Watch Dracula and Son For Free

Fantastic!

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

"Dracula and Son" is a light and amusing, if sometimes seemingly aimless, vampire comedy. It's the last of nine Dracula-esque movies starring Christopher Lee in the titular role that I've seen, and I think that's all of them. Of the nine, this one strays the furthest from Bram Stoker's novel; indeed, it's only mention of "Dracula" is in the title. Just like Dracula stars Bela Lugosi and John Carradine before him, his career in the role ends in parody. I think Lee comes off a bit more dignified here than Lugosi in, say, "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948), let alone the Ed Wood stuff, or Carradine in "Billy the Kid Versus Dracula" (1966) and the later "Nocturna" (1979). Regardless, "Dracula and Son" is better than some of the Hammer Dracula movies Lee made, let alone the pathetic 1970 Franco adaptation he starred in.In this one, Lee's Count sires a son (after, humorously, conceiving in a coffin), who ends up being something of a failure at following in his father's footsteps. Some of the film's best gags spring from the son, Ferdinand (Really, is that the best name they could come up with?), having difficulty learning the ways of the vampire, from his father yelling at him when a child to finish drinking his blood, to donating his own blood as replacement for a vat of plasma he accidentally ruined when caught trying to steal from a hospital. Not that Father doesn't have his own misfortunes, such as when he bites into a rubber sex doll under the misconception that it's a real woman. My favorite jokes, however, are those self-reflexively based on Lee's real-life star image. In the film, after leaving Transylvania, the Count becomes a movie actor in England, and, naturally, it's in the role of a vampire. Unlike in other Dracula movies, the Count in this one is quite photogenic.Speaking of vampire lore, I like that this film didn't adopt from the Hammer films vampires vulnerability to running water. And, their death by sunlight--something also absent from Stoker's novel--is played out here ad absurdum, with the vampires scouring for sewer entries when without their coffins as daybreak approaches. Another Hammer trademark, a makeshift cross is employed here once in an amusing scene where Romanian communists make one out of a hammer and sickle. Even the reincarnation romance, a device I detest in other Dracula movies (the 1974 and 1992 "Bram Stoker's Dracula" ones, i.e.), works fairly well here. For one thing, it gives the film some much-needed plot development in its later part. And, it develops into a quasi-Oedipus complex with a love triangle involving the Count and his son. More related to Stoker's book, Ferdinand's befriending of other immigrants and minorities in France is an interesting, although somewhat poorly developed, twist on Stoker's xenophobic invasion plot.By the way, I saw the original version and not the American butchered copy that others have decried. Beware, however, if you're a native English speaker like me, good luck finding translations for the majority French-speaking part of the film (some scenes are in English). I relied on bad auto-translations and two years of university French that I've since forgotten.(Mirror note: This one is thankfully consistent with vampires not casting reflections, a point that's important in the last of the film's three mirror scenes. The other two scenes are of the mother vampire crying when she discovers she has no reflection and of a prostitute screaming when she discovers Ferdinand to have no reflection in a ceiling mirror above a bed.)

This is not a movie I would consider terrible, since it stars the great Christopher Lee. I was introduced to this movie in a different and strange way, I picked up a copy at a outdoor trading market called "Traders Village" in Fort Worth, Texas in the early 90s when I was probably 12 or 13. I had a thing for the supernatural and in particular vampire movies, so I purchased it on VHS for $3 or so. I had no idea that this was a dubbed foreign movie, but being a young teenager was captivated to watch it multiple times because of the nudity, mainly,at first. Later on through learning who Christopher Lee was, and seeing his characters portrayed in many Hammer horror films, I subsequently returned later to search for what movie I had seen in my youth through nostalgia. Unbeknownst to me at this young age, I had no idea who Christopher Lee was but it probably subconsciously figured into my love for him as an actor in later life, watching his earlier films. LOL. Finding Dracula and Son somewhat difficult to locate, I have ended up here on IMDb, reading the history of the release through the comments section. Though this film may be bad, I look upon it as being special to me and it holds a nostalgic place in my mind and I will always be fond of it.I would recommend watching this just because Christopher Lee is in it, and also it is actually his unique,and last performance as Dracula.

