Hi Dean,

I'm a bit of a late bloomer when it comes to appreciating this 40's
version of the Dracula tale, primarily because of how much I love
Lugosi, that it tended to blind me to classic portrayals of his famous
character when played by anyone else. Particularly when he was still
around and kicking and could have been cast in the role (though it
would have probably had to have been a different kind of story in this
respect most likely). However, more recently, I have opened my mind a
bit more and every time I see this film now, I come away with a
stronger appreciation for it. I think it will still rank around
middling on my list of Universal 40's classic horror films, but it's
certainly come up in my eyes. I love many of the things you referred
to, the atmosphere is really great and the ending is quite unique, and
in many respects, Alucard (Dracula) is not the main protagonist, which
is an interesting variation.

Mark

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Dean" <sonofvulcan@a...> wrote:
> Before a couple of days ago, I'd never seen this entry in the
> Universal canon. I've seen Dracula of course, and I've even come
> across Dracula's Daughter, but never this highly-regarded vampire
> story.
>
> Frankly, I've always had a hard time figuring out how Lon Chaney Jr.
> did a decent job as the Count, but his "Count Alucard" is okay. It
> doesn't stand up to Lugosi or Lee, but hardly anyone does.
>
> The story itself is the star of this one. The southern U.S. setting
> is interesting in itself, and the young woman with the peculiar
> fascination with death is involving. The central notion that Dracula
> might not be in full control of events gives this story a neat twist,
> and in fact I'd heard the ending of this one was better than average.
> I wasn't disappointed.
>
> This is no masterpiece, but it's a very entertaining bit of monster
> hokum, and a good entry in the Universal series.
>
> What do you all think?
>
> Dean