The first comment given here shows an incredible lack of understanding of Steinbeck in his California period. Our Irish friend's acrid comments show he obviously doesn't like Steinbeck and that's his privilege. Now, having said that, I must say he's wrong. This film is excellent. Just that. The cast is wonderful and the story is a classic: the destruction of innocence by cruel reality (viz: the title of the story taken from a line from a Robert Burns's poem). And, while Steinbeck was not one to let a sentimental moment pass by, e.g, Lennie's Christ-like innocence, inappropriate super-human strength which inadvertently wreaks havoc resulting in his euthanasia with the same instrument as used for Curley's dog, these scenes are never maudlin. Too, for the serious Steinbeck fan, there's more, much more. This story, and the play, created at Steinbeck's most experimental period, is fraught with symbolism. There's the "big" guy, a victim of the "little" guy's vanity. Many are not aware that Steinbeck was small (5'3") and very self-conscious about his size. The cast is outstanding: Betty Field's careless and bored character, Mae contrasts with the mighty innocence of Chaney's Lennie. There are the solid characters of Bickford's Slim, Meredith's George and Bohnen's Candy; Steele was at his best as the vain, pugnacious Curley; Veteran character actor, Noah Berry Jr. as Whit adds another element of sympathy. This is one of our American classic films. We invented and developed this genre of art and this film must stand as one of its finest examples.


Steinbeck's classic story of 'my brother's keeper' brought to the silver screen in a reverent manner. Perhaps the biggest story in this film is the fact that Chaney jr. could REALLY act-he was undoubtedly cheated out of the Oscar for best actor. Merideth, best known to younger folks as Rocky's trainer does a fine job as the brains in this two man operation. Veteran cowboy star Bob Steele does a stand-out job as the heavy. The direction is steady and the script lifted literally from the novel(why improve perfection?) Remade several times, but never as effectively. Even if you've seen it 100 times, keep a hankie handy.


Casting directors rarely get any real credit for what they do but I think, for this film, we must make an exception. The actors, in Of Mice And Men, play thier parts as if they were born into them. Add to this cinematography that is both artistically and technically outstanding and you have a film that truly deserves the term Classic. I believe that this film is a must-see for anyone considering a career as a writer, actor, director or any other area of film making.


For a black and white older movie to catch my attention as a 22 year old, it's gotta stand out. I first saw this version of mice and men back in the mid nineties on AMC channel. I was captivated. Lon Chaney Jr's role as as Lennie was Brilliant!!! So many Idividual performances in one movie WOW. Crooks, Candy, Curly, Slim, George, all with their own great performances. What a great scene when Lennie and Crooks are in his room talking about being lonely And no happy ending like most movies, made it seem more the real. I recorded it off of AMC years ago, and can quote it word for word any day of the week. This is a timeless masterpiece. If you haven't seen it your missing out. Definitely on my top 5 of all time. Please excuse any Mispellings as I have had a couple cold ones LOL!!!


This screen adaptation of the John Steinbeck classic novel is a harsh, fantastic film that took the wind out of me with its frank and brutal depiction of desperation and longing. Movies about the Depression that were actually made at the time of the Depression by people who knew of what they spoke by necessity feel so much more authentic than later movies that treat the Depression as a historical event. The men in this film are quite literally living day to day, and the comparison of men to dogs that serves as a running motif throughout the film feels like more than just a poetic device. Like dogs, these men were faced with the scary prospect of some day being of no more use, and there was no system in place to take care of them when that day came. Being shot like a dog put out of its misery by its owner really was preferable to the alternatives awaiting them.

I was surprised about how candid this film was, and how bravely it tackled some of the thornier issues of Steinbeck's novel. The incident between Lenny and Mae is divested of some of its sexual overtones, but much is implied anyway. And a scene between Crooks, a black work hand, and some of the other workers, in which Crooks explains in blunt language what it means to be black, tackles race relations as honestly as many films today.

Moments of this film are almost unbearably sad and poignant, but never in that over-sentimental way common to Hollywood films of this time period. Burgess Meredith is terrific in the role of George; he expertly conveys--without ever directly addressing it--the bond he has with Lenny and the degree to which Lenny is as much George's savior as he is Lenny's. Charles Bickford is also excellent as a rough and world-weary worker. The cast's weak links are Betty Field--hopelessly overplaying her bored sex kitten--and Lon Chaney as Lenny, though both are very good in the pivotal scene that sets off the action of the film's finale.

John Ford's adaptation of "The Grapes of Wrath" from the following year gets all of the attention today, and one hardly ever hears of "Of Mice and Men." But much of what is great about Ford's film is also great about Lewis Milestone's, and he deserves credit for laying a fine blueprint for brining Steinbeck's beautiful and heartbreaking stories to the screen.

Grade: A


This movie has power. Some of todays movies are great extravaganzas but they have no power. The flawless performance given by Lon Chaney Jr. has never been surpassed. John Stienbeck wrote the story and is one of my favorite authors.

In this movie "Of Mice and Men" you can not help but be drawn into the story and feel every feeling that each character brings to the story. There are no big heroes here just people in a time of great tribulation. The director Lewis Milestone is superb in his making of this movie and also produced it.

I have seen all the remakes and there are none to compare. If you enjoy good movies don't miss this one and bring a box of Kleenex.


Just saw this again. It's been one of my five or six favorite films since I was a teenager, but I hadn't seen it in years.

Wow. It really holds up. And looking at it through the eyes of someone who's been acting for thirty-odd years rather than the eyes of a teenager really makes a difference. There's some really fine work in this movie. I've never quite believed Burgess Meredith did (or could do) a day of hard labor like bucking barley in his life, and it's very tempting to think of what someone else might have done with the part. (Lewis Milestone tried to borrow first James Cagney and then Humphrey Bogart for the part. Neither would have been terribly convincing as guys who grew up in the San Joaquin Valley, and I have a hard time thinking of Bogart in the role. Cagney would have been very interesting, even if not quite right.)

This time through, I paid close attention to the acting work of people I'd never given much thought to in that regard, as far as this movie goes. Charles Bickford is really good, and Betty Field is superb. The movie was nominated for four Oscars, including Best Picture (of 1939!!), but none of the actors was nominated. Of course it was a tough year, one of the toughest ever. But in another year, I suspect Lon Chaney Jr. would have been nominated for the performance of his career. His performance has been so imitated over the years that it might not seem so special nowadays, but I tried to find something to critique about it and I simply can't. He's believable and heartbreaking without seeming, to my eyes, the least bit forced. But the standouts are Leigh Whipper and particularly Roman Bohnen, who play Crooks and Candy, respectively. Whipper had played Crooks on Broadway and his experience with the role shows. Crooks's forthrightness about the burdens of being the only black man in a white community are a little startling for 1939, as is his disdain for the whites who enter his "sanctuary" uninvited. Bohnen is just remarkable, one of the most heart-wrenchingly touching performances I've ever seen. (Not surprisingly, he gave another such performance as Dana Andrews's father in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES.)

Aaron Copland's music and scoring were both nominated for Oscars. Copland only composed six feature film scores (the others: OUR TOWN, THE NORTH STAR, THE RED PONY, THE HEIRESS, and SOMETHING WILD). OF MICE AND MEN was his first. Every score of his I've heard is a masterpiece, and it's hard to say which is "best." Suffice it to say that his first is a contender, and one of the best film scores ever written.

Although based on Steinbeck's novel, the film owes much to the play Steinbeck also wrote. Lewis Milestone manages to avoid any sense of being stage-bound, though his wide-open-spaces shots are quite limited. I was really impressed by his staging. There's one really nice shot of Meredith and Bickford talking in a barn. As Meredith leaves, the camera pulls back, keeping both actors in frame, until the entire interior of the barn is revealed and shown to be huge, much larger than it had felt. It's a simple shot made by a clear master.

I'm not a great fan of Gary Sinise's remake, particularly as to how the ending was handled. The one great advantage Sinise had was color. There are shots in the 1939 version where I could imagine the color and where I felt robbed by its absence. It's not a black-and-white film that particularly exults in its black-and-whiteness. Had it had a larger budget, perhaps it could have been made in color, which would have served it very well. But all in all, I'm thrilled that this favorite of mine for decades holds up and actually exceeds my fond memories.


In high school I had to read "Of Mice and Men". It is one of my favorite books today. I loved reading it. It's one of the best stories I have ever read in my life. We also started watching the older version of "Of Mice and Men". But because the kids complained they wanted the newer one, we never finished the older version. So, I just rented the black and white version and I really enjoyed it. I thought the color version was great, but this one was more true to the story. Both movies are amazing. I'd actually recommend both if you enjoyed the book. The acting is wonderful and they stuck very well to the story. Go ahead and give the movie a chance. You might find yourself a treasure in this movie.

9/10


Chaney Jr was a great man,he actually started me on horror films,and made me read the Steinbeck classic. Well I love this film. It is amazing. It`s got a great story,follows the novel very carefully. And it makes you care about the characters. Chaney shines in the best role of his career. Where he isnt a ghost or goblin,not that is not bad. Great movie!

4/4


What a Great and Wonderful a Gift from God is this phenomenon of Motion Pictures. Thanks to The Lord and those of his Earthly collaborators like Edison, Lummiere, Melies, et al., for persisting in their individual and collective struggles to envision, establish, propagate and improve what has been called, "the Art Form of the 20th Century. (a Sentiment on Which , I'm sure, that We All Heartily Agree!)

Because of the motion picture camera and projector we,are able to record and to preserve the images and people who make our History. We can keep a permanent life-like, nearly living visual and sound record of life and times, which are ever so fleeting. We can a live dramatic performance, which would evaporate into a mere memory in an instant. the Motion Picture camera & its cousin,the projector has made it possible to forever have great films like Of Mice and Men, Hal Roach Productions/United Artists (1939).*

When one views the two principal characters, George Milton (Burgess Meredith) and Lenny Small (Lon Chaney, Jr.)** entering into a scene or having one of those now classic dialogs, we are viewing a little piece of Americana. The film starts at a fast pace with the two transients fleeing from their last stop. It seems that there has been some problem with a woman, caused by the misguided attentions of Lenny. We discover that poor Lenny, while being a giant of a physical specimen,being as strong as the proverbial bull, is inflicted with a mental retardation. It has rendered him a truly helpless man-child.

