‘Son of Dracula’ (B-Movie Review) (1943) — Part Two

Okay, ready for Part Two of the amazing film Son of Dracula from 1943?

Right. Let’s get this over with done!

Then Professor Lazlo arrives at Dr. Brewster’s house. The doctor has noticed the stupid Word Jumble rearrangement of letters … you know … Dracula = Alucard (in a mirror). I guess the book he’s reading gave him the first clue. The fact that Count Alucard can be reduced to a cowering wreck reacts strongly when he sees a cross can only bolster his position.

“Sorry. I forgot to bring the cake with file in it. Forgive me, dahling?” (Image via Midnite Reviews.)

Katherine flies to Frank (literally—as a bat!), who’s locked up in a cell for killing a non-dead woman Katherine, who’s clearly not dead. She spills the beans about the whole Alucard-Dracula thing and says she only married him for his money. Well, that and immortality. But she wants to be immortal with Frank, not some old washed-up B-movie actor a vampire with a screwed up name whose name you have to decipher. She also instructs Frank on how to destroy Alucard/Dracula/Whatever.

Just gliding along! 🙂 (Image via Observing the World.)

With this incentive, Frank breaks out of jail, finds Alucard’s coffin, and burns it. Once denied his little hidey-hole, Alucard is destroyed when the sun rises and he has nowhere to go. Dr. Brewster, Lazlo, and the Sheriff eventually find a few smoking remains of the Count.

“What the heck’s going on here?” (Image via Cheaper Drugs Now!!)

Frank, meanwhile, finds his way to the “playroom” (that’s what Wikipedia calls it, anyhow) and finds Katherine in her own coffin. In the world’s quickest and weirdest engagement, Franks places his ring on her finger and, given how dead she already looks, he goes and finishes the job.

And when everyone else shows up, all they see is Katherine’s burning coffin.



No, no … hang on!

W-T-F??? (Image via Cheaper Drugs Now!!)

By shooting an undead person and having the bullets pass through an undead person to a live person who becomes undead, would Frank be potentially guilty of intent to commit murder? Or could it be manslaughter? Or womanslaughter? Even if he were shooting at a phantom a hologram an undead person?

Does it make a difference that Frank thought Alacard was not undead a living person?

Can the marriage of an undead person to the living one be annulled as illegal/immoral/impossible/way too bizarre?

And who would testify at the trial? And who would believe them?

If you’re feeling weirdly Socratic, go on then. Leave a comment. 🙂

This entry was posted in 1940s Films, Horror, Saturday B-Movie Review and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to ‘Son of Dracula’ (B-Movie Review) (1943) — Part Two

  1. Terrific retelling, especially the mess with the shifting name and-

    Wait, what’s this about a “playroom”? Was there a bit of kinky going on here? Did I miss something when I watched the movie? Hmm. Probably. I watched it during college, and it’s fair to say that I may not have been completely sober when I did so… 😉

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.