Under most circumstances I award films that can't be appraised honestly a neutral 5/10 score, and there are many reasons for doing so. Extensive cuts, abominable presentations, impenetrable dubbing, re-editing by distributors who were too clueless to just leave the movie alone, and content that is too oblique for traditional critical appraisal."Dracula & Son" has all of that going wrong to begin with, and then some. Currently the film only exists -- as far as I know -- in an abominable, unfunny, disheartening 78 minute fullscreen hack-job recycled from a Columbia Pictures Home Video release from 1982. I adore Christopher Lee and have a thing for bizarre, offbeat, low budget European genre films. To say this movie sucks misses the point, however, that what we are seeing in the 78 minute English print is NOT the movie that was originally made in 1976. Until that turns up, this will have to do. Ugh.History tells us that the film was shot in France and Yugoslavia in French with the multi- lingual Christopher Lee first speaking his lines in English on camera which he sportingly dubbed into French himself for the original 96 minute version. For whatever reason, Columbia Pictures (who picked up the movie for distribution in Britain & America) then had a voice actor re-dub Lee's voice back into English all over again when they finally got around to releasing it in the new world in 1979.Not only that, but as seen in this English print everybody's voices have been re-dubbed by what sounds like American voice actors who liked to do tons of cocaine, thought they were unbearably funny, and got a kick out of "Young Frankenstein", with lots of dork-rod Brooklyn accents for Dracula, his nebbish son (Bernard Menez, looking confused most of the time), their fetching French love interest (sexy Marie-Hélène Breillat), and everybody else in the movie ... all of whom are obviously French, and do not look like they grew up on Flatbush Avenue. Just watching the movie for the first time is an extremely painful experience, and it's only after multiple forced screenings that some of the gags have started to become even mildly amusing.A bit more research, however, reveals some interesting information: "Dracula & Son" is in fact Christopher Lee's final performance as Count Dracula to date. The film's basic story was apparently adapted from a novel of the same name. And this was the 2nd horror/comedy vehicle for it's co-star, Bernard Menez, for whom this was a 2nd try at mixing vampire thrills with a sex/comedy twist and starring a former Hammer Films bigwig after 1974's even more obscure "Tendre Dracula", with Peter Cushing in his only screen appearance as the Count. Which is a better film because they had less to work with, had to push themselves, and came up with more, where it seems with "Dracula & Son" they had more money, more access to locations & talents, and less disciplined results.So I am not sure what to say about this movie. It's impossible to really judge it based upon what's left to see now after 30 years of neglect & abuse. How about this: You should probably make a point to see it for yourself, and if you find yourself not disliking it too intensely, be pleased. Hopefully someone will restore this to it's complete length, there's no way to really assess the film as it exists now. But something just tells me that even then it would still suck.3/10

"Dracula Père et Fils" was never an excellent film. At the most, it was a sometimes funny vampire satire with good psychological aspects out of the Oedipal conflict father/son and sociological criticisms concerning the immigrants, not so well treated in France. But to be honest, I admit it was a bit of a deception. The film director Edouard Molinaro himself has lately called it a "failure", despite the fact he had succeeded in hiring Christopher Lee to incarnate ' the Count" (Dracula is never mentioned in the original version) opposing him to a totally different kind of an actor (Bernard Menez, who is actually very proud of this film). The concept here is quite similar to another unfunny vampire comedy "Tempi Duri Per i Vampiri" where Lee was opposed to Renato Rascel.One should see this movie just to appreciate the almost perfect French accent of the British star who has almost entirely shot it in that foreign language.Mister Lee has claimed on several occasions he did dub the English version. I must be one of the rare French moviegoers to have seen the quite different American version and to be able to evaluate the mess they did on the soundtrack.Most of the dialog has been changed to some ridiculous vulgar trash. The haunting music score by Vladimir Cosma has been misplaced or changed in favor of new music bits, supposedly to speed up the rhythm of the film.But they didn't hesitate the butcher the editing either: from the 100 min. in its original form, they reduced it to 79. Not only they shortened it, but added some repetition of Lee opening a door and speaking to a concierge with several stupid accents. Not only unnecessary, but very dull! This scene was initially part of the story and is suddenly supposed to be an hilarious illustration of movie shooting. Appalling!I have heard Roman Polanski had to suffer similar treatments on his masterpiece "Fearless Vampire Killers" (never try to compare this one to Molinaro's flick, by the way!)Not every one has the talent of Woody Allen to transform a Japonese spy movie into a comedy as he did once (admitting it in a prologue) with "What's up Tiger Lily?".In conclusion, here are two different films out of the same celluloid: "Dracula Père et Fils" is a not so good film worth seeing however. "Dracula and Son" is just awful and should be placed alongside with the Raymon Burr's version of "Godzilla".