House of Dracula (1945)

For this year's Countdown to Halloween, it's all-Universal Monsters, all-the-time, from Dracula (1931) to The Creature Walks Among Us (1956).  Join me daily for a fresh perspective on movies you may not have watched in a long time, if ever.  Today, the overdue end of an era: House of Dracula!

They should have quit while they were ahead.  I don’t know when that would have been, considering no matter how bad they became, the Universal Monsters movies featuring the original three (Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster and the Wolf Man) were almost always fun to watch.  The final installment, though, House of Dracula (1945), is no fun at all and, at 67 minutes long, is also quite boring.

Its failure lies with the title monster, Dracula.  None of the other Universal Monsters suffered as greatly as he did throughout their runs.  Here, he’s inexplicably risen from the dead and seeking release from his curse.  John Carradine plays him for the second time and fares a little better than he did in House of Frankenstein.  At one point, I almost wondered if his appearance didn’t come closer to what Bram Stoker envisioned for the character.

But when did he become so wishy-washy?  He’s barely a threat to anyone, least of all Miliza Morelle (Martha O’Driscoll), the blonde assistant to Dr. Franz Edelmann (Onslow Stevens), who is instead, as all women seem to be, attracted to the “tragic” Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.).  Talbot also comes to Edelmann for a cure.  Impatient about getting results, he throws himself off a cliff, the better to end up in a cave where Frankenstein’s monster lies.

I always thought the Wolf Man was the common thread among the later Universal Monsters movies.  Instead, it’s really The Monster.  He’s the only character that remained true to any continuity.  Wherever he is found in a movie is where he “died” at the end of the last one.  In House of Dracula, there’s no explanation for how Larry Talbot survived a silver bullet.  He became somewhat tiresome, always whining about his condition and even willing to kill himself.

Let’s see, we also have a hunchback in this one, played by the lovely Jane Adams.  Her Nina is a loyal assistant to Dr. Edelmann, never asking for anything.  But when given the choice of being able to cure only her or Talbot, Edlemann would prefer to help her.  Unfortunately, the multi-tasking doctor has been giving Dracula transfusions of his own blood and has become tainted, turning into some kind of vampire/Mr. Hyde monster at night.

Ultimately, it’s a happy ending for Larry Talbot.  He does not transform into a wolf when the moon rises.  But almost everyone else is dead and The Monster once again lies beneath a pile of fire and rubble.  I suppose that’s a good place to leave our beloved characters.  We know that with the simple click of a typewriter, someone could resurrect them.  Thank goodness, though, no one ever did.

Tomorrow: She-Wolf of London!

House of Frankenstein (1944)

For this year's Countdown to Halloween, it's all-Universal Monsters, all-the-time, from Dracula (1931) to The Creature Walks Among Us (1956).  Join me daily for a fresh perspective on movies you may not have watched in a long time, if ever.  Today, it's everything but the kitchen sink: House of Frankenstein!

House of Frankenstein (1944) is another Universal Monsters movie for which, as a child, I owned a Super 8 excerpt reel.  For that reason, it lives in my mind as a terrific movie.  It’s almost heartbreaking to watch the full thing now and realize how bad it is.  Like Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man before it, it’s fun for the different monsters to get together, but you can’t look any deeper than that for coherence.

Regardless of the specific circumstances of the stories, they’re ultimately the same:

1. Frankenstein’s monster lives in a state of disrepair.
2. Larry Talbot, the Wolf Man, longs to die so he’ll be at peace.
3. A mad doctor promises to help Larry, but becomes consumed with reviving Frankenstein’s monster.

The set-ups, though, can be clever.  In House of Frankenstein, we also have an appearance by Dracula and a hunchback.  It takes some ingenuity to craft a story, no matter how ridiculous it is, that brings them all together.

Here, the common thread is Dr. Gustav Niemann (Boris Karloff), who masquerades as Professor Bruno Lampini, driving his mobile Chamber of Horrors across Europe from Neustadt to Vasaria.  Mad scientist?  Check.  This travelling sideshow features the skeleton of Count Dracula, from which Niemann extracts the wooden stake to revive the vampire.  Dracula?  Check.

