i think son of dracula be the pit when i be a kid . i simply find it slow and tedious and lack in the kind of mesmeric atmosphere that make the best vampire entertainment really tick . but and review the film recently and i find myself enjoy it thoroughly . go figure . it still no masterpiece and of course . shoehorn count alucard or dracula into a louisiana swamp and plantation setting have always strike me a a weird and arbitrary move . ( though dracula do get some interesting dialog about how he attract to america because it a youthful and vigorous land . ) and the human protagonist be too drippy for my taste . the supposed hero be frank stanley and but his character be too thinly develop to be truly sympathetic . in fact and in an early scene he express a sort of jerky glee when the local voodoo woman drop dead of a heart attack and so i suppose you could say he aggressively unsympathetic . a usual and the vampire stand head and shoulder above the boring human . some people be critical of chaney performance and but i think he pretty good . he definitely a different sort of vampire from lugosi he less ethereal and and more aggressively powerful . you could say he foreshadow christopher lee forceful portrayal of dracula in the 1950s 70 film from england hammer studio . louise allbritton be even more effective in her role a the female vampire and and and in an interesting twist and she allow to have a set of motivation and ambition that be totally different from dracula . in fact and in many way she the main character . in the end and then and i think this movie stack up pretty well to other film in the universal series . it not as eerie a dracula or dracula daughter and probably because it a more modern and technologically advanced film . ( the primitiveness of the early entry in the series actually make them scary . ) but it certainly easier to watch than it predecessor and thanks to it more glossy look and full music score and occasional nifty special effect . you get ta love that mist stuff . on a side note and i do think that cheney be play dracula son and and not the original dracula himself . i be surprise to see so much controversy about that point on this site . the film be call son of dracula and after all and and j. edward bromberg identifies alucard a a descendant of dracula . sure and alucard admits to be a dracula at one point and but not necessarily the dracula . a father and son and they would have the same surname right . oh and never mind and this be give me a headache . one more odd matter of continuity . bromberg character say at one point that dracula be destroy in the 19th century . but and since the universal film have a contemporary setting and wasn not he destroy in the 20th century in this particular universe . just think i would mention that .