|
Title: SON OF DRACULA (1943) Post by: RCMerchant on September 25, 2017, 11:38:27 AM Lon Chaney is Count Alucard,who relocates to the deep South and marries (!) a southern belle who has a fascination with the occult. After driving her ex-lover insane-she sleeps in a coffin and becomes a vampire herself. What a b***h!
This is a well made film-and quite complex for the studio that was churning out junk like HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) the next year.The photgraphy is amazing-and the whole atmosphere seethes with swampy steamy dread. The effects-Dracula dissolving into mist-or morphing into a bat-are great and convincing for the time.The only problem-is Chaney. Now don't get me wrong-I love me some Lon Chaney. OF MICE AND MEN (939) and the WOLF MAN (1941) and in later years SPIDER BABY (1964)-hell-even the INDESTRUCTIBLE MAN (1958)-where he has no lines and acts only with his booze bagged eyes! But-as a vampire? He gives it a pre- Christopher Lee power-but-I just wasn't convinced.Sorry Lon-your Oklahoma corn fed face don't cut the cheese. Lugosi-or even John Carradine-would have made a better Count. Beyond that-a very smart and well written film-and not a bad way to spend an evening. http://youtu.be/B0rPaeTHJmY (http://youtu.be/B0rPaeTHJmY) Title: Re: SON OF DRACULA (1943) Post by: Rev. Powell on September 25, 2017, 05:39:11 PM Never seen this one all the way through but I agree, not a fan of Chaney's vampire.
Title: Re: SON OF DRACULA (1943) Post by: Allhallowsday on October 01, 2017, 10:01:38 PM It's on TCM right now...
Title: Re: SON OF DRACULA (1943) Post by: 316zombie on October 07, 2017, 04:31:54 PM i love this movie largely for the sets* yes,i'm a geek* and like rc says, the atmosphere is so well done. the first time i saw it, i was just blown away with the look of the architecture,especially in the entrance hall...that kind of attention to the detailing of the sets helping to set the atmosphere just doesn't seem to happen much anymore, instead it's all about camera filters...have i mentioned that i really hate the constant sepia tone filter being used to allegedly make a set look scarier? brown everything is NOT scary lol!
Title: Re: SON OF DRACULA (1943) Post by: Ticonderoga 64 on November 13, 2017, 03:51:09 PM One of my favorite classic Universal horrors as well as a wonderfully set horror to begin with. Good casting, Chaney aside, but the sets, direction and special effects make up for it.
Title: Re: SON OF DRACULA (1943) Post by: RCMerchant on November 13, 2017, 06:22:27 PM i love this movie largely for the sets* yes,i'm a geek* and like rc says, the atmosphere is so well done. the first time i saw it, i was just blown away with the look of the architecture,especially in the entrance hall...that kind of attention to the detailing of the sets helping to set the atmosphere just doesn't seem to happen much anymore, instead it's all about camera filters...have i mentioned that i really hate the constant sepia tone filter being used to allegedly make a set look scarier? brown everything is NOT scary lol! I HATE the brown filter used in films that mute the color. Why not just make the damn thing in black and white? Title: Re: SON OF DRACULA (1943) Post by: 316zombie on November 19, 2017, 08:50:56 PM it would look so much better in black and white, imho!
|