George on the other hand, is a more average sized individual. He posses no great strength, but can do the average farm labor job and do it well. George relates that he has known poor Lenny for some years, and that the reason for the big man's mental state is the result of being kicked in the head by a mule when a kid.

Through good and bad times (mostly all bad), George remains staunchly loyal to Lenny and his well being. He has kept him entertained and controlled by spinning tales of a sometime in the future, tales of a Utopian existence of a farm of their own with "green alfalfa fields and hutches of rabbits." Lenny's fondness for little rabbits and puppies and all things furry***, do not mix well with his uncontrolled, brute strength.

George is very nimble of mind.Possessing an innate, though uneducated, store of knowledge in practical matters. When the two present themselves for hire to a new prospective employer, it is George who does the talking for them. Whether answering simple, basic questions or trying to cover-up any dubious events in their past, he speaks and does his best keep Lenny silent.

The two function nearly as one. They have been around together for some time. George displays a tremendous loyalty to Lenny's welfare. In looking out for the usually gentle giant, George finds himself constantly flirting with disaster, himself.

After being hired on at the ranch by the owner, the two are caught in the middle of the daily strife of the ranch. The owner's son, Curly (Bob Steels), a small guy, with that nasty, hate the world, little man's complex, which as we all know, turns one into a bully. Curly is especially tough when it comes to any underlings, who rely on their meager, little jobs with even smaller wages. He even picks on Lenny, starting a fist fight with him, the giant Lenny being unable to defend himself until told to do so by George. Lenny crushes an embarrassed, little punk, Curly.

Curly is fearful of Slim, the 'Skinner'(Charles Bickford) because of his work skills endear him to Curly's father, the ranch owner. Also, Curly is a coward, who is insanely jealous of his wife's faithfulness, with good reason. The wife, Mae (Betty Field), is free and easy type of girl, who proverbially, "didn't have an enemy in the world." (Get the picture?) She is constantly parading herself around the ranch hands.

She even tries her 'charms' on Lenny and even though George warned him to stay away. She screams and when Lenny tries to silence her, he inadvertently uses his super human strength and Mae winds up dead. And, .........

Well, see the film. If you haven't done so yet, Shame On You! If you have seen it already, do so again. It will be worth your time.

* This is numbered as Hal Roach's one, great dramatic film. Mr. Roach had been branching out from his former staple of one and two reeler comedies. Dating from the silent screen to the talkies, The Roach Studio numbered among its Star Attractions: Charley Chase, Thelma Todd, Zasu Pitts, Patsy Kelly, Our Gang (aka Little Rascals)and a couple of guys named Stan Laurel & Olivert Hardy!

** Without this filmed record of this play, adapted from the Steinbeck novel, we would all be familiar with Burgess Meredith as BATMAN TV's Penguin or as Mickey from the ROCKY Films. Lon Chaney,Jr. would be known as, you know! Larry Talbot/THE WOLFMAN(1941), what else?

*** There is quite a bit of business revolving around our canine friends, either puppies or an over aged, sickly sheep herding dog. They seem to take on a sort of metaphor for we humans. The incident involving the one handed bunkhouse keeper and his feelings for this old, mutt are heart wrenching, even for a big strong ex-cop like yours truly. Conversely, the hard attitude toward this pathetic creature and his very sympathetic owner, seem to represent a hard hearted attitude that was deeply rooted in this Depression Era, in which our story takes place.(Enough of this. Just see the film!)


Of Mice And Men must have been a particular favorite of John Steinbeck and his work. It's not The Grapes Of Wrath and its exploration of great social issues. It's rather a human study, the kind of migrant workers whom the Joads joined are shown in a small setting at a California ranch.

The two main characters are the gentle and slow giant Lennie Small as played by Lon Chaney, Jr. and his friend and guardian George Milton played by Burgess Meredith. The Mutt&Jeff contrast between Lennie and George shows just how much Lennie is dependent on George for even the simplest of necessities. The old adage about not having enough sense to come out of the rain is literally true in his case.

The weakness of Lennie is that he is very slow to anger, but when he does you don't want to be in his way. Secondly, he really does not know his own strength and that leads to tragedy.

Of Mice And Men after the novel was adapted by Steinbeck into a play ran for 207 performances on Broadway in the 1936-37 season. It starred Wallace Ford as George and Broderick Crawford as Lennie. Crawford would have to wait another decade to get a big starring role in film with All The King's Men. Chaney however is a revelation. For most of his career he did supporting roles to various stars and horror films to capitalize on his father's name. This was his biggest role, I can't call it a career role because no career came from it for him. But he will move you in this part.

B movie cowboy Bob Steele plays the punk son of the ranch owner and Betty Field his tramp of a wife. Steele next to Chaney is the one to watch. He invests the part with a lot of hidden dimensions. This is a man who definitely has issues. Steele and Field are the cause of the tragedy that befalls the gentle giant.

The only actor carried over from Broadway is Leigh Whipper who plays one of the other ranch hands. His part is highly unusual for a black actor of the time. He's a bitter man not allowed to socialize with the other hands on the place and his bitterness permeates Meredith and Chaney. A very good job by Whipper.

Of Mice And Men got four Oscar nominations in that year of Gone With The Wind. Best Picture, Best Sound, and Best Music and Best Scoring of Music for Aaron Copland. Of course the budgets of Gone With The Wind and Of Mice And Men are from two different universes. That would include the publicity budget for Oscar time.

Still Of Mice And Men holds up every bit as good as its more expensive rival. A literary and a cinema classic, that can't be beat.


Too bad this dramatic powerhouse got lost in 1939's crowded field of movie classics because, as a drama, there was none better. Then too, the film appears an independent production released through United Artists, so it lacked crucial studio backing and all the attention that can bring. Also, producer-director Milestone clearly insisted on an unusual degree of realism in portraying life among California's migrant farm workers. And, let's face it, those conditions were pretty ugly, resulting in a pretty ugly setting from one scene to the next, never much of an audience incentive. For example, when the grieving Candy rolls onto his stomach following the execution of his faithful dog, we don't see the usual intact wardrobe. Instead, his shirttail is frayed and the Levi jacket split along the seam a penniless old man who's now lost his only friend. Such dedication to detail may add to the realism, yet it can also depress an audience looking for what movies do bestprovide escape.

But, of course, old Candy is not penniless. Instead, he's been saving his money, and now he has a nice little kitty saved, which raises one of the film's key themesa workingman's dream of independence. That's what brings the men together-- smart George, slow Lenny, old Candy, and even the racial outcast Crooks. All have spent their lives taking orders and making money for others, never having anything of their own. Yet, each harbors his own version of that dreama place where Lenny can pet rabbits, where Candy won't be abandoned, where Crooks can find human dignity, and where George can make it all work. And though the point goes unstated, the arrangement shapes up like a farm co-operative where everyone contributes and has a stake, an outcome certainly compatible with the spirit of the New Deal times.

The other key theme is George's caring devotion for the slow-witted Lenny. He made a promise to do that, and, by golly, he's going to stick with it, even though he has to live with the often dire results. The screenplay starts with the two of them running from a posse. We learn that Lenny's desire to pet soft things has done something to a girl, but we don't learn exactly what. Yet George refuses to abandon the hulking Lenny, which, as things shape up, may be loyalty to a fault. The script makes clear that their companionship is rare among migrant workers, where the rule appears to be every man for himself. Thus Lenny and George together form a kind of a solidarity core that others can gravitate toward, should they want to. Thus arises the possibility of a co-op and the sense of community this would provide for lost souls such as Candy and Crooks.

The trouble is that these two idealsdreams and loyaltycollide in the screenplay to produce an upshot of uncommon emotional power. Lenny simply cannot control his kindly impulses, such that the hulking man's desire to caress can produce fear and panic in the other, causing Lenny to stop the panic in the only way he knows howby choking. Thus a desire to show affection ends in deadly violence from one more lost soul who, despite his fearsome appearance, only means well, all of which produces an irony of intense proportions. So when Lennie throttles the trollopy Mae after caressing her hair, events play out in tragic fashion. And the real nature of violence shatters the fragile nature of dreams.

Now, I don't think anyone would blame George for his act of mercy, given the circumstances. However, there's an angle here that the emotion of the movie's last few minutes overpowers, and that is whether George's act of mercy does in fact represent the wisest or best decision, all things considered. After all, by honoring loyalty, George destroys the common dream of the four of them, thereby abandoning Crooks and Candy to an unpromising fate. As a result three men (including a likely incarcerated George) are victimized instead of one man, Lennie, being institutionalized, difficult though that would be. Again, I'm not saying George makes a blameworthy decision; in fact it comes across as a noble act of humane loyalty. I am saying there is more of an ethical conflict among the options open to George than may otherwise be recognized. A more general point is that the noble may at times conflict with the greater good, as it appears to here.

The movie itself is very well done. Meredith is outstanding as George, hitting just the right pitch as a sensitive man in a complex world. Lennie is a darn difficult role, and while Chaney at times goes over the top, he does convey the essential childlike innocence. And because of that, the ending achieves much of its emotional power. Field looks the part of Mae, the cheap dame with dreams of Hollywood, but she's also stagey as heck, with one of the shrillest voices on record, such that It's almost a perverse relief when she gets throttled. Slim comes across as a rather mysterious character, and Bickford plays him with a compelling low-key dignity. The men obviously respect him, and he appears to be an authority they defer to, even George. But a question has stayed with me over timenamely, why does Slim, a man who can see beyond the moment, approve the killing of Candy's old dog. He understands the devastating effect this will have on old Candy, who sees his own fate foreshadowed in the dog's. So why does Slim go along with Carlson's cruel demand. I've never been able to figure that one out.

