the audience applauded

Sadly Over-hyped

Excellent, a Must See

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

You get your money's worth here - Dracula, the Wolf Man & Frankenstein's Monster in just over an hour. It doesn't hang about either, quite fast paced. Sure, Carradine as Dracula is no Lugosi but he still gives a good performance, though Chaney Jnr is the real star of this monster fest. Some decent effects too, for the time.

Not broadcast yet this Halloween on TCM and hard to find on disc, Universal now has "control" of this feature once again. It wandered into public domain for a short while. A better and more complex story than it's predecessor! We once again find ourselves in Transylvania, so naturally the gang's all here. Dr.Edlemann tries to cure Dracula (John Carradine) of vampirism, so the blood transfusion backs up, which starts to turn the doctor into a blood-sucker. This drives him mad and he finishes reviving The Frankenstein Monster. Lawrence Talbot-The Wolfman appears to be cured, but of course he isn't. There is a beautiful hunchbacked nurse (or is it just bad posture?) and a blonde nurse who gets to "date" both Dracula and The Wolfman. Lionel Atwill again plays the Inspector of the village, as in other "chapters". Intended to be a chapter once again, Frankenstein catches on fire, so you know he will be back, in 3 years (1948), for "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein". Great and monstrous fun. Quite tame by today's standards, but much more intense than "House of Frankenstein". It should have been called "House of Dr. Edlemann", as most of the action takes place at his house! Note: Dracula also dies again, but manages to return in 1948 anyway.

One of weakest Universal Horror Films I've ever seen, House of Dracula is something of an over ambitious film with a lot of ideas but an ungraceful execution. The plot of this film is so convoluted and busy that I'm not going to bother trying to explain it. Sufficient to say, an array of classic monsters revolve on and off the screen, ranging from Frankenstein's Monster, Dracula, the Wolfman, a surprising hunchback, and a Jekyll and Hyde type Mad Doctor. Monsters more or less appear simply to say "Hello, here I am. I'm what you paid to see" and then leave as quickly and as puzzling as they came. The most frustrating aspect of the plot is the series of coincidences, one after another, that the director used to lazily propel the story forward. Dracula just happens to show up the same week as the Wolfman. Frankenstein's monster just happens to show up underneath the Mad Doctor's lab. It's a little much for the audience to buy. Lazier than this even was the recycled footage used from Ghost of Frankenstein at the end of this movie. The setting is good enough but nothing outstanding. The same tropes are all present, a glorious, sparking laboratory, a creepy castle glowing in the moon's light, and in one scene a garden reminiscent of the garden in Dracula. I wasn't impressed with the atmosphere, but it got the job done.The cast is as mediocre and unimpressive as the rest of the film. John Carridine is a miss as Dracula, I have always felt that way. My opinion's no different here. Lionel Atwill returns to play an Inspector once again. He gets the job done but it's nothing compared to previous performances. Lon Chaney Jr. reprises his infamous role as Lawrence Talbot, the Wolfman. His performance is outstanding, he gives off the impression that he's fed up being the Wolfman and its starting to weigh heavy on his soul. Perhaps Chaney was channeling his own frustration and exhaustion with being typecast as a monster in every film.Onslow Stevens plays Dr. Franz Edelmann and is really the highlight of the film. His performance mirrors the story of Jekyll and Hyde, a benevolent, humble doctor who becomes a murderous madman. There is an exceedingly well done scene in this movie with Stevens bantering with a carriage driver who he then dispatches. Honestly, this scene is the only reason I would watch this movie again. Glenn Strange plays Frankenstein's Monster. That sentence is shorter than his actual screen time. House of Dracula marks a decline in the quality and creativity in the Universal Horror series. It's predecessor, House of Frankenstein, is indeed a superior film but I feel that both lack a certain element. Call it a soul, the movie lacks a soul. That's the best way I can think to put it. It's worth a watch, but nothing more.