Niemann’s assistant is Daniel (J. Carrol Naish) who repeatedly asks Niemann to make him like other men.  Hunchback?  Check.  While hunting for Henry Frankenstein’s records so that he can do so, Niemann unearths the bodies of Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) and The Monster (Glenn Strange).  Wolf Man?  Check.  Frankenstein’s monster? Check.

The climax always arrives in a laboratory when the particular drama of the movie comes to a head just as equipment is buzzing, lights are flashing and villagers are grabbing torches.  Here, it’s Daniel’s jealousy of Talbot’s relationship with gypsy sweetheart, Ilonka (Elena Verdugo), that causes silver bullets to be fired, man made monsters to be frenzied and bodies to be thrown out of windows.

Dracula’s involvement is limited to the first 30 minutes of House of Frankenstein and is totally uncharacteristic of the character.  John Carradine is slightly better than Lon Chaney, Jr. was as the Count in Son of Dracula, but the same effort is not made to connect him to the continuity that is so strict for the other monsters.  Here, he’s blackmailed to do Niemann’s bidding, which we all know Dracula would never do.

It’s nice to see Karloff in a Universal Monsters movie without elaborate makeup covering his face.  It’s also an interesting reversal in House of Frankenstein that he’s bringing a monster to life rather than portraying the monster being brought to life.  But Naish’s Daniel is the heart of this movie and the actor gives a moving performance.  So, it’s not without its little rewards, but the entire movie is no treasure. 

Tomorrow: The Mummy's Curse!

Son of Dracula (1943)

For this year's Countdown to Halloween, it's all-Universal Monsters, all-the-time, from Dracula (1931) to The Creature Walks Among Us (1956).  Join me daily for a fresh perspective on movies you may not have watched in a long time, if ever.  Today, a rare snoozer: Son of Dracula!

If there’s anything worse than Lon Chaney Jr. as Frankenstein’s monster, it’s Lon Chaney Jr. as Dracula.  With his pencil mustache and brunette hair, he’s as American as apple pie, yet in Son of Dracula (1943) he’s meant to portray a Hungarian count.  He’s as different from Bela Lugosi as an actor could be.  However, when he’s off screen, the movie is even worse without him.

I don’t know why the movie’s called “Son” of Dracula.  There’s nothing in the story to indicate Chaney’s anyone else, although he’s called “Count Alucard” (Dracula backwards).  It could as easily be called, “Gone With the Count,” as the vampire finds his food supply drying up overseas and settles on a plantation in the Deep South.  Here, he thinks he has an ally in Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton).

She really wants to double-cross him, though, and steal eternal life for herself and her lifelong beau, Frank Stanley (Robert Paige).  Her sister, Claire (Evelyn Ankers), Doctor Brewster (Frank Craven) and Professor Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg) are their foils, although they’d rather sit around and rehash vampire lore than get out and do anything about it.

It had been seven years since the last Dracula movie, Dracula’s Daughter.  That’s the only reason I can think for the remedial lessons about vampires in Son of Dracula.  There’s not really any revisionist history or new information.  However, Dracula can now hunch his shoulders, back toward the camera, and then transform into an animated bat that flies away from the camera.

He and Katherine can also both materialize out of mist, a trick that she takes advantage of in the movie’s one clever scene.  She visits Frank in jail after he’s confessed to accidentally killing her, then disappears when the guard checks on him.  The guard then says that Frank is talking to himself in two different voices.  This reinforces the idea that he’s gone a little nuts.

I don’t have much more to say about Son of Dracula.  I thought it was silly and boring.  It can easily be left out of the other Universal Monsters movies because it doesn’t purposely fit into their ongoing continuity.  I suppose it’s notable for Chaney, considering that he’d now portrayed all the heavy hitters:  the Wolf Man, Frankenstein’s Monster and the Mummy.

Tomorrow: The Invisible Man's Revenge!

Dracula's Daughter (1936)

For this year's Countdown to Halloween, it's all-Universal Monsters, all-the-time, from Dracula (1931) to The Creature Walks Among Us (1956).  Join me daily for a fresh perspective on movies you may not have watched in a long time, if ever.  Today, another strike out... Dracula's Daughter.