Anyway, I think producer-director Milestone has come up with a first-rate version of Steinbeck's classic novel. I'm just sorry this slice of blue-collar reality has gotten generally passed over by film historians. In my little book, it's clearly the best movie to come out of that so-called golden year 1939.


This is a magnificent film directed by Lewis Milestone, who made so many superb movies. It is a bit dated and 'stagey' in its opening minutes, partly because it is taken from the play, not the novel, by John Steinbeck, and also because so many of the outstanding cast were only making their second or third film, and needed warming up and getting used to the camera. Once into its stride, however, this classic tale progresses with relentless fatality to explore all the sadness of loners and drifters with such heart-breaking intensity that it really gets you at gut level. In a sense, the loneliness, impossible dreams, and searing heartaches of the many drifting, unfulfilled, and lost characters are the real heart of this story, which thus embodies the pain of the Depression in the personal lives of several people who suffer, suffer, and, well, suffer. The main storyline is the touching relationship of the retarded giant Lennie, played by Lon Chaney, Junior, and his friend who travels and works with him, and looks after him like a zealously protective brother, played by the young Burgess Meredith. Although Chaney over-acts, he over-acts consistently, which is the secret of over-acting successfully. The result is that Chaney's character achieves full pathos, despite not being a particularly subtle performance. Chaney is no restrained and measured Dustin Hoffmann, and when he is playing someone retarded, he flaunts it, and blurts it. But we accept that. He is the gentle giant who crushes all the little rabbits and puppies he loves because he can never understand his own strength, and his pathetic efforts to remember the simplest things are totally convincing. Burgess Meredith, near the beginning of his film career, gives one the finest of his many inspired performances, showing a shining power of love and devotion rarely seen on the screen with a male character, or someone who is neither father nor mother. Betty Field, also starting out on the screen, is superb as the young wife on the ranch tormented by boredom almost to the point of insanity. The scene where she and the retarded Lennie sit and 'converse', never really connecting but each pursuing a desperate individual monologue, is one of the most effective scenes of its kind ever filmed. This film contains so many moving performances that it is like a showcase of pathos. Roman Bohnen, astonishingly aged only 45 at the time (and he died aged only 54! - a great loss!), plays a pathetic old man desperately attempting to grasp a last thread of a possible dream, having had the only love of his life, an old dog, torn from him and shot, so that he is deprived of anything and everything, stripped bare, a naked, lost soul, as so many in this story are lost souls. Leigh Whipper is outstandingly subtle in his portrayal of an ostracised black worker who mixes bitterness, sympathy, love, hate, and venom all in one well-rounded package, an incredible achievement in a short time on screen. Bob Steele is totally convincing as the repellent young husband of Betty Field, whose manic jealousy and general paranoia rise steadily to a crescendo of intensity. This is a desperate film about desperate people. The relationship of the hopelessly retarded Chaney with his friend Meredith is completely convincing, and heart-breaking to the ultimate degree. One hopes that some of these characters can achieve some semblance of a dream, that even one of them can escape the endless wheel of torment and emotional deprivation and lack of fulfillment. I have known people who resembled these more than is comfortable. This multiply tragic tale is not just devastatingly close to the bone, it is the bone.


this is another of John Steinbeck's novels brought to the screen.i thought it was well done.Burgess Meredith plays George,and Lon Chaney Jr.plays his travelling companion Lenny.Lenny is what you would call very slow and George has too look out for him and keep him out of trouble.he is a giant of man with the intellect of a child.the two men are forced to keep moving when George does get into trouble.they arrive at a ranch,and end up working.George has big dreams for the two of them.this movie is whimsical in tone at times,but also dark and tragic.Chaney is brilliant as Lenny.the dialogue is very good as is the direction.for me,Of Mice and Men is a 10/10


John Steinbeck published his Nobel winning book in 1937. This film adaptation of said book followed two years later. Lewis Milestone selected two virtually unknown actors to play the lead characters and struck pay-dirt. The film tells the story of two itinerant laborers traveling through California in the Depression of 1930. Burgess Meredith, plays George a sensitive and fast thinking individual who has taken and befriended Lennie, (Lon Chaney Jr.) a huge retarded man who is gentle, kind and well-meaning but hampered with a dangerous and prodigious strength. Securing employment, they begin working on a large farm ranch and are greeted by Slim (Charles Bickford) the ranch foreman and Whit (Noah Berry Jr.) a ranch hand. However they are also met by Curley (Bob Steele) and his flirtatious wife Mae (Betty Field). Life on the ranch is peppered with both opportunities of future dreams, but also with hazardous personal situations which seem innocuous enough, but are fraught with misunderstanding. Nevertheless, the movie itself is filled with both compassion for life, but also in heartrending acceptations of natural tragedy. The wonderful performances by Meredith and Chaney mark this great film with the unmistakable characteristics of a true Classic. A great movie stemming from an equally great book. A must see for all movie lovers. ****


I've seen Lon Chaney Jr. in close to a couple dozen movie and television roles, and except for his signature 'Wolf Man' from 1941, I never thought he was that good an actor. But WOW!, he gives a stunningly brilliant performance as the mentally challenged Lennie in this movie adaptation of John Steinbeck's classic novel. Not only in his mannerisms, but in the disciplined cadence of his speech to affect a truly unique character in film. As soon as I heard it, I hearkened back to my childhood watching those old Warner Brothers cartoons, and even though I can't remember which one it was, I can clearly hear in my mind the words "Which way did he go George, which way did he go?" Referring of course (in the picture, not the cartoon), to Lennie's overseer and traveling companion. Burgess Meredith is completely natural as Lennie's buddy George, with the patience of a saint and a heart as good as gold.

But George and Lennie are just the beginning. You would be hard pressed to find a film of any era to be so rich in characters, each of which evokes such a strong response from the viewer. I marveled at the performance of Roman Bohnen as Candy; the scene in which his old sheep dog was led away is one of the most uncomfortable moments I've ever experienced in pictures. I've yet to see Bob Steele in any of his Westerns where he comes across as such a dominant character, even when he's portraying a villain as he does here. Did you catch the neat way he mounted his horse right after first meeting George and Lennie? - it was so smooth that it takes a few seconds to realize what he just did.

The biggest surprise for me while watching was how the picture confronted racism head on in the bunkhouse scene with Crooks (Leigh Whipper), talking about what it means to be a black man. Just the way it's done, you never get the impression he's using the so called 'race card', to evoke sympathy. He simply conveys how being black has made him a lonely man. That sense of isolation is further reinforced by the characters of George and Curly's wife Mae, all of whom just need someone to talk to.

Having read the book so long ago, I don't remember the set up for the finale, but that might be the only thing in the picture that could have been handled better. When George showed the stolen gun to Slim (Charles Bickford), it telegraphed the ending for those viewers unfamiliar with the novel. It would have been much more powerful for George to reveal his intent when he finally finds Lennie at the pre-arranged meeting place in the swamp. It also bothered me that although Slim was complicit in George's act (by not trying to stop him), he stopped the sheriff to point out George.

Now that I think about it some more, Slim might have been the most conflicted character in the story, straddling both sides of an issue on many levels. He was a threat to Curly, but never openly challenged him. He didn't approve of Carlson (Granville Bates) meddling with Candy over his sheep dog, but was the voice that convinced Candy that putting the dog to rest was the right thing to do. There's a lot more than meets the eye with Slim's character, and his presence in the film nagged me throughout; maybe that was Steinbeck's intent.

One of the neat things about catching this picture the other night on Turner Classics was the commentary by host Robert Osborne following the film. He explained an intricate detail about the movie bill that Curly's wife had in her hand about mid way in the story. One of the films on the card was "Zenobia", released the same year as this picture, and like this one, was also produced by Hal Roach. Even seventy years ago, film makers found unique ways to promote their own properties.


I can remember the first time I saw this movie on television, maybe 30 years ago. I cried like a baby over Candy's dog and then again at the end.

Last night I watched the movie again on Turner Classic Movies, for the first time in 30 years, and once again I cried like a baby over Candy's dog and at the end.

The dialog in this film is so real. Everyone is a "guy" and you feel like you're watching real men interacting with each other. There isn't a false moment in the whole thing.

Lennie is believable, George is believable, and Candy is believable. You can feel their frustration with their current situation, the anguish they feel about how they got to this point, and the elation they feel when imagining their future. All they want is a piece of land they can call their own; that's not too much to ask is it? But things happen; bad things. It's nobody's fault really, but it destroys everything they'e ever wanted. They'll never get that little piece of land, they'll never have anything more than what they have right now, and they'll never be anything better than what they already are.

If I live to be a hundred years old, I'll always cry at the end of this movie. Not so much because of what happens, but because of why it happens. As for Candy's dog, I think he and Lennie ended up better off than anyone else.


There are two scenes in this excellent movie that make me cry every time. The first is when Candy's dog is put down. We had to put down our beloved dog about a year ago, and it was a most difficult thing to do. Of course the movie just heightens the emotions here, as Candy realizes he is also getting old and is not as useful and vibrant as he used to be. His regret later in the film about not doing the deed himself just makes the whole situation sadder. Then there's the final scene, with George knowing what he must do, and Lenny, still with a child's innocence, talking about the hope filled future where he can tend the rabbits. He can really "see it", but we and George know it's not to be. As sad as parts of the movie are, this is one of my favorite movies of all time. The two leads are fantastic as are the rest of the cast. Grab this one and have the tissues ready.


Stienbeck's classic is given it's first big screen adaption and Lon Chaney Jr gives the best performance of his career.

Of Mice and Men is a great novel to begin with and the problem with it is that it would be a hard novel to adapt in Depression era 30's. The movie is more up beat than the 1992 version but it benefits because this version is more real than the Sinise film. This version has the benefit of being made in the middle of the depression and because of this it has great power to it.

