Even though I consider myself a classic horror fan (and a fan of the classic Universal horror movies in particular), I readily admit that Dracula (1931) is not among my favorites. In fact, I prefer almost all of the Dracula sequels to the original. And, I consider Son of Dracula the best of the bunch. Why? I'm prepared to write about three areas in Son of Dracula that work almost perfectly for me: the atmosphere, the mix of genres/styles, and the cast.<br /><br />- Atmosphere  Son of Dracula positively drips with atmosphere. The misty swamps, the expertly lit interiors, the luscious sets, the eerie music, and Robert Siodmak's direction all contribute to the richness and underlying sense of taboo and dread. One scene that perfectly demonstrates the film's atmosphere is the rise of Dracula from the swamps. The coffin rises from the swamp floor, a vaporous mist comes forth eventually changing into Dracula's solid form, he glides effortlessly across the swamp to meet his mortal love and future wife  man, you could bath in the atmosphere.<br /><br />- Mix of genres/styles  Throughout its history, horror has often been combined with other genres or styles of movies. Most obvious are the great number of horror/comedies or horror/sci-fi films you can find. Sometimes, horror is mixed in more unusual ways. For example, there are horror/Westerns and even horror/romance films. Son of Dracula is one of the very few movies that I would call a horror/film noir (I know that film noir isn't necessarily a genre, but humor me here). All the film noir trappings are here. To begin with, Son of Dracula has that look generally associated with film noir. Just take a look at the use of shadows and you'll see what I mean. But a better example is Kay Caldwell as the femme fatal and Dracula, of all people, as her dupe. The way Kay uses Dracula to do what she wants would have made even Phyllis Dietrichson proud. Kay uses Dracula to kill her father so she can get the estate and then tricks him into marriage to gain immortality. Finished with Dracula, he becomes disposable. She turns to old flame Frank Stanley to help her destroy Dracula. In the end, all three  Kay, Dracula, and Frank  are either dead or damaged beyond repair. Take away the supernatural elements of the story and you've got a typical 1940s film noir.<br /><br />- The cast  A lot of people tend to focus on Lon Chaney, Jr., suitability for the role of Dracula. The criticism is almost always related to Chaney's physical appearance. I'm convinced that some of these people can't get past his size long enough to take a look at his performance. And I've always thought of it as a rock solid performance. Equally mysterious is Louise Allbritton in role of the manipulative Kay. She's fantastic as she winds both Dracula and Frank around her finger. As for Robert Paige as the doomed Frank, he's perfect. He plays the tragic figure so well. Beyond these three, the film also features solid supporting performances from Evelyn Ankers, J. Edward Bromberg, and Frank Craven. All are terrific. Everyone involved in the cast really comes out of Son of Dracula looking good.<br /><br />In the end, I do not hesitate to rate Son of Dracula a 9/10. Other than some minor quibbles I have with how quickly Dr. Brewster comes to believe in and accept that Dracula is in their presence, the film is near flawless to me. And it gets better with each successive viewing. Watching tonight, I realized I was enjoying it even more now than ever before. It's a great movie!