This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

brilliant actors, brilliant editing

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Arriving at a doctor's seaside home, Count Dracula tries to find a cure for vampirism together only for the Wolfman to arrive looking for a cure to lycanthropy which causes him to discover a new monster during their quests and brings them together in a climactic showdown.This was a rather decent film and manages to get quite entertaining. One of the main ideas here is that this one is quite creative and imaginative with how to handle the monsters in here which is quite fun. This is the first film to openly propose the idea of vampirism as a blood disease, and one that can be transferred from person to person through the exchange of bodily fluid, something that would be taken up by later genre works but rarely as directly as this. There's even a microscope slide of the parasite that is believed responsible for the condition as this also works in some rather nice ideas. The fact that each of the creatures has at least one standout scene is a rather nifty idea, as the wolfman has a marvelous scene where he transforms inside a prison cell to the doubting members of the search party and goes crazy, Dracula's initial appearance as a bat flying toward a prone figure sleeping and then goes into human form which looks really impressive and Frankenstein's Monster has a brief rampage which is well handled and an appropriate amount of destruction is caused during the fiery battle at the end. As well as the fact that the large bat that Dracula transforms into always looks decent for once, it's a thoroughly decent affair while there are several things that weren't all that great about this one. The main issue here is the fact that the film combines so much potentially intriguingly plots and ideas that it really doesn't know what to do with them. There are several different backstories that have to be mingled together and which should be clear enough to mix well together, but this really doesn't seem coherent. The plot is rather flimsy and doesn't really give a preferential treatment to any of the monster stars, instead concentrating on one then another and then includes all three in the ending. The monsters only seem to get engaged with each other for the smallest possible reason makes it a big distraction. The other big problem here is that the ending is for once a big let-down, and seems like it was changed at the last minute. The brawling is too short to mean anything, and doesn't have any of that fire and charge usually associated with the series. These are pretty much what contribute to this not being near the classic status of each monsters' debut features.Today's Rating/PG: Violence

"Universal" studios could have made a better film in which to finish their stable of monster characters."House of Dracula" is a disappointment in many ways: Onslow Stevens acting a bit on the hammy side when he becomes a mad scientist (he is better when playing his character in a more benevolent manner), Glenn Strange has nothing to do other than destroy the laboratory, it's rather obvious that footage is used from previous horror films by the studios, Lionel Atwill shouldn't have bothered appearing in this film as he is clearly rather ill during filming (he died only months later), Lon Chaney Jnr should have had more screen time as the Wolf Man and the reduction in budget is there for all to see.John Carradine makes another effective appearance as Count Dracula though and he wisely has a fair amount of screen time.It's a bit disappointing that this film marks the last time we see the old Eastern European village set on the backlot.

A hugely entertaining slice of Universal hokum, this is from the period in the 1940s where they tried to increase interest in the films by having all the monsters appear together. The cast list of this film reads like a who's who of classic horror actors. They're all present and correct, apart from Bela Lugosi, who is missed in the proceedings; John Carradine is a good actor but no match for Lugosi's presence as Dracula.The main actor, Onslow Stevens, who plays the doctor, is great when he turns mad, and Lon Chaney Jr. is also given a large part in his most famous role. The only monster receiving a raw deal is Frankenstein's Monster, once again played by Glenn Strange. He is only revived in the last five minutes of the film before being apparently killed by fire.The film contains almost constant action, going back and forth between the three monsters. The doctor even has a hunchbacked assistant, although she is female this time around. There are many special effects, and those where Dracula turns into a bat are probably the most fun, although Chaney does get to turn into a werewolf again. With a film like this, typically not much thought is given to plot, but who needs plot when you have a synopsis like this? If you're into the Universal monsters then you really do have to see this film for the sheer fun value.

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.