Son of Dracula (1973) User Reviews (27)

If only, if only...

[fast_n_bulbous · 4/10 · 2 February 2001]

We all have them, you know...those movies that for whatever reason we somehow managed to miss in the theatre and can't find available on video and never gets shown on TV. This one, for many years, was mine. My holy grail film.

I have loved the music of Harry Nilsson for 30 years, and the Beatles as well both solo and collectively even longer. When I read about this film in the pages of the late, lamented Creem magazine, I couldn't wait to see it! When I was a teenager, my friends (well, the cool ones anyway) had the (excellent) soundtrack album with its generous helpings of film dialogue, so I knew lines from SoD long before I saw it. But it rarely (never where I could see it!)was shown on TV and was not available through normal video channels...I finally got a copy through a video service that specialized in foreign Kung Fu and porn (!). Breathlessly, I put it in the VCR, hit play, and...

Well, lets just say it wasn't exactly worth the wait.

Son of Dracula is, I am sorry to say, just a terrible film in nearly every respect. It looks cheap and is horribly acted by everyone involved, especially Harry, whom I regard as one of the finest songwriters ever, but is no actor. Ringo is, well, Ringo. It's hard to dis the likeable Mister Starkey and be convincing about it, and he gives a typical Ringo performance here-no more, no less. He gets by , as always in his non-drumming endeavors, on his charm. I had hoped that it would be better served by the direction of Freddie Francis, the Hammer horror veteran, but SoD just looks so shoddy that it is obvious that he couldn't care less and was just picking up a paycheck. The story is a jumbled, confusing mess, and the makeup is ineptly done. Perhaps this can be excused a little by the fact that SoD was intended as a spoof, but even on these terms it is a failure.

That being said, SoD is not entirely without merit-it's great to see Nilsson perform "live" (he never did so during his real career) with an all-star band, and there is a clever scene where Harry puts the bite on a nubile young female while T.Rex's "Chariot Choogle" from his "Slider" LP is playing in the background (they even show Harry putting the needle on the record, which sports a T.Rex Wax

Co. label-unseen in the USA and very cool for this fan of not only Harry but Marc Bolan as well).

I can't recommend this to anyone but hardcore Nilsson fans (we are few in number but ardent nonetheless!), and even then with a caveat; my advice is don't expect much and you won't be disappointed. Much.

Well, the music is good.

[dbborroughs · 4/10 · 5 June 2004]

I don't think this film was ever really released widely. It has something to do with Dracula taking over as the head of all the monsters or something, but I'm not sure because its not very good, and I lost interest in anything that was going on.

A good deal of this film is taken over by musical numbers. At the drop of a hat Harry Nilsson will burst in to song, which isn't a bad thing since the music is quite good. The problem is that the rest of the movie is a complete mess. This is more akin to Paul McCartney's vanity projects like Give My Regards to Broad Street, where there's a minimal plot and lots of songs, than anything you could call a real movie. It's a lot of ideas that don't really add up to much.

I can't really suggest anyone actually watch this movie because its a bit of a bore. I give it 4 out of 10 because of the music and the curiosity value, but there always is the album and then again there are some movies best left unseen.

Simply and truly appalling! A must-see!

[jbartlet · 4/10 · 1 June 2003]

That a film this poorly written, poorly shot, poorly directed,

and poorly acted was even brought to the screen is stupefying! I had the album when it came out, but the movie never played anywhere near me. For the past 29 years I have longed to see this film, and in spite of all its faults, it was extremely fun to watch. Most of it is pretty predictable. Vampire prince is set to inherit the throne of the netherworld. Vampire meets human girl. Vampire turns human. Vampire, now human, keeps girl. Harry Nilsson's musical score is brilliant - some of his best songs, but the settings for them are contrived, and in the case of the climax scene, downright goofy. There is a brief period of a few minutes toward the end of the film that are really quite good - from the end of the operation to the end of the movie. I'd have to rate it a must-see for Nilsson fans or for fans of that weird immediately-pre-disco period of the early/mid- 70s. I would not, however, classify it as one of those films you watch over and over.

