’s not the case. She wants to be free from the hunger, but she can’t be. Her assistant, Shandor, was also a treat in how dour and creepy he was. I actually thought he was a vampire too since… well, look at the nut! Edward Van Sloan was also good in his role as Von Helsing. I guess his named was changed for copyright reasons? It was cool to see where his story ended up.

Gotta say, she knew how to make that somber look work for her.

We still got the moodiness around. This time, we get a little more of London’s late night moodiness. There’s also this one scene between the Countess and her second victim which definitely has some undertones. You’ll see what I mean. Like Bride of Frankenstein, some cheeky humor is also thrown in, and there are times where it works. Also, Dr. Garth and his assistant, Janet, were nice for the most part. They added some levity to Marya’s somberness.

As for my dislikes, I did think some of the humor wore a little thin. It wasn’t all the time, though. I thought the love/hate relationship between Dr. Garth and Janet did grate a bit.  I also thought the ending was pretty abrupt. I did like that it ended in Transylvania, though. While it was abrupt and we don’t know what happened with Helsing’s case, we do get a sad ending to Marya. It sucked (ha ha), but it kinda felt right. Lastly, it could get a little dull at times. Other than those things, this was a nice, interesting sequel to the 1931 classic.

Son of Dracula (1943)

Son of Dracula puts Lon Chaney Jr. in the role of the vampire. Instead, he is Count Alucard, a descendant of Count Dracula’s. With the help of Katherine (Louise Allbritton), a woman who’s heavily invested in the occult, he comes to Dark Cove, Louisiana. There, he ends up secretly marrying Katherine. When her actual fiancé, Frank (Robert Paige), finds out, a scuffle happens and Katherine accidentally shot and killed by Frank. Alucard then turns her into a vampire and gives her eternal life. Thing is, that was more or less her plan all along. She then goes to Frank in prison and entrances him to kill Alucard so they can be together. Meanwhile, Dr. Brewster (Frank Craven), a friend of Katherine’s family, and Dr. Lazlo, a Hungarian professor, try to piece all of this vampire nonsense together.

All right, Frank, what are you doing in my House of Cobwebs and Sut?

This was nice for the most part. One thing I’ve noticed about the Dracula movies is that they don’t all seem like carbon copies of each other. I ran into that with the Mummy movies last time. Each one has an original story and this one is no different. While it does retread some ground from the first movie, it still feels fresh. It’s part-horror movie and part-noir movie. Dracula’s not even the only villain in this piece. Katherine ends up doing some villainous acts too and even tricks the ‘ole Count. She was definitely the best part of the movie.

Nope! This doesn't look suspicious at all!

While we weren’t in London anymore, we did get some good, moody atmosphere since this took place in the swamps of Louisiana. We also get some nice special effect shots here. We see Alucard transform into a bat and mist. Yeah, I could pick on the one really fake bat, but this was the 40’s, man. Since Chaney had a much more physical presence on screen, we even see him throw someone around a bit. Also, I thought the ending was nice. Sad but nice.

Okay, that was a pretty nice transition for the Count.

As for the dislikes, I don’t have too many. Outside of Katherine, Alucard, and maybe Dr. Brewster, the other characters don’t stand out much. Dr. Lazlo especially comes off like a low-rent version of Van Helsing. As for Chaney’s turn as the monster, he was okay. He had the physical presence, but that’s about it. I hate to draw comparisons, but Legosi just did it so well. I also thought Frank, Katherine’s fiancé, could’ve been a little better as a lead, but I liked how he was used at times. Other than these things, this was fine in the end.

……………………………………………….

In the end, the Dracula movies are good for the most part. They all try to do something different in each one, so that makes them a little unique. I already talked about Dracula’s time in the team up movies a couple of years back, so if you’re wondering what I think movies like House of Dracula, you can find them here. Well, I’m off to bed. Next time, I’ll be looking at another monster: The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Until then, Peace, God Bless, and remember to keep your wolfsbane around. Crosses should work too, but I’m sure about the finger variation.

I can imagine the late Charlie Murphy telling 'ole Alucard up: "Yeah, I met 'em, man! That n**** was all floatin' and $$#$! Turning into bats and stuff, I was like 'word."