One thing I love about the Universal Monsters sequels is the attention paid to continuity between them.  Both Bride of Frankenstein and Dracula's Daughter begin where Frankenstein and Dracula ended.  Yeah, there might be a bit of revisionist history in the second chapters, but it's mostly disguised with adjacent scenes we just didn't see the first time around.  For example, at the same time Van Helsing is staking Dracula in the original movie, police are racing down the castle steps; we just don't see this occurring until the sequel.

In Dracula's Daughter (1936), the police presence, specifically that of Scotland Yard, is felt so heavily that at times it's more criminal mystery than horror thriller.  Sir Basil Humphrey (Gilbert Emery) basically replaces the role of disbelieving family members that were featured in Dracula.  This depersonalizes the stakes (pun intended), even though the movie attempts to add a love triangle among a former student of Van Helsing's, Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger), his assistant, Janet (Marguerite Churchill) and the villain, Contessa Marya Zeleska (Gloria Holden), aka "Dracula's Daughter."

Zeleska is not literally Dracula's daughter.  Figuratively, she became his daughter when she suffered "the curse of the Draculas," which I assume means became his blood slave.  She may be the first reluctant vampire character in movies in that she wants to be "free… free forever."  However, a burial ceremony to destroy her master's body does not actually release her.  She continues to be interested in alternative cures that Garth offers, such as hypnosis.  But it seems mostly lip service as she continues to carry on her "father's" wicked ways.

The genders are reversed, but Zeleska's goal is the same: to have a partner with whom she can spend eternal life.  At her side is a creepy looking guy named Sandor (Irving Pichel), who could be interpreted as the real villain of the story.  You get the feeling that even if Zeleska could escape the darkness, Sandor would try to prevent it… or kill her instead.

The locales are also reversed.  Dracula begins in Transylvania and moves to London.  Dracula's Daughter begins in London and moves to Transylvania.  Instead of literally carrying her victim with her for the climax, Zeleska takes Janet.  Her victim, Garth, chases after them.  It then becomes somewhat of a hostage situation where one life is offered for another.

How much you enjoy Dracula's Daughter may depend upon how much you like Holden in the role.  Personally, I don't think she's as charismatic as Bela Lugosi was as Dracula.  Soft spoken with a deep voice, her high cheekbones make her look more like Cher than anyone else.  She uses her ring to mesmerize her victims, but it's her voice alone that almost lulled me into a trance.  It would be best to distance her relationship with Dracula, but when she gives her interpretation of lines like, "I never drink… wine," you're reminded this is an inferior product.

There's the basis for a great idea here.  Before Garth understands the true reason for Zeleska's torture, he likens her "obsession" to that of an alcoholic and proposes a method to make her similarly fight her will.  You'd place an alcoholic in a room with a bottle and not allow him/her to drink, but I'm not sure what Garth would put in a room with Zeleska, a blood bag?  The movie, rightfully so, is more interested in the action and soon abandons his practical efforts in favor of Zeleska's failures to go straight.

Van Helsing's lack of participation in it all is curious.  His primary purpose is, for us, to state the obvious, and for the other characters, to recap events from the first movie.  His commentary with Sir Basil and relationship with Garth is a bridge to what's really happening, but his actual participation in events is limited.  When Garth charters a plane to Transylvania, Van Helsing exclaims, "Stop him!  He's going to his death!"  Even when he joins at the end, it's only to respond to a comment about how beautiful Zeleska's body is.

"She was beautiful when she died… 100 years ago," says Van Helsing.  Probably intended to be serious, I laughed when he said that.  Likewise, at the beginning of the movie when someone asks how long Dracula has been dead, I laughed when Van Helsing said, "About 500 years."  Intentional or not, there's more humor in Dracula's Daughter than in its predecessor.  But there's less style.  The sequel has none of the atmosphere of the original, and it's particularly noticeable in what are supposed to be the exact same settings, such as Dracula's Transylvania castle.

Compared to the other sequel, Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula's Daughter… well, doesn't compare.  The time between making the two Frankenstein movies was shorter than that between the two Dracula movies, so maybe that has something to do with the approach taken.  Dracula's Daughter seems to have established the pattern for the multitude of Universal Monsters sequels that followed.  I don't know that any of them could be considered good movies, but a lot of them are fun.  However, this one is not one of my favorites.