Very well done vampire film with a strong performance by Francis Lederer as the undead nobleman and Norma Eberhardt as the object of his carnal desire.The Count has become not just a blood thirsty monster but a political enemy of the state in his native Romania and has to flee for his...er ..ah .. "life" so to speak. He kills and assume he identity of an artist traveling to America to connect with a cousin. The Count finds the small northern California town she lives in much to his liking. The woman's daughter is both attracted and suspicious of her new"cousin". and he is very attracted to her. His usual living habits and almost hypnotic charm raise some red flags, however, particularly with the young lady's jealous boyfriend. A vampire hunter arrives in the town to investigate the strange circumstances of the artists immigration to the United States. It becomes a taunt and tense race against time. As other review's have pointed out, this basically a remake of Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt" and there is nothing wrong with that. Giving the story a supernatural element gives a different slant and makes it very watchable. Lederer has said was not happy playing Dracula but he was certainly effective .His characterization is spot on. It came out about the same time as Horror of Dracula and somehow got lost in the shuffle. Perhaps because it was shot in black and white. Return of Dracula is and entertaining and effective vampire thriller.

The same year that British studio Hammer gave us their classic version of Dracula, America produced this far more tepid and forgettable contemporary affair, in which the infamous Count (Francis Lederer) kills European artist Bellac Gordal (Norbert Schiller), assumes his identity, and travels to a small town in California to stay with the dead man's relatives, the Mayberrys. Once there, Dracula proceeds to take a bite out of the family cat, has a suck on sickly blind girl Jennie (Virginia Vincent) and tries to 'turn' Rachel Mayberry (Norma Eberhardt). Meanwhile, European cop/vampire hunter John Merriman (John Wengraf) arrives in town, stakes at the ready.A cheap B-grade drive-in flick, The Return of Dracula is more apple pie and white picket fences than blood red fangs and storm lashed castles, much of the action revolving around Rachel's wholesome relationship with boyfriend Tim (Ray Stricklyn) and her part time job at the Parish Home looking after the elderly and the infirm. Dracula's antics are fairly limited, the Count's only human victim being poor Jennie, who in turn puts the bite on immigration investigator Mack Bryant (Charles Tannen). For most of the time, Drac is hidden away in his room, or in his coffin, which is stowed away in a disused mine (don't ask how he got it there).The film's most effective moments are when Dracula enters Jennie's room in mist form (Rachel having thoughtfully opened the window and removed the poor girl's cross pendant), and a brief moment in colour: the bloody staking of Jennie in her coffin. Unfortunately, the film's shortcomings easily outweigh its positives: a scare-free script; a vampire without fangs (we never see his protruding canines and he leaves no bite marks, leaving us to wonder exactly how he drains his victim's blood); humdrum performances; and a sudden accidental demise for the vampire, clumsy old Drac falling down a pit while backing away from a cross. Doh!

This is not a sequel to the Bela Dracula. Actual, I re-watched the Bela Dracula and there are only a couple of parts that are great, the castle scene was one. The rest of the movie sucks, in a bad way. I also re-watched the Horror of Christoper Lee's Dracula and that movie also sucks, in a bad way. I have fond memories of watching the Hammer horror films as a kid. But watching now, the best parts are the sets/colors/cinematography and the music. The stories, dialogue, acting are all poor. Christopher Lee's first line in the movie is about, wait for it, cataloging his library. His freaking LIBRARY! Lee's acting, his dialogue are pretty freaking lame. Gary Oldman in the 1992 Dracula was great. Unfortunately, his acting was placed in a garbage cartoon comic movie with lousy actors including Anthony Hopkin, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder and others. So, what are we left with. A patchwork of Dracula movies. Non of them great. Maybe Nosferatu the original. The 1979 remake with Klause Kinsky, I could not even watch. Maybe someone someday will make a serious Dracula movie and have Gary Oldman revise the character.Now for this movie, Leave it to Draculas Beaver, the Dracula actor is very good, but his dialogue and the story sucks. The Van Helsing character was good as well. And the girl was decent. All the other characters were just there. Nothing much happens. The movie is in black and white except for 2 seconds of blood, when one of Draculas brides gets staked. That was a nice touch. And when Dracula gets killed at the end that was decent.It's on youtube, so it's free to check out. Rating is a C, or 4 stars. Mostly for the acting. At least better acting that Chris Lee's Dracula. But the story sucked.

It's odd how my reaction to this film seems not to sync with the quality of the film itself. This is a film with great acting, great photography, a nicely evocative story...and it's even got a clever twist in the mythos to keep things fresh.I could see the quality and care that went into every scene. I enjoyed the way Lederer played the count as a world-weary, well- spoken, decadent aristocrat - far more "Peter Lorre" than "Christopher Lee". And I appreciated the subtlety and crispness with which he and the director showed the audience his hidden evil and shifting moods. At some points, Lederer even seems to be acting on a couple levels at once, a surface courtliness combined with a contempt for his future victims that only the audience can see.The actress playing "Rachel Mayberry" was perfect for the part, and she was gorgeous and desirable. And there was hardly a moment of dead air in the movie. I even liked the way the movie wrapped up. Usually one of my complaints with the Hammer "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" films was that they just...stop...short...seconds after the monster's demise. That's what happens here...but it didn't bother me as much for some reason, maybe because the young hero's assertions somehow are just what is needed, and there really aren't any other plot threads to look after.So this was a very well made movie with some killer performances...and yet my reaction was lukewarm. I guess I just prefer my Dracula somewhat more feral, and working over in Eastern Europe, rather than "Leave It To Beaversville" California. Still, if anyone asks, I will tell them this was a GOOD movie.