He was encountered and awoken at random, tried to kidnap a woman, and was killed all without affecting the plot in any way. He had no reason whatsoever to be in the film. And the fact that he wasn't played by Bela Lugosi makes that even more true.
shareIt's funny you mention how Dracula is useless in this movie because when I first watched it with a few family members this year, we couldn't believe how sh!tty and pointless the plot of House of Frankenstein was, but it's particularly strange how the parts with Dracula don't connect with the rest of the movie at all.
Like Dracula gets resurrected (I don't know how the hell he got his bones in the first place, let alone claim he got them from Transylvania even though HOF is technically a part of the Universal Monsters continuity and Dracula got killed in England) just by pulling the stake out. Then there's the whole storyline involving Dracula's giant ring which goes nowhere.
When Dracula finally got killed, I remember me and my mother kept looking at each other going "Is the movie over?" Obviously it wasn't but the way it was filmed almost looked like they were ending the movie, and the whole Dracula plotline in no way affects the rest of the movie. Nobody references him, we don't know jack about the people he tried to kill, etc.
I generally like the old monster movies like Nosferatu, Dracula or Frankenstein even if some of them are kinda corny or silly (my family loves to occasionally watch Creature From the Black Lagoon) but House of Frankenstein in my opinion was just a huge waste of time, even for an old Universal Monsters flick.
Can't be too careful with all those weirdos running around.
[deleted]
I kinda wonder if *maybe* the Dracula segment began life
as the beginning of yet another return-of-Dracula movie??
Then got shelved, and then recycled into this hodge-podge.
I did like the concept of the ring. Especially the way it glowed,
then adapted its size to the girl's finger! That was pretty cool.
Carradine, however, wasn't quite sinister enough as The Count,
and he definitely could not match Bela's hypnotic sex appeal.
[deleted]
I always liked Lon Chaney Jr. in whatever he did - he seemed
like such a likeable guy (although he ended rather badly).
He was quite simpatico as the ill-fated Larry Talbot; always so remorseful
after he killed! Poor guy. And of course, the fabulous Maria Ouspenskaya,
reading his palm and seeing the dread sign of the pentagram <shudder>.
Are you saying Chaney Jr. played Dracula in some other film? I haven't seen
all the films in the Universal 'monster franchise'. For me, Chaney IS The Wolfman,
and Lugosi will always be Dracula. Max Schreck notwithstanding (eww - creepy!).
I read the book many years ago and barely remember Drac's description, but
I do know it wasn't some suave dude with an opera cape. I *think* that that
particular costume originated on the (London?) stage with the very first Dracula
portrayer(not Lugosi). I believe the theatre owner or manager was mystified by
all the ladies swooning over this evil vampire dude, lol. So Bela (a matinee idol
in his homeland) kept the elegant look, and voila - the Dracula stereotype was born.
I did like Langella's "lonely" Dracula - and Christopher Lee was no slouch, either.
But Bela will always be my favorite Count.
[deleted]
Ah, okay. I'll have to find a way to see that one, some time.
I know, I know - but there's just something about Lugosi's particular type
of charm that truly takes hold of me. He's so sinister and dripping with evil
intentions, yet irresistible at the same time. I feel no sympathy for Lugosi's
Dracula, the way I did for Langella's or Oldman's. He's truly soulless.
He is scary though, (to me) because he's utterly relentless and has a superior
mind, to the point of being (almost) able to subdue Van Helsing. His strength
is in the overwhelming power of his mind. Lugosi's 'scariness' lurks below the
surface, and is therefore masked beneath a deceptive veneer of charm. There's
no need for blood dripping from his fangs. Of course, it was a different era.
I dunno, maybe it's because I'm female, LOL. I'm just a sucker (no pun
intended!) for Bela Lugosi in anything, but most of all, as Count Dracula.
It was likely just a way for the studio to get Dracula in the film somehow so he could be mentioned as one of the monsters in trailers and ads.
shareThis very much feels like two short films spliced together. One being an interesting idea for a DRACULA sequel, and the other being more of an extended epilogue to FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
The film probably could've done without Dracula as he served no purpose but I'm glad he was in it anyways. He is my favorite classic horror character.
shareSomeone asked a question if Lon Chaney Jr. had played Dracula and the answer is yes. It was in Universal ' s "Son of Dracula". He played Count Alucard (Dracula backwards). And Dracula really didn't fit in this movie. Seems he was just kind of thrown in. It's still enjoyable to watch.
share[deleted]
Yup, he was a plot hole for sure
share