Released in December 1945, "House of Dracula" is the penultimate entry in Universal's classic series of monster movies, stretching from 1931's "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" all the way to 1948's "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein." Like its immediate predecessor, 1944's "House of Frankenstein," and the 1948 film, it is an all-star monster mash-up, featuring Dracula for the fifth time (after the original, 1936's "Dracula's Daughter," 1943's "Son of Dracula" and the '44 film), Franky for the seventh time (after the 1931 film, 1935's "Bride of Frankenstein," 1939's "Son of Frankenstein," 1942's "Ghost of Frankenstein," 1943's "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" and the '44 film), and the Wolf Man for the fourth time (following 1941's original classic "The Wolf Man," "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" and the '44 film). Whew! Clocking in at a brief 67 minutes, this entry certainly makes for a compact addition to this legendary series, and like all the others, makes for a splendid entertainment for both the kiddies and their parents.In this one, Lawrence Talbot (wonderfully played, as always, by Lon Chaney, Jr.) visits still another medical expert to help rid himself of his lycanthropic curse. He arrives at the castle home of Dr. Franz Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) in the fictitious hamlet of Visaria (a locale that, due to the townspeople's Teutonic names and the doctor's oceanfront pile, the viewer must assume to be in northern Germany), only to learn that the good doctor is busy with another patient. Just the night before, by an incredible coincidence, one Baron Latos had appeared in the doctor's sitting room in the wee hours of the A.M. The stranger was received by the doctor with amazingly good grace (how many of us would engage a top-hatted stranger with such accommodating conversation at 5 A.M.?) and soon revealed that he was no less a personage than Count Dracula himself, seeking a cure for his own monstrous curse. (As in the '44 film, the old neck nosher is played here by John Carradine, with suavity to spare.) Edelmann eventually agrees to take both these new patients on, and his lot is made even more problematic when he discovers--in still another fantastic co-inkydence, one that propels the film into the realms of the surreal--the dormant body of the Frankenstein monster (Glenn Strange, for the second time) in the sea caves beneath his home! (At this point, the viewer might understandably begin to wonder when the Invisible Man and the Mummy will be making their entrances!) And life grows even more harried for the put-upon doctor, when he realizes that the sneaky count has turned him into one of the bloodsucking undead...and with an overriding desire to revive the Frankenstein monster...."House of Dracula" (a more appropriate title would be "House of Edelmann," of course) is a remarkable film for several reasons. In it, both Dracula AND the Wolf Man profess a desire to be cured of their earthly lot (Dracula seeks a "release from a curse of misery and horror against which I'm powerless to fight alone"; Talbot bemoans his "life of misery and despair"), and for the first time, a scientific explanation is given for both of their maladies (a blood parasite and a "different species of antibodies" for the vampire; "pressure upon certain parts of the brain" coupled with self-hypnosis and hormonal changes, in the case of Talbot). Even more startling, perhaps, is the series' first FEMALE hunchback: Nina, the assistant of Dr. Edelmann, played by Jane Adams. Although grouped with the other monsters in the film's promotional poster under the tagline "The Devil's Own Brood," Nina is actually the kindest, most sympathetic character in the entire film, and despite her deformity, prettier than her fellow assistant Miliza (Martha O'Driscoll). The fact that Nina IS such a sympathetic character only makes her ultimate fate seem like an undeserved gyp. Continuing its pseudoscientific bent, "House of Dracula" gives us some plausible solutions for the monsters' problem: blood transfusions for the count, and utilizing the spores of the "clavaria formosa" plant, to effect a reshaping of the cranial cavity, for Talbot. Besides these novel plot points, the film boasts an oftentimes remarkable use of light and shadow (DOP George Robinson had previously lent his considerable skills to films such as "The Mummy's Tomb," "Franky Meets the Wolf Man," "Son of Dracula," "Cobra Woman" and "House of Frankenstein"). The special FX by John P. Fulton are just fine--including Larry's transformations, the Drac-to-bat changes, and especially the beautiful ocean backdrop behind Edelmann's castle--while the film's direction, by Erle C. Kenton ("Island of Lost Souls," "Ghost of Frankenstein," "House of Frankenstein"), is taut and atmospheric. The film boasts several memorable scenes, including Talbot's initial jail-cell transformation; Miliza playing increasingly haunting piano music, as Dracula's spell overwhelms her; Edelmann watching his mirrored reflection slowly fade and disappear, a telltale sign of his new vampiric condition; and a surrealistic fantasy/dream sequence that Edelmann suffers. On the down side, it can fairly be said that Carradine is an unusual casting choice to play the count, that Dracula is too easily disposed of, and that the film itself wraps up way too abruptly. And (spoiler ahead) how is it even possible for the vampire Edelmann to be done in by conventional bullets? Quibbles aside, though, the film is as fun as can be, and even lets the newly cured Lawrence Talbot enjoy a happy ending, for a change! Of course, Larry would soon be in for a fairly serious relapse, as the events of "A & C Meet Franky" would clearly detail. Here's hoping that he at least had three good years between these two films....