Good for a Larf

[schadenfreude714 · 16 November 2004]

Yes, this is indeed a movie, albeit one very difficult to get your hands on--try the internet, it was never officially released on video. This is basically a plot less showcase for the musical genius that was Harry Nilsson. He plays the son of Count Dracula--named Count Downe an]--who wants to be mortal so he can marry this woman he's in love with. Or something like that. Ringo Starr looks after Count Downe as Merlin the Magician--with pasty makeup and a fright-wig beard--for some reason, but it really doesn't matter. In fact, there are no full-fledged musical numbers--just Count Downe appearing on-stage at some club and performing--with the exception of his Pete Hamm cover "Without You," in a particularly sappy scene.

It also features strange attempts at comedy. Count Downe's butler uses the word "contretemps" in conversation, then the word appears at the bottom of the screen with a question mark beside it. And the fact that at the end of the credits, Merlin appears in an animated sun and shrugs in an oh-so Ringo way, just proves that--despite its many schlocky tendencies--it is worth a look, if it's not too much trouble.

SON OF Dracula (Freddie Francis, 1974) *1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 3/10 · 14 May 2008]

To begin with, several people involved in this ill-advised and little-seen venture – a fusion of Gothic horror and rock music – have connections with other films featuring some of the monsters who appear in it: Freddie Francis helmed the likes of THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN (1964), Dracula HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968) and LEGEND OF THE WEREWOLF (1975); Suzanna Leigh had been the heroine of LUST FOR A VAMPIRE (1970); Freddie Jones had appeared impressively as the creature in FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED! (1969); Dennis Price did an extended cameo in THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN (1970) and, for Jess Franco, played Van Helsing in VAMPYROS LESBOS (1970) and the Baron in Dracula – PRISONER OF FRANKENSTEIN (1971) and THE EROTIC RITES OF FRANKENSTEIN (1972)! In retrospect, other contemporary films attempted this formula – namely PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974) and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (1975) – with considerably more successful outcomes.

Personally produced for Apple Films by ex-Beatle Ringo Starr (who here appears as Merlin, the famed magician of Arthurian times!), the title role – which comes equipped with a lame pun on the character’s name, Count Downe! – is filled by singer/songwriter Harry Nilsson decked-out with a hirsute look and, understandably, his performance is a pretty bland and completely forgettable one (a good thing, therefore, that the film-makers’ original plan to have David Bowie in the lead didn’t pan out!). Nonetheless, Nilsson does get to perform a number of good tunes during the course of the film (though stymied by the poor sound quality of the edition I watched!) including “Without You”, which has become perhaps his most representative song; among the session musicians one can also recognize other popular figures of the era such as guitarist Peter Frampton and drummer Keith Moon! By the way, Mrs. Michael Caine (Shakira Baksh) also appears as Merlin’s feline housekeeper.

Culled from a worn-out VHS – in which dark scenes come off as extremely blurry – and slightly damaged to boot, as I said, the version of SON OF Dracula that came my way proved far from ideal viewing. Still, the film itself is a bit of a mess anyway: Dracula Snr., depicted as a Max Schreck lookalike, is killed by Jones’ Baron Frankenstein – the villain of the piece, with evil dwarf Skip Martin for an assistant; Price, on his last legs, turns up as Van Helsing (the film, in fact, was clearly shot in 1972 but released after his death) and Leigh is his luscious secretary – who attracts Nilsson’s amorous attentions…so much so that he decides to renounce his vampiric ways (except that with it goes his claim to immortality!); however, this occurs at a most inopportune time – as several monsters have been convened in order to crown him their overlord (a title which Frankenstein actually covets himself)!

Unfortunately, the plodding film resolves itself in a number of tedious conversation scenes – between Dracula Jnr. and Merlin, between Merlin and Frankenstein, between Frankenstein and Van Helsing, etc.; the resolution, then, sees a happy ending for the Count and his companion – while Frankenstein’s well-deserved come-uppance is amusingly delivered over a game of pool by Merlin’s own hand. In the long run, the mournful ballads work better within the context of the narrative than the rollicking numbers – “Without You”, for instance, serves as background to the demystification/humanization of Young Dracula (a title, incidentally, by which the film’s equally well-known and which got changed presumably as a nod to Mel Brooks’ spoof of Universal’s Frankenstein saga from the same year). By the way, this SON OF Dracula shouldn’t be confused with the stylish 1943 outing of the same name Robert Siodmak made for Universal during the heyday of classic monster movies…