Chaney deserves all the praise in the world for his portrayal of the tragic Lenny. This Lenny is easily the most tragic on film. We believe George when he says Lenny is like a big child. Chaney's Lenny is a character who doesn't understand the world around him, Malkovich's Lenny was more corrupted by his surroundings. It's a shame he didn't receive an Oscar nomination for this role. I think that if he had not gone into horror, he could have worked well as a dramatic player.

The set design and cinematography are impressive as well. The film has very simple surroundings but simple isn't bad here. We forget Of Mice and Men because we were also introduced to the Land of Oz or the plantations of Gone with the Wind or the Congress in Mr.Smith Goes to Washington, but unlike those pictures the movie relies more so on it's outstanding cast which give this picture more emotional weight.

This is the definitive adaptation of Of Mice and Men. The Sinise film is outstanding but it doesn't hold a candle to this masterpiece.


Knowing that Lon Chaney Jr. played the Wolf Man and that Burgess Meredith played Penguin on the old "Batman" TV series (plus Rocky's trainer), it might seem hard to imagine them co-starring in a serious movie. But "Of Mice and Men" comes out very well done. In this adaptation of John Steinbeck's novel, the two actors bring to life the retarded Lennie Small and the self-standing George Milton, respectively. On the farm where they get hired, one can easily see the hierarchy inherent in society: the workers forced to do the most degrading labor; the African-American ostracized from everyone else; the Chinese servant; and the woman (Betty Field) forbidden from having her own life. In the midst of everything, George has to look after Lennie, who proves very dangerous to himself and others.

So, this is definitely a movie that I recommend. Even if Betty Field's performance comes across as mildly silly, that doesn't dampen the movie. Very well done.


Seven years ago, when I was in high school, I was assigned to read and study John Steinbeck's 1937 novella, "Of Mice and Men", in my English class, and it's no surprise that I still remember it clearly now, as it's not a story to forget. Shortly after reading the book, we were shown the 1992 film adaptation in that class. I first heard about this much earlier adaptation of the book around that time, but it took me seven years to finally get around to watching it, even though I had been intending to watch it for quite a while by the time I did. I knew this version was widely praised, which gave me fairly high expectations. It may not have fully met these expectations, but if not, at least it came very close, and I would say it's just as memorable as the book.

In the 1930's Great Depression era, George Milton and Lennie Small are two migrant ranch workers in California who dream of having their own place someday. Lennie is big and strong, but he is also mentally handicapped, and George has to look after him. He means well, but often gets into trouble, doing things he doesn't realize are wrong, and George is always the one who has to get him out of it. After leaving town to escape from a mob started by Lennie feeling a woman's dress, the two of them soon get jobs on another ranch. Here, their co-workers include Candy, an elderly man who won't likely be able to work on the ranch for much longer, and Crooks, a crippled black man who faces discrimination because of his race in this era. The ranch owner's son is Curley, a belligerent young man who hates Lennie from the moment he first sees him, and has a lonely wife named Mae, whom he tends to neglect, but doesn't want any other men to have anything to do with her, being the jealous type.

The cast really helps carry this film, including the two co-stars, Burgess Meredith as George and Lon Chaney Jr. (the son of the "Man of a Thousand Faces," Lon Chaney) as Lennie. Both of these actors fit their roles well, and are both memorable. Chaney's portrayal of a mentally handicapped character may not be flawless, but it's still good. Most of the other cast members' performances also stand out, and it helps that they were clearly given a good script. There are times when the score doesn't fit the scene very well, and there may be certain other slight flaws, but they are far from enough to ruin the movie. In addition to the acting and script, there are a number of very interesting characters, several of whom one can easily sympathize with, and some very well crafted heartbreaking scenes, starting with Candy losing his dog. The score in these scenes does fit them well. This adaptation of Steinbeck's novella was also very nicely filmed.

This first ever film adaptation of a John Steinbeck story is not perfect, but overall, it's still very good, and very faithful to the book. It does take some liberties, such as giving Curley's wife a name, and they obviously left out some detail, but the differences are minor, at least for the most part. Anyone who has read the book knows that "Of Mice and Men" is not a cheerful story. It's a tragic drama set in a tragic era, and this movie is much the same as the book, so keep that in mind if you're planning to watch it. If you're an emotional kind of person, you could easily find tears in your eyes at times, and if you're not, you could still at least come close to tears. If you've read the book and were impressed with it, and/or you like dramas from the classic era in general, I really think this 1939 screen adaptation is worth checking out.


John Steinbeck's classic tale of two depression era migrant workers - resourceful "George Milton" and lumbering "Lennie Small" - is required reading, or viewing (not a good substitute for Steinbeck, but if you must). This version's main weakness is staginess. Strangely, Lewis Milestone frames much of the film with obviously staged "bits" not present in even the original play. Less a problem are contrivances like the small flea power dust storm emitted when Burgess Meredith (as George) examines his bunk. Still, this cast is the standard by which all subsequent characterizations have been measured, with Lon Chaney Jr. (as Lennie) being especially memorable.

******** Of Mice and Men (12/30/39) Lewis Milestone ~ Burgess Meredith, Lon Chaney Jr., Roman Bohnen, Betty Field


After all these years, I have just started to watch this Lewis Milestone masterwork again, having seen it in the long and forgotten "ago." And the opening scenes alone, the establishing title shots, cameraman's shadow notwithstanding, struck with the full force of both "truth" and "genius," the former for the Steinbeck novella and the latter for Milestone's seamless evocation. I have read a few of the commentaries on both this "original" filming and the latterday Sinise/Malkovich version, which I have yet to see, and find little to disagree with in my samplings. It is interesting AND instructive that both Betty Fields and Lon Jr. received brickbats along with kudos. The former earned the same in "King's Row," and the latter, of course, never received all that much attention. That said, I, for one, thought Chaney was at the peak of his form as the "retard" Lenny, and, whilst it is more than understandable that some found his performance "over the top," that is purely a matter of subjective reaction. Burgess Meredith was a fine George, and I rather doubt Sinise could have improved on it, sight unseen, but, that too is purely subjective. There were some observant AND penetrating insights among the comments I scanned on both versions, but only one, the fellow who observed that there were "chick flicks" and this was a "dick flick." And, on that score, I did not read a single acknowledgment of the fact that the obvious homoerotic themes, not just that between George and Lenny, but also the "closet-queen" implications of Curly's overmacho stances, were not overtly noted. To me, George and Lenny, in their own ways, were the templates for the protagonists of "Brokeback Mountain," another near-Oscar entry. Although, in the latter, the retard survives in his zombie estate. Finally, it was a personal "shock" to see the wondrous "character" performance of Roman Bohnen again, this overlooked and under-appreciated mainstay of the old Actors' Lab experiment in Hollywood, way back then. By the way, what with my lack of "hearing" and unavailability of captions for the Milestone version, I found I did not need same. Indeed, focussing on the setups and closeups the "action" and "dialog were all too clear. Tell me about those rabbits.


Probably the best film adaptation of a Steinbach novel that Hollywood ever managed. East of Eden doesn't make it since Kazan used less than a third of a towering novel.

Of Mice and Men is a profoundly moving story of people caring for each other during a very difficult time in American history. Lon Chaney, Jr. does the best work of his career in a deceptively demanding role. The one sour note is the bewilderingly hammy performance by Betty Field.


At another studio perhaps there would have been a happier ending,with all the little people getting together and buying that farm. Capra maybe for that or over at Twentieth Century Fox Shirley Temple could have sung some happy tunes while Bill Robinson danced with Lenny and George in the background Lenny and George being her caretakers until they find her rich relative's ranch in the San Joaquin Valley. Over at Warners perhaps a shootout ending with George killing Curley before collapsing dead with Lenny and Mae free to fall in love. Lewis Milestone directed a realistic drama about the forces that drive us to be either humane or inhuman,whether inside of ourselves or beyond our control. The character of George could have treated the retarded Lenny as a beast of burden to bolster his own image but it's the ranch owner's son Curley who does that to most of the workers except for Charles Bickford who he envies and fears. The character of Mae is meant to be seen as both shrill and pathetic trapped in a loveless marriage in a setting where she thought she would be elevated considered one of "better people" of the community;has come to realize too late her true role as a breeder of more Curley's. Lenny represents the trusting masses who follow whatever voice is loudest or gives the most reward and by not being able to discern his own innate strength mot destroyed or ruthlessly controlled. The example of Nazism and Communism alive and baring fangs in Europe gave added weight to the role of Lenny. Both had taken over stricken societies with visions of a new day with rewards for the faithful brutal remorseless doom for those who challenged them. Film is not escapist fare no bright tomorrow over the horizon as in Ford's version of The Grapes of Wrath,only one little man permanently crippled and alone in a society that barely knows he exists.


Set in the Depression Era rural South, 2 men, George (smart but not strong) and Lenny (strong but not smart) are searching the countryside for their dream: a little farm that will support them and bring them happiness. They find work as farm hands but encounter prejudice (Lenny is considered a "dummy") and cruelty by a sadistic boss. When Lenny accidentally kills the boss's beautiful wife, George tells the upset Lenny that everything will be OK, to quickly go to their "secret place". The ending is heartbreaking.

After reading "Of Mice And Men" one wonders about WHY people see the need to look down on less fortunate ones, even tormenting them for "not fitting in". In reality it is the bullies who are the misfits. Starved for attention and the need for superiority destroys their human features and makes them more like animals. This book tells us to expel hate from our hearts. I recommend this book to students age 14 and up.

This book can be turned into a wonderful stage play, requiring minimal sets. There is also a vintage movie version which I can recommend. As always, the book is the best of all "media". Highly recommended.


