Son of Dracula

[Sean]

Okay.  I watched it for the 1st time in a looooooooong time last night.  IMO, excellent flic------and while Chaney was a good alpha male vampire------the movie developed the other characters so well, that it became a story really about Frank.

I just have a few questions.  One is real.  One is rhetorical (unless somebody has a good answer).

1)  We know Count Alucard was really Count Dracula----that's actually how Chaney was billed----but was Chaney THAT Count Dracula (i.e., the Bela Lugosi Count Dracula), or was he ANOTHER Count Dracula (i.e., a descendant of the Lugosi Dracula)?

2)  WTF was Dracula doing setting up his coffin where it was?  Why didn't he keep it right next to his wife's or in the basement of the manor?  He could see the sun coming up from inside whatever dilapidated, flammable structure he was set up it. 

[BaronLatos35]

I enjoy SOD every time I watch it for the setting, story and Chaney as a vampire. I always looked at it as he was a decedant of Drac, much like Drac's daughter, turned by the Count or one of his Brides years ago. (Maybe Drac's Daughter turned him!)

I know his named spelled Drac, but even the Hungarian professor said this was probably the decendant of the original Count. In the House films, Carradine is supposed to be the original Count.

Your second question made me laugh. I also wondered why his coffin was in that location. The other part that makes me laugh is when Chaney grabs Frank after his coffin is on fire and screams at him "Put it out! Put it out do you hear me!" or something similar. It was also the way he said it, like Chaney left character and sounded like Talbot/himself. Definitely not a smooth Hungarian vampire, more like a dude at the bar.

Overall, I always enjoy SOD. It's on my October list.

[Count_Zirock]

It hasn't been too long ago since we had the "Is he the original Dracula or not?" argument elsewhere in the forums. Tom Weaver suggested he was meant to be the original Dracula, but not the LUGOSI Dracula. In other words, it was a reboot of the character, separate from previous Universal continuity. Same with Carradine's Dracula, another reboot for the character.

[Rich]

I don't buy into the reboot theory because there is diologue that links Son of Dracula to the original. I see it like this:

Dracula is a shape shifter. He can transform into a bat or a wolf. If he can do that then why couldn't he change his human form? I think he simply changed his human form from time to time for reasons of his own.

[Sean]

One problem is that the movie is called 'Son of Dracula' versus, say, 'Dracula Returns'.  The son of Kong was NOT King Kong.  The son of Frankenstein was NOT Henry Frankenstein.  I have to go with the son of Dracula NOT being the 1st Dracula until further notice.

I subscribe to Chaney's character being a descendant/ someone the 1st Dracula 'changed'-----and NOT the 1st Dracula himself.

[RedKing]

I would have to agree Sean. I also point to the fact that Universal considered having Count Alucard appear alongside Dracula in the first concept for A&C Meet Franky, which tells me they considered him a seperate character, like Dracula's daughter.

[Pauspy]

You can "count" me in as an admirer of this film (and lash me with wet noodles for that pun, I deserve it  ). While I think we all groan a bit at the "Alucard" name, this movie had some nice touches. Here's what I liked:

The physicality of Dracula. I think this is this first movie where Dracula actually throws someone around, showing off his supernatural strength. I thought Chaney jr. had enough personal charm to make a fairly convincing Dracula, while having the physical presence to dominate those around him. Chaney's accent never really bothered me that much, though I agree it's kind of incongruous when he speaks of coming to a new land with a young vital population, and sounds like he immigrated from Oklahoma.

J. Edward Bromburg as Professor Lazlo. To me he saves the first part of the movie when the actors are trying to figure out what goes on with this "Alucard" fellow. As the occult specialist, his role was to lay down the "rules" of vampire fighting to the rest of the poor saps in the town. To me he was more engaging to watch than Edward Van Sloan in the original.

The firey ending! Ok it's a bit far-fetched, but I kind of liked watching Drac go rafting down the river on his coffin, and have to try to save his burning casket before the sun comes up. I personally really enjoyed the visuals they came up with for those scenes.

[Sean]

I would have to agree Sean. I also point to the fact that Universal considered having Count Alucard appear alongside Dracula in the first concept for A&C Meet Franky, which tells me they considered him a seperate character, like Dracula's daughter.

Wow.  Never knew that!

[Sean]

Alucard DID sound like Larry Talbot when he raised his voice.  But, as Pauspy said-----it was good to see the count throw somebody around, VS, say throw pots and run away!

[Count_Zirock]

I don't buy into the reboot theory because there is diologue that links Son of Dracula to the original.

To the original 1931 movie with Lugosi? Wanna give us an example? There's plenty that links it to Bram Stoker's novel, but I don't remember any dialog that comes close to linking it to Lugosi's version.

[ridulus]

A solid enough effort. Not great, but good.

[Rich]

To the original 1931 movie with Lugosi? Wanna give us an example? There's plenty that links it to Bram Stoker's novel, but I don't remember any dialog that comes close to linking it to Lugosi's version.

When the doctor from Transylvania talks about the legends of his land I get the feeling of it being at least loosely connected to the Lugosi original.

[judd]

I just viewed this tonight and enjoyed it.  I thought it was better than Dracula's Daughter, which I also liked.  The bat puppet was nicely done along with the visual effects. 

I discussed this in another thread when I asked about minorities actors appearing in the Universal monster films.  Son did have a few African-American actors cast as servents.  I stated earlier I couldn't recall seeing any in the monster films. 

It contained many of the elements I enjoy about these movies.  The pacing is fast, the mood is creepy, it's intelligent, it had good production values.  The style and tone of these films drags you in this world of the supernatural.   

[Count_Zirock]

When the doctor from Transylvania talks about the legends of his land I get the feeling of it being at least loosely connected to the Lugosi original.

Dr. Lazlo's discussion of vampire lore could apply to almost any vampire movie of that period...or even today. It didn't provide any direct link to the 1931 "Dracula" any more than it provided a direct link to "Twilight."

[Sean]

Dr. Lazlo's discussion of vampire lore could apply to almost any vampire movie of that period...or even today. It didn't provide any direct link to the 1931 "Dracula" any more than it provided a direct link to "Twilight."

I'd have to go back and look... but I thought he talked about Dracula or the crest or the family specifically at one point.