Sad waste of celluloid

[FriscoKidd · 2/10 · 10 June 2006]

Imagine "Rocky Horror" with every drop of vitality, wit and cinematic talent sucked out by a toothless vampire, and you begin to approach the experience of watching "Son of Dracula." As a die-hard Nilsson fan (is there any other kind?), I can't even recommend this film to fellow completionists who simply *have* to see this movie. You really aren't missing much. Ringo, buried under a mass of grey hair, long beard and pointy wizard's hat, is unrecognizable - that is, until he opens his mouth and his completely inappropriate Liverpool accent slurps out. (How's this for a sample of dialogue poor Ringo must spout: "Mercury, my Mercury, you are subdued tonight... To what import might you tonight transcend?") Nilsson's line delivery is so limp and monotone I was convinced someone else had dubbed his voice from a bad Japanese horror flick. He displays none of the energy and humor which so defines his music, even when lip-synching to his own songs. There is zero camp value here; I can't believe anyone could classify this as a comedy. The storyline is utterly pointless ("biological" son of Dracula must decide whether to become lord of the Netherworld, or undergo a procedure to become human so he can feel love for groovy chick), with werewolves, mummies and Frankenstein's monster thrown in for no discernible reason. I give it 2 stars, one for the fact that the picture is visible, and one for the fact that the dialogue is audible. I hate to advise obsessive collectors like myself to stay away, but if you never manage to hook up with a copy of this off the internet, trust me, you are missing very little.

An Oddity of Comedy Horror

[Rainey-Dawn · 5/10 · 18 March 2016]

I know I have seen this film years ago - memories are vague but I remember seeing it after watching it again on YouTube. It's been years. I'm guessing it was a late night movie on some station in the 1980s when I watched this film the first time.. it's cool to watch it again on YouTube. This movie has never been released to DVD which surprises me. I don't know what kind of a cult following there is for this film - if any at all but it's a film you would think has gathered a following no matter how small the the following.

The music is good in this film. I really enjoy hearing Harry Nilsson sing and play. Harry is Count Downe a musician that falls in love with a mortal woman and he is the Son of Dracula (Dracula is played by Dan Meaden).

Keep in mind this film is a musical comedy if you chose to watch it - a musical comedy horror/fantasy to be more exact - the film does not take itself seriously, it's made for fun/comedy - to entertain.

Also keep in mind this movie is NOT a remake of Son of Dracula (1943) starring Lon Chaney Jr. - it has zero to do with the 1943 film. The only thing that is the same is the title - that's it.

Look for this film on YouTube.

5/10

I can only assume that a lot of drugs were involved when it comes to this vanity project.

[planktonrules · 1/10 · 14 August 2020]

The Beatles were a sensation when it came to music. They had hit after hit and when they changed styles, the fans followed...and they had more hits. In so many ways, they could do no wrong when it came to music. However, when it came to their creation, 'Apple', well, they could do plenty of wrong! First, they opened a clothing boutique....which folded within about a year. Second, also under the Apple umbrella, they created a record company...which soon folded. Third, they also created Apple Films...which only financed a small number of films which lost a lot of money. In essence, their entities under Apple was all huge money-hemorrhaging projects.

I mention all this about Apple because the film "Son of Dracula" was a project by Apple...and it was so bad it sat on a shelf for a year and a half before ultimately being released...and failing miserably. Why? Well, the film seemed to be a bizarre vanity project more than anything else...one which makes you wonder what they were thinking when they made it. Could it be that a lot of drugs or alcohol was involved? Or, perhaps, just egos? All I know is that as I watched, I was shocked at how unprofessional and bad the film was....something you just need to see to believe.

In the opening scene, Dracula is killed. Soon, Merlin (Ringo Starr) and a friend arrive....and are at least happy that Dracula's pregnant wife survived the attack. Skip ahead a hundred years and the son, Count Downe (Harry Nilsson) is a rock and roll star and vampire! And, Merlin keeps mentioning some nonsense about needing to crown Downe as the King of the Underworld...'when the stars are right'.

