La mansión de Drácula

This creepy sequel to 'House of Frankenstein', has a doctor (Onslow Stevens) trying to revive the monsters (Glenn Strange and Lon Chaney, Jr.) after becoming infected with the blood of Dracula.

All the atmospheric effects are present and there's a chilling performance by John Carradine whose gaunt appearance makes him a perfect choice for the Dracula part. The special effects involving his transformation are smoothly handled, as of course are the Wolfman's makeup change under the full moon. By this time, Universal had perfected many of these techniques and the effects are sometimes startlingly realistic. Lionel Atwill has a brief part as the village police chief and Martha O'Driscoll and Jane Adams provide the feminine interest.

But the main honors go to Onslow Stevens as the doctor who mistakenly inherits vampire tendencies--a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde role that he does extremely well. A fright film that doesn't disappoint, entertaining all the way.

House of Dracula is another of the series of all-star monster extravaganzas produced by Universal in the 40s.

This one deals with The Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) and Dracula (John Carradine) coming to scientist Onslow Stevens for a cure for what ails them. Along the way they find the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) and try to help him as well. Well, we all know that things will not go smoothly and the monsters will soon be running amok.

Carradine, playing Dracula for the second time, is quite effective in the role. He gives it his own interpretation and doesn't try to copy Bela Lugosi. Chaney gives a sympathetic performance as the doomed Lawrence Talbot. Stevens, in a rare leading role, also stands out as the doctor. The Frankenstein monster has little to do until the final minutes of the film.

As monster films go, this isn't one of the all-time greats, but on the other hand it does provide 67 minutes of solid entertainment.

Baron Latos appears to Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) in the middle of the night and reveals that he's really Count Dracula (John Carradine). He seeks a cure for his vampirism. A trip to the basement shows that Dracula has already taken the liberty of moving in - there's his coffin, filled with the dirt from his own grave. Dr. Edelman takes this brazenness in stride while refusing to believe in the supernatural. Later, Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) shows up, asking for a cure for his lycanthropy. He can't bear to change into a werewolf one more time. Edelman must save Talbot from a suicide attempt when Talbot throws himself into the ocean and gets swept into a cave. While in the cave, Edelman and Talbot find Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange). Edelman decides to revive him, but Talbot and Edelman's hunchbacked female assistant (Jane Adams) talk him out of it. Meanwhile, Edelman's other assistant (Martha O'Driscoll) finds herself seduced by Count Dracula; while Edelman finds the evil count has an even more powerful influence over his own life.

Dracula's corruption of Edelman adds a Jekyll-and-Hyde type story to this already over-monstered brew. Why didn't they throw in the Mummy and the Invisible Man for the hell of it?

Of all the Universal Horror films that are wacky-idiotic, this is the most entertaining. Stevens is very enjoyable as Edelman; the plot moves fast; a certain character gets his first happy ending; and it's fun to imagine that the real reason Frankenstein's monster is angry is that he sees the movie is almost over and he hasn't even done anything yet.

Count Dracula (John Carradine) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr) seek a cure for their afflictions; meanwhile, a hunchbacked woman (Jane Adams), a mad scientist and Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) have their own troubles.

Somebody at Universal thought it would be a good idea to combine Dracula, the Wolfman, Frankenstein's monster, a hunchback and basically a knockoff of Jekyll and Hyde. In theory, this sounds great -- why not pack the screen with monsters? More monsters, more fun. But actually doing it within the 67 minutes allotted and having a coherent plot... well, that is another matter entirely.

If you are watching the films in Universal's Dracula Legacy collection, this film comes after "Son of Dracula". It actually comes after "House of Frankenstein", but you would not know that from the way it is bundled. And it seems weird that Chaney shows up looking exactly like he did for his Dracula / Alucard role, only to return as Larry Talbot again. Mixing monsters and switching actors is confusing!

Then there is Dracula. Now, either you have Dracula wanting to be cured of his vampirism, which makes absolutely no sense, or the character is not actually Dracula but a baron as he claims in the beginning. If that is the case, it seems that the nobility are especially susceptible to becoming the undead. A pity.

To recap, if you want a variety of monsters running around a lab going crazy, this is a pretty good story. But if you actually want a film that makes sense, this probably is not the one for you -- it is just too packed with monsters to really develop a story. Overall, really fun but no depth. The story was probably written in 15 minutes.

House of Dracula works from the same basic premise as House of Frankenstein from the year before; namely that Universal's three most famous monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man are appearing in the movie together. Naturally, the film is rather messy therefore, but the fact that all three monsters are there is usually enough to ensure that the film's sixty seven minutes don't become boring. It's obvious that the idea of making another monster mash came into the writer's head before an actual plot did, as the yarn we're given isn't exactly without holes. The plot sees Count Dracula arrive at Dr. Edelman's home asking for a cure for his vampirism. Then, what can only be described as a coincidence, sees Lawrence Talbot, a.k.a. The Wolf Man turn up asking for a cure for his affliction! It turns out that Dracula is on the prowl for Edelman's daughter, but Talbot really is serious. When it turns out that he can't be stopped from turning into a wolf, The Wolf Man throws himself into the sea...where he ends up finding Frankenstein's Monster.

Overall, this film isn't as good as the earlier House of Frankenstein. The 1944 film put its plot together better than this entry in the series does, as the plot here doesn't give equal time to each Universal monster. Dracula's plot is the biggest at first, but soon fizzles out only to resurface at the end. The Wolf Man is the star of the show, but his story never really develops, and is essentially just another version of the plot he always finds himself in. Frankenstein's Monster is given the coldest hand, as he appears in the movie merely as an afterthought, and an obvious excuse to ensure that all three monsters appear in the movie. The story of the doctor who binds all three together is the most interesting, but this is a little disappointing as he isn't the reason why people will see this film. The acting is good enough, with John Carradine showing his sinister side and Lon Chaney Jr once again making sure that his character is bathed in tragedy. Glenn Strange is given nothing to do, and Onslow Stevens proves the real highlight as Dr Edelman. Overall, this film won't do much for anyone that isn't a fan of Universal horror; but as silly monster movies go, House of Dracula is worth seeing.