This is a beautifully crafted version of the play adapted from John Steinbeck's novel, and while there are fine things in it, I also find glaring faults worth pointing out as well. This story of the smart little guy and the very dumb big guy, set against the backdrop of the California of the Depression period, has all the makings of a classic, yet somehow it falls a little short. Not by a million miles, but there are problems with it, especially where the Steinbeck-as-biologist philosophy of life comes into play, and we realize that the author, for all his compassion and love for living things, also views all animals as the same. Men and dogs, rabbits and mice, are equally worthwhile in his view, and he continually (and the script is sedulous to a fault in this regard) emphasizes this here and elsewhere in his writings, and the result is a kind of pantheistic regard for everything that lives, which is wonderful and idealistic, but alas impractical. It's also bad psychology. The continual parallels between, for instance, big stupid Lenny and Candy's sick old dog, which might work in a purely poetic context, seem too manufactured for drama. Steinbeck shows here and there a great latent insight into the human condition in general; his empathy his real, and one truly senses that he at times truly loves his characters; but when it comes to particulars he falls down, and in the end has little to say. The human condition interests him alright, but people are almost interchangeable in his world, but for their size or brains, and their inner lives hold no interest for him.

The movie, once one accepts the limits imposed on it by the book, is a fine piece of work. I wish that John Ford could have had a crack at this, yet director Lewis Milestone does an excellent job with the material; he is at all times sensitive and observant, letting each actor strut his stuff. His feeling for nature, so central to the book, is not so great, yet this could have been imposed on him by budgetary restraints. Producer Hal Roach was a notorious skinflint.

Lon Chaney, Jr. as Lennie is excellent. I wish that the character had been fleshed out more. He's almost too good to be true. The only harm he does others comes from his not knowing his own strength. Fair enough. Yet at times he seems too saintly. The mentally impaired can be lovable, as indeed Lennie is in many ways, but even they have bad hair days, and I wish that just for once Lennie had showed a petty or venal side. When he defies George, his "keeper", he always feels contrite in the end. For once it would have been nice for him to have done a bad thing, not told George about it, just for kicks, and felt good as a result of his little "rebellion". But this would have revealed Lennie an an authentic, evolving, genuine human being, and Steinbeck wasn't interested in this, so Lennie remains a symbol. It is to Chaney's great credit that he never seems like one.

Burgess Meredith, as the brainy little George, looks out of place among the rugged ranch-workers. He was an inherently urban type, and though he could play small-town midwesterners with great relish at times, there was always that impish glint in his eye that suggested that he knew much, much more about life than his character did. In this film he is quite young and rather delicate looking, and while one can imagine that Lennie would admire him for his brains, he has no air of authority about him, no real life gravitas to ground him in reality. He basically comes off like what he is: a finely trained classical actor essaying a modern role. That there's no trace of chemistry between Meredith and Chaney is a serious flaw in the film.

In smaller roles, Roman Bohnen and Charles Bickford do solid work, the former especially has a lot of emoting to do, and is very credible. As the bored ranchwife Mae, Betty Field does not give her best performance. This fine stage actress had yet to learn to act for the camera. Only in her final scene with Lennie does she come to life; sadly, it's too late. Leigh Whipper as Crooks, the black man who can't stay in the bunkhouse with the rest, shows a nicely malevolent side, and comes near to creating the one fully-rounded character in the film, but goes sentimental in the end. Too bad. Cowboy actor Bob Steele brings a nice touch of the Old West to the swaggering Curly, and I wish that he, rather, than Meredith, had been cast as George.

Aaron Copland's music is used intelligently, and its soaring near the end seems appropriate to the effect the film was trying to create, which was one of tragic humanity rather than tragic human beings. Meredith rises to the occasion when the dialogue goes poetic, redeeming himself somewhat in the process.

The best things in the movie are incidental, such as the ongoing fantasy George and Lennie share about buying a little farmhouse for themselves, where no one can tell them what to do, and if they want to go to the circus there's no boss around to tell them otherwise. When Candy joins in and becomes a partner in their little dreamworld the film begins to hum, and one wishes that in these moments it could have gone off-track and become another movie altogether, about little guys finding a place for themselves in the world. But Steinbeck was hunting bigger game than this, and the tragedy he imposed on the story, while believable enough, is an awful letdown, for the viewer as much as for George.


I didn't mind this movie as this was made in the 1930's and it was a black and white movie. I still liked the coloured one, the one that was made in 1992 better than this one. I give this movie about at least 6 out of 10.


This version of Steinbeck's novel drew quite a lot of attention in its day, not because of its financial success (it was a box-office failure) but because it was considered very daring of Hollywood to film a story with such an uncompromising finale. If one sees the film nowadays, however,one glaring, seemingly unimportant compromise is obvious----the character "Curley's Wife",the only woman in the film---has been given a name...Mae. Steinbeck deliberately leaves her nameless,partly for symbolic value,but also to deliberately and permanently link her with her brutal,stupid,bullying husband. The approach to the story in this version is deliberately pseudopoetic and larger than life---while Aaron Copland's beautiful, folkloric,"typically Amercan" score plays in the background, we see shots of rabbits and squirrels scurrying about.(The music soars to a huge climax in the final scene---in other versions that scene is played without a note of music.) The acting is perhaps deliberately somewhat artificial, but in a few cases gets downright hammy. B-Western star Bob Steele plays Curley with a hilarious, permanent sneer and a skulking walk; he also delivers his lines like a typical villain in a melodrama. Instead of playing Curley's wife as the pathetic yet lonely and almost unconsciously sexy woman that Sherilynn Fenn made her in the 1992 film, Betty Field makes her obnoxiously slutty, whiny, loud and shrill, and we are annoyed and repelled at her instead of being made to empathize with her plight. Charles Bickford is excellent in his role. Burgess Meredith is quite good as George,at least for the most part,but either he or Lewis Milestone miscalculated horribly in the scene in which he makes his ultimate tragic decision---his popeyed expression as he comes to this decision is unintentionally sidesplitting.

This does contain Lon Chaney, Jr's. best performance (as Lennie), but he falls short of John Malkovich's 1992 portrayal. Horrifying as it may sound, Chaney's 1939 Lennie has been the subject of countless cartoon parodies--it's the inspiration for all those cartoons that feature a huge bear saying "I done a clever thing,George, duh,I done a clever thing", as well as Bugs Bunny's abominable snowman saying "I will hug him and pet him and squeeze him and hug him and pet him and squeeze him,and ", well.....you get the idea.

Still, this film is worth checking out as an example of how John Steinbeck's novel (and stage play) was performed in the 1930's.


First, rent Gary Sinise' 1992 version.

Then read the book, then watch this version of the story. You probably wont make it all the way through. I read the book, first, as a kid... and not because I was assigned to read it but because I liked to read.

Then I saw this movie on late-night TV, you know when almost every local channel ran movies on the weekend.... and I thought it was poor.

In the years since, I've seen TV adaptations and TV broadcasts of stage play versions. None carried the full flavor and emotion of the book.

It is widely accepted that thirties cinema was the peak of the art. This film, whether the exception or the model, proves otherwise.

Gary Sinise did a far better and more faithful adaptation of the book. If you were to buy one version, I suspect it will be the 1992 film.


I remember seeing this film as a child and getting my mum to tape it so that I could watch it over and over again. I didn't even realise it was Swedish so know it as Peter-No-Tail.

It's the story of a cat born without a tail who tries to fit in but gets bullied by the other cats. Things just don't seem to go quite right for him, getting caught in a house fire and being pushed over in a running race. It's actually quite sad and you feel sorry for Peter-No-Tail but it is an excellent film and well worth a watch if you ever get the opportunity to see it. Hopefully it will be released in English someday.


It's been a while since I last saw this film, as a matter of fact, Pelle Svanslös is one of the first films I saw as a child. The story is about a Pelle, a cat who was born without a proper tail. Of course, Pelle soon becomes the laughing stock of the town, because the other cats think that "he can't be a proper cat if he doesn't even have a proper tail".

Since this is a children's story the film evidently has a moral. Fortunately it isn't overdone, and the message of acceptance and equality is conveyed without having to rely on cheap sentimentality. However, the film is a bit sad at times, mainly because of the abuse Pelle has to take from the other cats. Don't worry though, it all turns out fine in the end.

Still, I cried my our eyes out the first time I saw it. But give me some credit, I was only five years old at the time.


This film was edited in Catalán a few years ago. The film was also translated and dubbed into Spanish (Pedro sin cola). In Catalán it's named Pere sense cua.

When I was a child I loved this film. The only thing I can't like about it is the treatment of a she-cat like she's stupid. But it's the only "bad" thing. This film is great, beautiful, funny...

The little cat had no tail. The farmer saves his life hiding him inside a car... and then he's adopted. He is a kind cat, he find some friends in the city and also an enemy and his followers.

I recommend this film to all the people who has children at home.


Whilst other children of my generation were enthralled by Disney movies, I was busy watching a very obscure Swedish gem known as "Peter No Tail." To this day, felines have always been my favorite creatures, and as a wee girl I had a bit of an obsession with them. Yeah. So obviously this little film caught my interest, way back when Stop and Shop (as you can tell I'm a New Englandah), had movie rentals! Not to mention the rarest ones such as this! Peter No Tail is a unique story of a family who want to adopt a cat. The local farmhand's cat had just given birth to a litter of kittens, and he was selling them. But alas, nobody would adopt Peter, the kitten who was, uh, lacking in the tail department. Finally, a family take him in, give him a cute little cap to wear and green bow-tie and everything! It's a cute and offbeat look at how Peter tries to win the heart of the cat community, despite their scoffing at him and his tail lackage (is that a word?). He competes with a nasty cat named Max, and his sidekicks, Bill and Bull, in a sort of athletic decathlon and to win the heart of a lovely feline female. It's a tad bit dated, but considering the fact that it's a 25 year old flick, it's still wonderful today and I still own a copy...somewhere.


Producer Carl Laemmle Jr changed history of horror cinema when he hired director Tod Browning to make the first official adaptation to Bram Stoker's classic novel "Dracula". This was the beginning of Universal Studios' tradition of Gothic horror that reigned triumphant through the 30s and early 40s. Robert Siodmak's "Son of Dracula", an alternative sequel (it doesn't make any reference to the earlier "Dracula's Daughter") to Browning's classic, is probably the last classic in the long line of films Universal produced about the monsters they gave life in the 30s.

