House of Dracula

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.

Universal was known for strong production values on their products, even for their "B" pics. This entry, the last serious film in the talkie horror cycle had those elements, but they were rushed. The action was rushed. The music was rushed. Even though the score was stock music from several of the predecessor films, the themes were played way too fast this time. This is most evident during the chase scene where the whole village pursues Dr. Edelman through the cemetery back to his castle. The violinists must have had severe cramps after that sequence.

The last 5 minutes were even worse than the average serial chapter. Erle Kenton usually did much better as he did with House of F and Ghost in previous attempts. This was a bad imitation of Ford Beebe. It was just a collision of story and budget that was done on the cheap.

It seems like Universal was in a great hurry to get out of the horror business. This could have been a much better film with slowing down the pace (and music) to allow some of the flow to make sense.

There were some good scenes, for example when Baron Latos was seducing Nurse Morrell, the piano changing from Beethoven to Satan's music was well done. Carradine's overall performance as Dracula was quite good. It deserved to be in a better film.

House of Frankenstein was a much better film than House of Dracula simply for having a better pace. I wonder if anyone in the horror unit looked back at this last chapter with regret.

That said, the horror cycle was a pretty good ride. No other studio put out a similar product on a consistent basis, with the possible exception of SOME of the Lewton films at RKO. I still watch House of Dracula even with its shortcomings. It's like an old friend that comes over for a visit; even if he's not your BEST friend, you understand him and are comfortable with him. That's still not a bad thing.

There has been a debate raging for Universal Monster fans over the decades as to what's the better film -- "House of Frankenstein" or "House of Dracula"? For me, I may prefer HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, but I certainly wouldn't count out an evening with this one, the final "serious" entry in Universal's classic monster series. It's still pretty good, though I feel its main problem is just being a victim of familiarity and nowhere else to really go at this stage. At least "Frankenstein" was a fresh idea at the time, while "Dracula" repeats the old formula again and reveals that our favorite cherished monsters had reached their limitations.

Dracula (John Carradine) arrives at the home of the kindly Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) to seek a cure from his vampirism. At the same time, the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney) shows up looking for release from his lycanthropy. Through a series of chaotic events, the warm hearted doctor turns into a Jekyll/Hyde madman and becomes intent on reviving the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange). Throw in a pretty "hunchback" nurse and you've got what the ads curiously touted as "FIVE Monsters!"

What "House of Dracula" has going for it is more of that vintage Universal atmosphere and soothing music soundtrack, and a superb dual performance from Onslow Stevens as the scientist. John Carradine turns in another fine rendition of his suave Count Dracula, but Lon Chaney's werewolf is pretty much by the books at this point, although the end of the movie contains an interesting little twist for a change. Glenn Strange makes a very awesome-looking Frankenstein Monster, but unfortunately spends 99% of the film lying flat on his back with the exception of a few minor shots when he's up on his feet; some of his most active footage is swiped from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN.

All things considered you could undoubtedly do a lot worse than "House of Dracula" for a nightly Monster Mash, but it's easy to see why Dracula, the Wolf Man and Frankenstein's Monster were retired after this chapter, and why they needed Abbott & Costello to resuscitate them three years later. **1/2 out of ****

It is an open house for the Frankenstein monster, Dracula, and the wolfman again in this follow-up to House of Frankenstein, again directed by Erle C. Kenton. Though not as polished and exciting as HOF, House of Dracula is by no means a disappointment. This time round a kindly doctor played by Onslow Stevens agrees to help not only Dracula with blood transfusions and the like but also Larry Talbot, played again by Lon Chaney. Assisted by his hunchbacked nurse, nicely played by Jane Adams, and his other nurse, the luscious Martha O'Driscoll, Stevens works hard to help both monsters with success and failure. John Carradine again plays Dracula, and he is enigmatic. The story deals mostly again with helping Talbot fight the curse of the full moon. Dracula's role is larger here than in HOF, and Carradine plays the vampire with subtlety. Glenn Strange is back as the monster, but his part is smaller than it was in HOF. As with most of Universal's horror pictures, there is a generous dose of eerie settings and dark atmospheres. A lot of fun!

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.