So is it any good? Nope. It stinks. The music, while great for Nilsson fans, doesn't fit in the least. What also doesn't fit is seeing Ringo running about in a fake wig and Merlin costume which looks like it came from a cheap Halloween store. Why put Merlin into this mess? And, why have Nilsson sing again and again?! Overall, I think the film is best as a film to show your friends so you can all laugh at it and enjoy its ineptitude...much like if you watch "The Room" or "Plan 9 From Outer Space"!

The film is so bad, it's a contender for the Worst Films of the 1970s list, if you decided to create one.

Fine the soundtrack and forget this movie!

[dvan1959 · 1/10 · 5 April 2005]

I purchased a copy of the soundtrack in high school and wore it out! I did not get to see this movie when it came out. 31 years later I found a bootleg copy on ebay. Great music, but an awful movie. The story has very little dialog and never goes anywhere. Such a waist of great musical talent. Harry Nilsson's who is one of the forgotten song writers of the seventies acting is so bad that he makes Ringo Starr look good. The song daybreak is a different mix than the album and the camera is so frame so close that you almost don't see Keith Moon playing drums. Freddie Francis who directed this movie is a great cinematographer (The French Lieutenants Women) and camera man (Moby Dick 1956) but should have skip this film project. Fine the soundtrack and forget this movie!

Hmm...Maybe It Should Have Been Called "Song of Dracula."

[thurberdrawing · 6/10 · 19 June 2006]

I'm giving this a "six" because anybody who seeks out this movie will know, more or less, what he or she is getting into. The Nilsson songs do work with the melancholy of this plot: Dracula's son, who was conceived with a non-vampire woman, wants to cease being a vampire so he can experience love. Nilsson's performance isn't demonstrative and I found his remoteness appropriate. Ringo was a wizard in MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR and he's Merlin here. He's not emoting incredibly, but he is playing a comic role straight, and this, too, works for me. (By the way, check out THAT'LL BE THE DAY, in which Ringo plays a down-and-out Holiday Camp musician. It is truly a serious performance. Also, consider the part in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT with Ringo walking by the river, throwing sticks and kicking stones. He can act when he wants to.) The other actors deliver the archaic dialogue in almost classical style. Again, there is a melancholy to all of this. It is nowhere near as self-conscious as most deliberately extreme movies. The reason for this is that the director, Freddie Francis, born in 1917, had been directing for many years and had a lot of experience. There are some really interesting camera angles. The plot is nuts, but the filming is almost hallucinatory. At one point one of the mad doctors is in his office and the camera backs up to show a portrait in oils, in a gilded frame, of what appears to be the Frankenstein monster in a three-piece suit. There's a close-up of it a minute later and it resembles the Kaiser. I had a grainy copy of this movie and am wondering if the painting was one of these optical-illusion things people used to put on their walls (such as the one where, at first glance, you see people sitting at a table with candles and another look reveals a giant skull) or if the grainy quality of the DVD made me see it wrong. Even if I was wrong about it being the Frankenstein monster, I am amused at the fact that a picture of the Kaiser is on the scientist's wall in a movie taking place in 1974. (And Frankie DOES appear later on.) Yes, it's sub-par. But there's a certain genius in it nonetheless. And the music is sweet.

If Bram Stoker is in hell, he is being forced to watch this movie for all eternity.

[mark.waltz · 3/10 · 26 August 2020]

That screaming in Hades isn't Hitler or Sadaam Hussein or Idi Ahmin. It's Stoker, realizing again from the opening credits that he's got 90 minutes of torture followed by continued viewings of this 1973 comic horror musical. That's right. A comedy horror musical about vampires. Something Broadway has learned doesn't work. You can have masked Phantoms and man-eating plants, but vampires, no. Just ask Michael Crawford or Elton John.

Fortunately, the songs in this film are limited, and when they appear, you feel as if you have entered into an acid trip where the only way out is a stake through your heart. The prologue, set centuries before the modern setting, is actually decent and shows what we've come to envision Dracula looking like in Nosferatu or Francis Ford Coppola's has later rendition of him. But Ringo Starr, dressed in a cheap Woolworths costume as Merlin, seems out of place, even though Dr. Frankenstein and Van Helsing are right at home.