"Son of Dracula" takes place decades after the first film, when the Dracula's story is now considered a mere myth. The story begins with the arrival of Count Alucard (Lon Chaney Jr.) to America, as the mysterious Carpathian noble has been invited to the country by Katherine 'Kay' Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), a young rich woman with a morbid interest for the supernatural. Soon Kay finds herself in love with the strange Count, something that worries her boyfriend Frank (Robert Paige) and family's friend Prof. Brewster (Frank Craven), as they suspect that there's something wrong with the strange foreigner.

Director of many B-Movies before this job, Robert Siodmak would become Universal's most important exponent of the noir style and "Son of Dracula" definitely forecasts his brilliant future in the genre. The film shows his great talent to combine haunting and atmospheric visuals with a great screenplay (by his brother, Curt Siodmak), and it moves away from the series' roots in German Expressionism to what would be called Film Noir, creating what seems to be the missing link between Universal's horror films and their subsequent Noir movies.

While Robert Siodmak's talent is almost unquestionable, the films owes a lot of its success to Curt Siodmak's cleverly written script. Just like in his previous "The Wolf Man", the story is charged with a dark pessimistic feeling of dread that gives the film a unique feeling (contrary to most Universal horrors, there's almost no comedy) that rather than making the film dull or boring it enhances its captivating charm. With clever plot twists and a good dose of suspense, Siodmak's plot also feels like horror themed hard-boiled fiction.

Many has been written about Siodmak's choice of Lon Chaney Jr. to play the Count's descendant, but while there's no doubt that he was not the best choice for the role, he wasn't really too bad in it. Sure, Chaney's appearance suits better the bulkier monsters but he gets the job done and his sad face suits the dark theme of deception the movie has. Robert Paige as the film's "hero" (for lack of a better word) is very effective and his usual co-star Louise Allbritton makes a great femme fatal. Frank Craven and J. Edward Bromberg are brilliant as the vampire hunters and it could be said that despite the miscast of Chaney the whole cast makes a great job.

"Son of Dracula" is a top-notch film considering it was conceived as a B-movie. Robert Siodmak makes great use of his resources and the film rivals the first film in quality and overall composition. One of the better sequels of the Universal Studios' films, it's main flaw may be that those expecting a typical Universal horror may be disappointed by its dark Noir theme and its pessimistic tone.

Often forgotten among the many other films in the series (not unusual considering that the first two Frankenstein sequels were masterpieces), "Son of Dracula" is a worthy sequel to Browning's classic and definitely superior to the previous "Dracula's Daughter". A must see for fans of Robert Siodmak who will find the roots of his style deep in this film. 8/10


An incredibly atmospheric film! One of Chaney's best! Cinematography and direction are excellent! This was a third in the line of Dracula films for Universal. The story line does not take place in the Carpathian Mountains but in the deep south. Count Alucard arrives at his new destination seeking new blood! The six foot two and one half inch massive Lon Chaney Jr. strikes an imposing figure as Count Alucard, both brutal and powerful! Chaney makes a convincing member of the undead! Chaney was a major horror star at Universal, when he was making this film. He would become the fourth legendary horror king in American cinema after his father, Bela Lugosi, and Boris Karloff! All the actors are excellent. Louise Allbritton is very alluring and beautiful, as Katherine Caldwell Thirsting for knowledge about the undead! Her performance is also superb! Robert Paige is stand out in his performance as a man on the brink of madness, as he is slowing going insane! A truly incredible performance! The dark moodiness of the film transcends perfectly! There are many great atmospheric scenes to name just a few, when Chaney materializes on the top of a coffin, that has just risen out of the swamp, and when Allbritton passes though the bars to see Paige. The misty vapor that leaves the coffin and transforms into a bat! And the transformatiom scenes from man into bat are excellent! The film has some film noir overtones, director Robert Siodmak, went on to do the incredible film noir classic (THE KILLERS).The incredible ending is one of the best in Universal horror! This film is a truly underrated classic!


When Lon Chaney, Jr., looking like he's just eaten about two dozen Big Macs, introduces himself at the Louisiana estate of Dark Oaks, as Count Alucard (spell it backwards), the fun begins. For those who like atmospheric horror, Son Of Dracula is a treat. The Siodmak brothers, director Robert and author Curt, both worked on this one. Made during the Second World War, at a time when Universal was producing mostly inferior horrors, this is one of the studio's best efforts of the period, with cinematographer George Robinson's camera prowling the homes, woods and bayous of American South with the surefooted gracefulness of a black panther. The acting is fine, with even such limited players as Robert Paige, Evelyn Ankers and Louise Albritton all turning in good work. Character actors Frank Craven and J. Edward Bromberg make a nice vampire-hunting duo, and their scenes together suggest a real alliance and not merely two actors going through the motions. Big Lon, as the Count, is very effective. He lacks Lugosi's old world charm, but makes up for it in bulk, drawing nicely on the natural arrogance that some big men are prone to, his vampire is a baleful figure, often prone to violence. There's more local color than one might expect in this sort of movie, with the character of the swamp-dwelling Queen Zimba providing an interesting link to the Cajun and Voodoo traditions. By today's standards I suppose Son Of Dracula is none too frightening, though it nicely suggests the link between horror and everyday life, normal emotions and regional traditions, which, while this might not mean much nowadays, certainly resonated in the America of sixty years ago, which it effectively evokes.


Count Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards) goes to Louisiana to make willing Louise Allbritton his bride. But she has other ideas up her sleeve.

Very atmospheric film starts slow but really picks up speed in the middle leading to a great, unexpected ending. Lon Chaney Jr. is (surprisingly) good as Alucard and the atmosphere is just beautiful...swamps drenched with fog and moss. Also Chaney plays Dracula NOT his son (despite the title). This was the first movie to use Alucard as an anagram for Dracula.

This was considered a lousy horror film for many years--most people complained that Chaney looked WAY too healthy to play an undead vampire and they found the plot slow. Now it's getting the recognition it deserves. A well-done, neglected little gem. And, again, the ending is GREAT!


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

8 out of 10.


I thought "Son of Dracula" was the pits when I was a kid. I simply found it slow and tedious and lacking in the kind of mesmeric atmosphere that makes the best vampire entertainment really tick. But, reviewing the film recently, I found myself enjoying it thoroughly. Go figure...

It's still no masterpiece, of course. Shoehorning Count Alucard/Dracula into a Louisiana swamp-and-plantation setting has always struck me as a weird and arbitrary move. (Though Dracula does get some interesting dialog about how he's attracted to America because it's a youthful and vigorous land.) And the human protagonists are too drippy for my tastes. The supposed hero is Frank Stanley, but his character is too thinly developed to be truly sympathetic. In fact, in an early scene he expresses a sort of jerky glee when the local voodoo woman drops dead of a heart attack, so I suppose you could say he's aggressively unsympathetic!

As usual, the vampires stand head and shoulders above the boring humans. Some people are critical of Chaney's performance, but I think he's pretty good. He's definitely a different sort of vampire from Lugosi - he's less ethereal, and more aggressively powerful. You could say he foreshadows Christopher Lee's forceful portrayal of Dracula in the 1950s-70s films from England's Hammer Studios. Louise Allbritton is even more effective in her role as the female vampire, and, in an interesting twist, she's allowed to have a set of motivations and ambitions that are totally different from Dracula's. In fact, in many ways she's the main character.

In the end, then, I think this movie stacks up pretty well to other films in the Universal series. It's not as eerie as "Dracula" or "Dracula's Daughter," probably because it's a more modern and technologically advanced film. (The primitiveness of the early entries in the series actually makes them scarier!) But it's certainly easier to watch than its predecessors, thanks to its more glossy look, full music score and occasional nifty special effects. You gotta love that mist stuff...

On a side note, I do think that Cheney is playing Dracula's son, and not the original Dracula himself. I'm surprised to see so much controversy about that point on this site. The film is called "Son of Dracula," after all, and J. Edward Bromberg identifies Alucard as a "descendant" of Dracula. Sure, Alucard admits to being a "Dracula" at one point, but not necessarily THE Dracula. As father and son, they would have the same surname - right? Oh, never mind, this is giving me a headache!

One more odd matter of continuity. Bromberg's character says at one point that Dracula was destroyed "in the 19th century." But, since the Universal films had a contemporary setting, wasn't he destroyed in the 20th century in this particular universe? Just thought I'd mention that.


Well, universal movie were classics in their own genre, opening new ways, which would keep feeding the movie industry for decades upto this day. Mileages vary, and some rank most of their movies as mid-card to low budget movies. I think they are (with high & low's ) true classics. Without sky-high budget; without focusing on special effects; without A+ class actors they managed to make a better impression than most A+ level movies, genre-wise. This is the case. Very atmospheric, noir movie, which keeps suspense upto the last minute with proper means. Acting is good. Chaney isn't my favourite Dracula, but he's 10x better than Carradine anyways. Even supporting characters deliver a solid performance. Sub-plots are mixed in well, and none disrupts the movie's equilibrium. Count Dracula hides under pseudonym and emigrates to America, where a young belle heiress with a fascination for occultism is subdued under his powers and even marries him after leaving her beau behind. An aging physician and an Hungarian scholar are soon after him, though. Sofar it looks like your classic D movie, right? SFX are very good, not overdone, not inopportune. The plot is very coherent and develops nicely. Well, it isn't your typical D movie because poor D ends up fooled without even realizing it...the belle planned beforehand to first have D kill her father, thus inheriting vast estates, then to convince her beau to kill D himself, thus leading an immortal life with him as "undead". Does it look too simple again...? Well, in fact the beau does destroy Dracula, but another plot twist lays ahead... Definitely a movie you'd watch twice.


