Did you people see the same film I saw?

An absolute waste of money

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Nonsense rarely seen. Acting, directing, camera and other technicalities, all are on level we are expecting from this kind of movies. Really decent, I can not complain. But screenplay is unbelievably bad. They crammed bunch of monsters and forced them together in same story. They did not stick to original legends, they did not attach to previous movies, they did not even think of some new original plot. They simply threw in bunch of cliché horror patterns into rush overladen story, that is not either original, or tense or fun at all. There's no good plot nor denouement. It simply starts, lasts some time and ends without any logical sense. It's like they cut off random parts of previous monster movies and then shuffled them and glue them together. What author did here is not writing, it's recycling and amateurish and lousy done. Movie is not unwatchable, but it is complete waste of time.4/10

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....

House Of Dracula feels tired, running on nothing but the fact that there is an onslaught of monsters here but not much else. It does manage to be somewhat entertaining however and its probably as best a send off Universal could get at this stage.The star is no doubt Onslow Stevens as Dr. Edelmann, a man who tries to help both Dracula and Larry Talbot become normal but in the process becomes a Hyde-like character and becomes the very thing he set to destroy. Great performance from Stevens and he upstages everybody else, even when he's not in the same scene. Strange doesn't get even 5 minutes a The Monster before getting destroyed (again). Chaneys Wolf Man is getting boring by this point although its nice to see Talbot get cured from his disease. Once again Universal missed out on an opportunity to just face each of the monsters off and again I sorely want that but no use crying over spilt milk. Overall, average with some great things sprinkled on top. End of an era and its a shame it didn't end on top but at least it ended with a band, even if the bang was recycled.

This is another Universal fun filled fright fest.Many people want to compare it to House Of Frankenstein.Even though it has similar cast and the same director it can stand on its own.(It does appear that Erle C Kenton directed most of the Universal horror films of the 40's).The plot recap:Baron Latos appears at the home of Dr Eidlemann seeking a "cure" for his vampires.Larry Talbot (who somehow survived House OF Frankenstein) also shows up at the good doctors door seeking a cure for his affliction.After a failed suicide attempt Talbot and the doctor find the Frankenstein monster. To complicate matters just before he bites the dust, Dracula infects the good doctor with his blood.The doctor becomes a bloodthirsty maniac at certain times.Where this leads to is something you'll have to see for your self.Carradine actually gives a very good performance as Dracula. He isn't chewing up the scenery as he will in later roles. It is hard to repress giggles when he appears in a top hat though.The cape/cloak is traditional but the hat has to go. Where does the hat go when he changes into a bat...?Onslow Stevens gives an excellent portrayal of the doctor. He's torn between his basic kindness and the increasing blood lust he is now prone to. This is a very underrated performance.Chaney brings even more life to the Wolf Man in his 4th appearance in that role.The monster isn't given much to do this time.Just lay on the table until the end(some stock footage from the Ghost Of Frankenstein is used).At least in House Of Frankenstein he was up and around a bit.Yes this does stick to the basic Universal pattern complete with the angry village mob running amok with torches.But it isn't a bad way to spend an hour and ten minutes.It gets a low 8.