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when Harry Nilsson's famous song, "I Can't Live" is interjected into a scientific experiment sequence He plays the vampire here, literally the son of Dracula and an obvious redheaded victim of centuries before, determined to have a normal life returned to him so he can find love, but obvious demons are determined to stop that from happening.

Obviously made on a $10 budget with tinny sound and photography (that looks like the type used for commercials) that is often dizzying and far too close up, this is no "Fearless Vampire Killers" or "Young Frankenstein" or "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" or even "Old Dracula" which came out a few years later and quickly bled to death from box office poison. It has a strange structure that seems to go in several different directions at once, a ridiculous idea of how to get laughs Google, and extreme absurdity at every moment. When a pool ball explodes with poison in a late sequence, it's a metaphor of what a bomb this is.

Where can I get a copy of this movie?

[mayday61 · 8/10 · 19 November 2004]

This was one badly acted movie. I think everyone can agree to that, but I loved it!! I still do. I saw it as a young teenager (3 times). My friends and I were probably the only ones in the theater. It's probably more nostalgia than anything that makes me give it such high marks, but I just can't forget this movie. It had comedy, it was a love story, and it sort of fit in the horror genre (perfect movie fare for teenagers). There is a lot of great music in this video-Harry Nilsson's "Without You" for one. He may not have written the song, but no one can sing it like he does. The song is hauntingly beautiful, a perfect song for the love story aspect of the movie.

I recommend it to anyone who can appreciate a bad movie with a lot of incredible music. It may not be great, but I found it unforgettable.

everything i had expected, which isn't a bad thing.

[abcama · 6/10 · 27 April 2005]

I'd heard a lot about this film and even though I love Nilsson, I expected very little of it. Out of curiosity, I found a copy on Ebay and bought it. When i watched it today, it was everything i'd expected, but I really enjoyed it.

It's the type of film that needs to be taken for what it is: rock musicians doing a campy horror film in the 70's.

So the plot was weak, but the music was excellent. The acting was not awesome, but I didn't think it would be.

If you really like high quality movies that require a lot of brainpower, I'd suggest passing this one up. But if you just want something fun and some great tunes, I'd check it out.

This dog ought to bark...

[walterfive_666 · 2/10 · 9 June 2004]

First off, to answer the previous person's question:

"Daybreak" was the only song Harry Nillson specifically wrote for this film. Everything else was already lying around.

Harry had two top-40 songs with this flick; "Daybreak", and the Pete Ham written "Without You", which had originally been recorded by Badfinger the year before.

This film was released on videotape by Apple in 1982 or so. It has never (to my knowledge) been rereleased on either Video, Laserdisc or DVD. Bootleg DVDs of this film circulate among collectors, they are copies of the Video release, and in low-fi mono sound.

Besides very brief cameo appearances by Keith Moon, Peter Frampton, John Bonham, and a few other now lesser-known 70's rockers as the band The Count Downes, this film has little to recommend it. Harry's not convincing in the title role, and Ringo is even more plastic here as Merlin the Magician than he was as Larry The Dwarf in Frank Zappa's 200 Motels.

For die-hard completists only. NOT recommended.

Very Interesting Note!!

[Scott_Weinberg · 23 July 1999]

According to David Morgan's fine book, Monty Python Speaks, both Graham Chapman and Douglas Adams worked together to create new dialogue for this movie. Based on the version you see, who knows?

Well, that deserved to stay buried

[ofumalow · 3/10 · 8 May 2020]

Held back from release, then barely released, disowned by its major participants and never released to home formats, this is one of those rarities that sounds like it can't possibly NOT be fun. I mean, Ringo & Nilsson in a rock horror musical pre-"Rocky Horror," directed by a Hammer regular (and great cinematographer)? And yet...yeah, it just sits there. I've seen worse movies-in particular, a lot of dreadful 1970s British comedies-but this has so much going for it on paper, it's hard to believe it's really as lifeless and witless as it is.