Katherine Caldwell is an occult-obsessed southern girl who's awaiting Hungarian Count Alucard (Dracula) to arrive at her father's plantation home in the small town of Dark Oaks. Her father dies on the arrival of Alucard, and she starts sneaking around to meet with him, while her fiancée Frank follows her around. Soon enough she's secretly marries Alucard and soon becomes one of the undead when there's a confrontation between Frank and Alucard. Local doctor Brewster begins to suspect something is not quite right about Count Alucard and questions Katherine's intentions.

Well, this is the first Universal Dracula film that I've watched and it might be a superfluous sequel to the original. Otherwise there's no doubting that this atmospherically Gothic and noir-like b-grade presentation breaths a touch originality in its curiously morbid premise and makes great use of some neatly handled effects involving seeping mist, bat transforming and an emerging coffin from the bottom of a dank swamp. Now that final note was one haunting scene. What it wants to be is nothing but simple fun. Which it gladly fits right into without any problems.

Hitting you straight away is Lon Chaney Jr.'s tubby representation of Dracula. Since I haven't seen the other films, it's hard for me to compare him with the likes of Bela Lugosi and John Carradine. I don't mind Chaney Jr. in the creepily stern role, but he does lack that sensually dominating presence and deadly suave one would associate with Dracula. He brings his own little touch to the landmark character with mixed results, but this didn't spoil the film for me in any shape. The rest of the performances were very well rounded and Louise Allbritton is admirably good in her selfishly sly performance of Katherine Caldwell. The perverse sub-plot involving her character is a compelling idea that's fleshed out nicely. Frank Craven is solid as Dr. Brewster and Robert Paige is sympathetically able as the heroine Frank. Curt Siodmak (story) and Eric Taylor (screenplay) cooked up a dark and moody awe from this tragically nightmarish and complex romance tale filled with dreaded suspense and strangely eerie twists. The opening question is not much of a mystery and it isn't played as one either. The smooth flowing script is tightly conceived and the pacing is judge to perfection. These refreshing aspects do go down well with Robert Siodmak's stylishly spooky treatment and surreal set-up in directing many effective moments and visions. Crisp photography and a broodingly cracking music score are handled with precise timing in depicting the film's right vein as well.

I really enjoyed myself with this Universal outing and now I look forward into getting amongst the rest of their Dracula features.


Amidst atmosphere Southern plantation swamp (Universal backlot)locations, Count Alucard (Lon Chaney) visits a "morbid" woman (Louise Allbritton). In spite of the title, Chaney is not the focal point here, it's Allbritton, who's also engaged to mortal Robert Paige. The chic blonde beauty, here in a dark wig to contrast her sister, played by lovely Evelyn Ankers, is superb, especially after being transformed into the undead, and disclosing her true plans to Paige, also fine in his tormented portrayal. Chaney is actually quite good, suave and menacing, with great macabre makeup. Special effects include a mesmerizing "gliding" bayou resurrection, bat transformations, and mist apparitions. The picture is well-directed, too, with a great musical score, leading up to a surprising finale. Enjoyable.


This underrated film is often surprisingly effective in evoking a believable atmosphere of the supernatural. Count Dracula arrives in a small Southern town in the U.S. in the early Forties, to marry a wealthy heiress. Their strange courtship, and the jealousy of her former fiancé, set in motion the mysterious and startling events that follow.

Lon Chaney Jr. is effective in the role of Dracula, affecting a rigid, slow moving style of body language, and an underplayed manner of speaking, seldom raising his voice, and standing almost immobile most of the time. The moment when he effortlessly flings the jealous Frank Stanley across the room, with a slight movement of his arm, while standing impassively, barely moving, is extremely effective.

The effects are well done, with some good scenes of Dracula transforming from man to bat and back again. The backgrounds and interiors are excellent, with the music contributing to the eerie tone of the story. The acting is good throughout, with performances of unusual strength for a low budget horror picture of this period.Louise Allbritton is incredible in the role of the vampire bride. Like Dracula, her soft voice and low key manner do not conceal a dangerous quality both alluring and frightening.

The movie isn't quite as good as it could have been, but is nowhere near as bad as some have described it over the years. It works well as a thoughtful, atmospheric little horror picture, with plenty of imagination and talent behind it. Well worth seeing for vampire movie fans and lovers of old Universal movies.


One of the better latter-day entries in Universal's famed horror series, 'Son of Dracula' is a short, fast-paced flick with some nifty special effects and a surprise ending. It also marks Lon Chaney, Jr.'s sole appearance as the Count; Chaney was the only actor to portray all four of Universal's major horror figures- Frankenstein's Monster, the Mummy, Dracula, and of course the Wolfman, for which he was most famous. Some said he was miscast as the Transylvanian vampire; he was too big and bulky, or not debonair enough. Personally, I think he does just fine, particularly during the final scene when he finds his coffin ablaze and rails at Robert Paige's Frank Stanley, yelling "Put it out! Put it out!" He exudes real menace and great strength, his voice a roar of anger and pain. Speaking of Robert Paige, he certainly earns his paycheck as the tormented Frank. The script puts him through the wringer, both emotionally and physically. He is engaged to marry Kay Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), only to find out she has fallen under Dracula's spell even before the Count arrives on the scene. Frank goes from disbelieving suitor to infuriated killer to hounded victim to incarcerated suspect to willing vampire wannabe, then back to normal. There are the requisite discussions about the undead and explanations of Dracula's mysterious powers, and they become more mysterious every time they're explained. I've never been clear, for example, on how Kay becomes a vampire; it appears to me that she's shot dead before Dracula ever bites her on the neck. Oh well. And then there is a befuddling conversation between Professor Brewster and Professor Laszlo (the vampire expert) as to why Kay fell under Dracula's spell in the first place. It's decided it was because she was 'morbid.' That's right, operator, she was morbid. Sounds good to me. The special effects include a fake bat that gets more screen time than it should, but some of the cooler images include the first ever bat-to-man transformation, as well as a great scene in the swamp, where Dracula's coffin rises to the water's surface, then Dracula himself floats across to the other side where Kay is waiting. It's really well done for the time, very atmospheric and eerie, with appropriately spooky music. 'Son of Dracula' is very enjoyable and is a good example of why the Universal horror series is so fondly remembered. The actors, writers, and production crews had these characters and films down to a 't' and they rarely disappointed.


"Son of Dracula" is an incredibly entertaining entry in the series.

**SPOILERS**

Arriving at the Caldwell Estate in Memphis, Tennessee, Frank Stanley, (Robert Paige) and Dr. Harry Brewster, (Frank Craven) bring back a set of coffins for Katherine Caldwell, (Louise Allbritton) but her guest does not arrive. Soon after, a series of misfortunes befall the family, and Dr. Brewster decides to call in Professor Lazio, (J. Edward Bromberg) an expert on superstitious matters. He believes that her guest, Count Alucard, (Lon Chaney Jr.) Isn't who he appears to be. As they begin trying to discover his true identity, a rash of murders around the countryside point them to the only true person he can really be.

The Good News: This is a far better film than what it's reputation has given it. The film's best attribute is it's undeniable mood and atmosphere. The tangled vines and muddied waters of the bayou are as sinister as any desolate mountain road in Transylvania. The consistent overgrowth and dank air give a sense of discomfort, especially in the bog scenes. The house itself is a large Gothic monstrosity, and has a sinister appeal to it that works incredibly well. There are several scenes that are quite moody and add immensely to the mood. The sequence where Dracula's coffin rises from beneath the muck of the swamp and then glides toward the waiting Katherine, floating over the waters is a clear-cut highlight, looking equally impressive in both execution, creativeness and look. The initial transformation sequence where, from behind, Dracula evaporates into a bat and flies off in seamless motion is a close second, and is a really impressive scene as well. It's one of the fastest moving films as well, making it seem like there's no real stop and that's always a plus. This was a far better film that what it really could've been.

The Bad News: There's several things wrong with this one that could've been fixed. The plot in general is a confusing mess. In fact, it's never adequately explained whether Alucard is the son of Dracula or actually Dracula himself. There's a vague mention of it but nothing is really concretely explained at all. It's pretty hard to believe the nonsense story given as a cover story for the Count as well, as it's a really obvious trick and is discovered far too easily for it to have any real effect on the use of it. It's also quite easy to find several gaping logic and plot holes in here that differ from the norm of vampires, yet these spoil the plot and can't be revealed. This really were all I could find wrong with this one.

The Final Verdict: A very solid and entertaining entry that is far better than it's status and keeps it far from boring. There's several small flaws here and there, but these can be overlooked as the good points far outweigh the bad ones. Recommended to the fans of the first parts in the series and those who love the Universal films.

Today's Rating-PG: Violence


While no match for the original Dracula by Tod Browning, Son of Dracula is, nonetheless, a much better film than its reputation suggests, and an improvement over the creaky Dracula's Daughter (a film that suffered of a bad case of "comic relief-itis", the terminal illness that killed off so many horror films of the era), which, while not totally without merit is mostly overrated. The problem with Son of Dracula is that it doesn't really feel like a Dracula movie. Dracula is a MacGuffin more than a character, and feels like a late addition to a non-Drac film (I guess I'm right, given that the working title for the movie was "Destiny"). And I really wish this was not a Dracula movie, as it would be better appreciated as a film, and we wouldn't have to see the untalented Lon Chaney Jr. as Dracula (only Carlos Villarías in the Spanish Drácula made a worse Count for Universal), who is pretty decent actually (better than as Larry Talbot), but that may be because he gets so little screen time. Anyway, I wish Bela Lugosi or John Carradine (who made an excellent Dracula but deserved better vehicles in the role) had played the part. In fact, this seems more like a Val Lewton production than part of the Universal cycle. Which is a good thing, actually, as that keeps the movie from being formula. Unlike the hacks that made most Universal sequels, Robert Siodmak was an excellent director and it shows here. The film is technically impeccable, moody, atmospheric and containing the very best visual effects of all the cycle. The transformation into fog is excellently done, and the scene where the hero shots through Dracula and kills his girlfriend (I'm not spoiling anything, it's in the trailer) is a classic moment to rival anything in the best movies of the cycle. Son of Dracula is not without faults, as it is somewhat slow in parts, but it's a very rewarding experience. Kudos to the Hungarian professor, who's more sympathetic than Edward Van Sloan's Van Helsing in the two previous films. And kudos to Curt Siodmak for keeping the comic relief to the minimum (just a couple of short bits with the black servants, not enough to ruin the movie). Forget if necessary that it's a Dracula movie and I promise it's worthwhile, and one of the best Universal monster movies (way better than the dreadful Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, from the same year and also penned by Curt Siodmak and starring Chaney Jr.). 7/10


Can't understand all the negative press this film has got over the years. It deserves way more praise than a lot of Universal's more overrated films(e.g. THE WOLF MAN). Chaney is fine in the lead role, and I must say I prefer him to John Carradine in the 2 "HOUSE OF..." films. For me, he's far more sinister and threatening than Carradine's "louche aristocratic seducer" version.

