Another cool atmospheric vampire film that's a sequel to Dracula and Dracula's Daughter, but can stand alone since there's no reference to the previous films.<br /><br />Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Son of Dracula. He's ok as Dracula, but much better as the Wolf Man. Anyhow, He travels under the alias "Count Alucard" (Dracula spelled backwards) to America to marry a woman who is secretly just trying to gain eternal life so that she can spread it to her real love interest who she was supposed to marry in the first place.<br /><br />This is a pretty original story. And it's the only one of the Universal classic Dracula films where we actually see the vampires turn into mist, and the first one where we actually SEE Dracula turn into a bat. I like this film.<br /><br />There's an on going debate as to whether the Dracula in this film is supposed to be the same Dracula that Bela Lugosi played. I disagree. The reasons being because we saw Bela Lugosi's Dracula killed and burned in the previous two films. And the vampire expert in Son of Dracula, Dr. Lazlo, said that this one is probably a descendant of the original Dracula. Lastly, I think the title says it all - although there are people who seem to think that this is just a common sequel title used back then and is not meant to be taken literally. But it was taken literally with Son of Frankenstein, and this is a follow up to "Dracula's DAUGHTER" (who really WAS his daughter) so... But anyway, on the back of the video case, it says that Lon Chaney is playing the son of Dracula. So I don't think it can be more clearer that the Dracula we see in Son of Dracula IS the SON of Dracula like the title suggests.<br /><br />In the end, this film is worth watching if you can take it in its historical context. Otherwise you won't enjoy this film, because it's not up to today's standards of horror. But for the time period, this film was a good horror film.<br /><br />8 out of 10.