Ringo always seemed to enjoy acting, but despite his humorous appearance as "Merlin," he's given nothing funny to do-nor is anyone else. (He apparently tried to get Monty Python collaborators to re-write the dire script for post-production dubbing in a desperate attempt at salvage, but that didn't pan out.) It's said David Bowie was considered for the Dracula aka "Count Down" role, and that certainly would have made a huge difference, because Bowie could act, and surely would have brought some style and farcical esprit even to the bad material. But instead Starr's friend Nilsson was hired, and whatever else you can say about him, he's no actor-not only that, he doesn't even try. I can't tell whether he's bored or uncomfortable here, but in any case he's a zero onscreen, and doesn't even photograph well.

The songs are fine but aren't actually incorporated into the story (which mostly just stops while Nilsson lip-synchs to them, whether onstage or elsewhere), so this doesn't even work as a "musical." The support cast is full of the period's usual British comedy mix of very pretty girls who can't or aren't asked to act (including Michael Caine's gorgeous future wife, and the stilted Susannah Leigh) plus a lot of reliable character actors who'd have been good if they had anything to work with. There are also people in Frankenstein, Wolfman and other "classic monster" costumes for reasons that had to do with a plot so boring I couldn't pay close enough attention to figure out why there were there. Yes, you get to glimpse Keith Moon, Peter Frampton and others in "concert" sequences, but it would be much more rewarding to watch them in real concert movies.

This is on the level of the same year's equally hard-to-see (until its recent Blu-ray resusitation) "Catch My Soul" as a rock curio that sounds like a gas, but turns out to be a bore. You can see why no one was enthused about it then, and despite all ensuing factors of rarity, novelty and nostalgia, it hasn't gotten any better with age.

What did I just watch?!

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 16 February 2023]

SON OF DRACULA is a very strange little movie, not really a horror film, or a comedy, or a spoof, or even a musical. The plot is half-hearted at best and the actors just show up to go through the motions. It's nonsensical at best and outright plotless at worst, and weirdest of all is that Freddie Francis, who has directed some of favourite movies, is behind it. Harry Nilsson is no actor but sings up a storm here (the best part being his rendition of 'Without You') while Ringo Starr's a hoot as Merlin. Other familiar faces include a wheelchair-bound Dennis Price, Susannah Leigh and Freddie Jones. It's probably best to avoid it...

More music video than horror movie

[BandSAboutMovies · 5/10 · 27 March 2017]

There are lost movies because pieces of them have been lost, such as the original ending of Hammer's Horror of Dracula, and lost movies because they should remain lost. Such is the case with Son of Dracula.

Directed by Freddie Francis, who was at the helm for The Evil of Frankenstein, Dracula has Risen from His Grave, Tales from the Crypt and Doctor and the Devils and produced by Apple Films, this is a film that seems like a great idea. This seems to be an ongoing theme with films that I pick to cover here.

Ringo Starr wanted to be in movies, which explains why he produced and appeared as Merlin the Magician. Yes, that Merlin. So here's where Ringo is, well, Ringo. He played on Harry Nilsson's Son of Schmilsson in 1972, which was inspired by horror movies. A few months later, Ringo invited Nilsson to be part of this film. You — as well as Nilsson — would assume that that album would be the reason. And the answer is nope. Ringo never bought the album he played on and had no idea how close the themes were to his proposed movie.

Nilsson was on the top of his game as this movie was being lensed, thanks to songs like Coconut, Without You and Jump into the Fire. He was also growing closer to John Lennon, becoming part of the notorious Hollywood Vampires gang that would go out and well, never come back home ( In fact, Nilsson was present for much of Lennon's "lost period."). Some claim that Nilsson was the craziest of the bunch and seeing as how this club included notorious partiers Alice Cooper, Ringo Starr, Micky Dolenz, John Belushi, Marc Bolan, Keith Moon, and Joe Walsh, that's high praise indeed.If you have any question as to the drinking power of the Vampires, there's still a plaque at the legendary second home of Lemmy, the Rainbow on Sunset, that proclaims that the loft belongs to them.

So let's add it up. Well regarded horror director. One of the Beatles on board. And one of the top pop singers in the starring role. How could things go wrong?

Oh how spectacularly this films goes off the rails. Read more at http://www.thatsnotcurrent.com/look-back-son-dracula-1974/

You can see a clip on youtube.