4 reasons why this film is great:

1. The sets. The steaming swamps and the shadowy interiors combine to create a rich Gothic landscape and atmosphere. This film is undoubtedly a hokey piece of nonsense, but it nonetheless has a flair for creating a pungent sense of the supernatural and a dark romanticism.

2. Louise Allbritton. She steals the film from everyone, and is a deliciously sinister vamp with an agenda that provides this film with interesting plot development.

3. J.Edward Blomberg. He plays Prof.Laszlo, an excellent "Van Helsing" type. Something of a shame that he's not given more to do.

4. The special effects. The best of their kind in any Universal film of the 1940's. There's a really beautiful moment when Drac's coffin rises from the swamp, and the man himself materialises from misty vapour, then floats across towards Allbritton, who awaits her husband-to-be on the bank. Why didn't more of its contemporaries have the visual invention of this movie?

In brief then, this film is a lot of fun, and one which I always revisit with pleasure. If you don't like the old Universal horrors then you probably will not like this. However, this is superior work from a studio that consistently delighted audiences with its monster mashes in the 30's and 40's.


Like the son of another famous Universal monster, this third entry in the series (not counting the 1931 Spanish Dracula) is a solid film all round: marvelous atmosphere, gripping narrative, superb handling. Watching this soon after THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1943), it is easy to discern the difference a talented film-maker can do (as Robert Siodmak certainly was) as opposed to a journeyman director like Lew Landers. Siodmak gives the film a distinctly noir-ish feel, as opposed to the more traditional Gothic look: apart from the standard shadowy lighting, we get Louise Albritton as a femme fatale and Robert Paige as the brooding hero! The film's musty Southern setting ought not to work but it does somehow, for how can one deny the effectiveness of Dracula Jr.'s coffin rising from the depth of a swamp; indeed, substituting his castle in Transylvania with an equally gloomy and mysterious Southern mansion was an inspired touch.

Much has been said of Chaney's inappropriateness for the part: well, I liked him overall and he was quite effective in his various confrontations with Paige (particularly during the climax, one of the best in the Universal canon) or vampire hunters J. Edward Bromberg and Frank Craven; he may not look like a ladies' man but then Lugosi himself was past his prime in THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE! The rest of the cast is ably filled as well: Paige and Albritton are unusually animated although, admittedly, their roles aren't those of the typical Universal leads; Bromberg makes a fine Van Helsing surrogate and Craven is equally good as the practical town doctor suddenly coming face to face with the supernatural; Evelyn Ankers and Samuel S. Hinds' roles are subsidiary ones and certainly straightforward in comparison but their presence in such films is always welcome.


I saw "Son of Dracula" when it was first released and six times over the following months. It was not a "B" picture, but had top billing on double features in first, second and third-run movie theaters in my home town. When I first saw it I believe the second feature was "The Mad Ghoul," starring George Zucco. Even as an 11-year old I thought Lon Chaney Jr. was an odd choice to play the Dracula role, although I was a Chaney fan since I had seen "The Wolf Man." (I even wrote to him and got an autographed photo that I still have.) However, I loved the eerie atmosphere, especially in the jail cell scene, with the muted trumpet playing in the background and what is apparently a dead tree silhouetted against the sky seen through the high window. I recently watched it again on DVD and the moody background still is impressive, and I think in an understated way more so than the modern computerized special effects in movies.


"Son of Dracula" succeeds on many counts, (no pun intended) by virtue of its absolutely serious approach towards its material. Unlike other Universal horrors of this period, with their unfunny comedy relief antics, (bumbling, pop eyed police inspectors, burgomasters etc.) director Siodmak wisely eschews such sch-tick, and foreshadows the tragic ending of the story, with an increasingly oppressive sense of doom. In other words, unity of mood.

Indeed every aspect of the production is put at the service of conveying this doom, from George Robinson's highly expressionistic, shadowy photography to Vera West's (Hollywood's most under-appreciated designer) costume design.

The casting is excellent. It has been rightly observed that Lon Chaney Jr. is not an entirely comfortable choice for the Count, and it is certainly true that his Midwestern dialect and general deportment is not even remotely aristocratic. Still, his virility breathes menace, and in a scene where he traps a character in a basement, he evokes genuine dread. All told, he passes muster, and even more so, when you think of what a hokey disaster someone like John Carradine would have been in the part.

Robert Paige is superb--his increasingly manic desperation in the role of the suitor "Frank" goes a long way in lending the yarn credibility. In many ways it's his film. Evelyn Ankers is as always, very easy on the eyes, and though she is given little to do here, she does it fetchingly.

Which brings us the the protagonist, Kay Caldwell, (Louise Allbritton) the melancholic daughter of an aristocratic line, and the proprietress of its creepy plantation mansion--"Dark Oaks." This is a juicy assignment, and Miss Allbritton runs with it to the full.

From the moment she arrives on the veranda, a striking brunette clad in a billowing, peignoir like gown, she delineates her literally spell-bound character by offering the audience a spell bindingly detached characterization.

Who can resist her otherworldly gaze, as, staring outside of the frame, she smoothly articulates her certainty in telepathy, eerily chiding Miss Ankers for scoffing at ESP, and later her asperity at local gossip: "What can they know of these occult matters?-blind fools!" Visually, she is unforgettable, aided by Vera West's outré costumes, (even Miss Allbritton's day wear is mysterious--as witness her scalloped black waistband peplum ensemble with black under-dress, in the will reading sequence) and a black wig, which connects her with another black wigged anti-heroine from that same year--Jean Brooks in Lewton's "The Seventh Victim."

To abet these characterizations, and to conceal what seems to be a somewhat paltry budgetary outlay by Universal, director Sidiomak fills the screen with interesting visuals--Miss Allbritton's unforgettable trek through the nocturnal bayou to visit the gypsy, the gypsy's ensuing death in a bat attack, Chaney gliding across the misty swamp, and unsettling, shadowy close-ups of an unhinged Mr. Paige speaking through the bars of a prison.

Photographer Robinson is with him all the way, and composes and lights his shots to consistently interesting effect, (note the superb introduction to "Dark Oaks," with the camera panning through a creaking gate at night, whilst the whole frame is overlaid with the violent twist of brambles and vines) by foregrounding his shots with interesting objects on right or left--thereby lending depth and texture to his visual tableaux.

The ending with Mr. Paige finding his former love, Miss Allbritton, literally buried within the childhood detritus of her own attic, to which, after placing his ring on her finger, he sets afire, provides a fitting finale. A finale of marked and deeply felt tragedy, as a darkly romantic musical score swells, the camera treks in on Mr. Paige's blank, despairing gaze, his empty eyes lit by the shadows of the flames.

"Son of Dracula" is a deeply romantic dark dream of a film. Recommended.


Miscast? Maybe so but Lon makes the best of his situation and turns in a decent portrayal of the Count. Son of Dracula is an underrated Universal gem which is sadly overlooked because of people being prejudice to Chaney playing Count Alucard(Spell it backwards your in for a surprise). Chaney is seen as a nice guy monster who many say only works when under a Jack Pierce make-up job or as Larry Talbot. Chaney takes the role very seriously and actually creates a villainous character. All though Chaney lacks the thick Lugosi accent he has his mannerisms and creates mystery in his voice. It's sad that Chaney isn't praised for taking this risk because I think he knew his acting ability was going to be challenged by this picture.

The plot here is actually quite clever, instead of having your heroes try to save the heroine from becoming undead, our heroine volunteers to become a vampire. Alucard arrives from his native Transylvania as a quest of honor at the Dark Oaks plantation. As soon as he arrives though the plantation's master, Colonel Caldwell, dies conveniently leaving his morbid daughter Kay the deed to the plantation in his will. Kay knows Alucard's true nature and offers her neck to him in order to live forever but she must agree to become the Count's unholy bride in return which causes problems because she is engaged to Frank Stanley. Stanley angered over the marriage tries to murder Alucard with his pistol but shoots down Kay as the bullets pass right threw him. Frank seems to be loosing his mind as he is arrested for murder when Kay's body is found in a coffin on the plantation. Only a local physician named Brewster and a Van Helsing type professor know the truth.

The picture also is visually the best of the 40's Universal Monster offerings. Robert Siodmak is no Todd Browning but he understands the visuals of the vampire flick. There are some pretty clever shots in which Siodmak uses the shadows and lighting to his advantage.

Besides Chaney 'Son' has a decent cast. Chaney regular Evelyn Ankers plays Kay's sister who is hesitant to believe in this vampire story. Louise Allbritton is perfect as Kay, she creates a mysterious disturbed soul. The best performance besides Chaney and Allbritton has to go to Robert Paige who isn't your stereotypical horror hero, when Kay offers Frank a chance to live forever he all most gives into her.

Son of Dracula is different from the standard Horror flicks of the 40's and that is why it works and continues to stand out 64 years later.

(The advertisement for war bonds remains intact. Leave it to the Count to stop Hitler)