[awm6 · 6/10 · 3 September 2008]

This clip is the scene called 'Jump into the Fire' and you can see Keith Moon playing the drums! It's a must see. Plus to bad it's not on DVD or tape. I wish it was! AND IMDb 10 lines are STUPID! How can I write 10 lines about a movie that is so rare and not in the market to watch? This will be the last time I come to this site. Veiw the SHORT CLIP HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXeqxABQabI Please lower the line rate for movies like this? I would love to see this movie but it's not on the market anywhere at all! I'm sure the webmasters for this website will ban me now.sheeesh. The Son of Dracula is not in the market IMDb.

I love Love LOVED it!!!!!

[karmagarden2 · 8/10 · 30 September 2006]

It is campy, irreverent, and just a downright hoot. I have been searching for a copy of this movie for YEARS! I remember it clearly. It came to a local theatre and I called in sick to school and work to go see it. I loved it so much I went to see it as often as I could till it left town. I bought the album, (with two great talents like Harry and Ringo what's not to love?!) It had an iron on inside that was spread open bat wings and in Gothic lettering in the middle of the wings was "BITE IT". Oh man I got 2 t-shirts out of that one transfer and wore them till they fell apart!!!! I would buy this movie in a heartbeat if I could find it and watch it every weekend! If you like Monty Python, Hedwig, Rocky Horror, The Addams Family.... this is right up your alley. Did you like Popeye with Robin Williams? If not, this isn't going to be to your liking I am pretty sure. Same type of humor. Subtle and offbeat, if that is you then see this movie. I don't think you will regret it. I never have.

Very fun, cult-like flick of an old-fashioned favorite

[goldiemt · 8/10 · 29 December 1999]

Fun at its finest. Good rock and roll cast with a plot following (losely) an all-time favorite. The Count has never looked so good and sexy (at least to 1974). If you are a Harry Nilsson fan, this is a must see. His music and charm, along with a little bit of Ringo Starr and a peppering of other famous British band personalities and one pretty girl, makes for an adventuresome and cult-following, cutesey film. Expect the usual "Count"-type vampire story with a twist of mythology. It's not perfect but that Nilsson music (whether you're a fan or not) makes these differences most pleasant. Can't wait until it's out on video!

Should be a cult classic

[hgdec · 10/10 · 2 April 2003]

With two of the greatest British Musicians, Nilsson and Starr, it's a great musical with outstanding songs intertwined with a good Dracula story!! Supporting acting is very good, cinematography is very good the whole atmosphere of the movie is very well done.

This is a musical!

[saraberry · 8/10 · 1 June 2000]

No one believes me when I tell them about this movie! I will never forget the song that was sung during the blood transfer~ You HAVE to see it to believe it!

Which came first, the music or the movie, is my big question! I have been looking for this on VHS or DVD for AGES!~

Excellent movie as i remember....

[tim66 · 10/10 · 17 January 2005]

This movie was Excellent as I recall ! ( but then again my brain was a little fuzzy each of the 8 times that i saw it back in the 70's)

I too have been looking for what seems like EONS for a good of copy of this great flick! What would put me in Fan Heaven is a DVD with added songs, out takes, little known facts, interviews of the cast , and an added Cd of the original sound track ! MY OPINION , it was great. I saw it 8 times in one day in the 70's, on a day that my classes were cancelled at college. I loved it . I loved Harry. I loved Ringo. I loved the fact that they BOTH were in a movie together. I loved the songs , and I played my Son of Dracula Sound trak LP w/ the bat wing covers over and over till someone borrowed it and never gave it back (shame on them) . This is a good flick if you are lucky enough to get a GOOD copy of it. Don't settle for just a copy. Get the best. and let me know where you found it !!!!!

Rock n Roll vampires

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 10/10 · 15 June 2016]

This is a sequel to Dracula. It is also a sequel to Frankenstein this is a great movie. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It also has special effects. It also has great music. This is a great movie. See it. 4.8 is underrating it. It is a great horror film. It is also a great musical. It is one of the best musical of all time. Ringo Star is in it so it has to be a great musical. The this movie. It is so different. You need to see this movie. It is a must see. Dracula (March 1931) is better. Dracula (1992) is better. Nosferatu (1922) is also better. Dracula (1958) is also better. Dracula (1979) is also better. Dracula's Daughter (1936) is also better. But still this is a great horror movie see it.