classicsoncall I was actually quite impressed how good this movie turned out to be. I won't put it in the same class as the iconic, original "Dracula" from 1931, but for Universal's first vampire sequel it's got a lot going for it. There's the atmospheric foggy sets and intriguing story line that casts the Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden) as the unfortunate victim of her father's legacy, attempting to free herself from the darkness of the spell he cast over her. Failing that, she falls for psychiatrist Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger) with the proposition of spending eternal life with him as a charter member of the undead. Only trouble is, her protector Sandor (Irving Pichel) is not too cool with that prospect, ultimately employing an idea inspired by Cupid, only with more tragic results.Unlike a handful of reviewers for this film that didn't care for the attempt at humor with the character of inept policeman Albert (Billy Bevan), I didn't seem to mind it much. I might have been ready for a bit of comic relief by the time he showed up with his partner Hawkins (Halliwell Hobbes) to investigate a couple of dead bodies. The dynamic between Garth and his secretary Janet Blake (Marguerite Churchill) was a bit unusual for a horror flick as well, the banter between them seemed to come straight out of a detective flick of the era. But what gives the picture it's dramatic flourish is the presence of Holden's Countess Marya, a perfect casting choice for the aristocratic bearing required to pull off the role of Dracula's daughter. She wasn't aghast at the thought of putting the torch to her father's corpse, and I felt she deserved a better fate than taking that arrow from the jealous Sandor. With that, the picture ends rather abruptly, but for all that went before, this was a compelling tale from Garrett Fort, one of the screenwriters of the original "Dracula". Now if we could only get to the bottom of those two sharp puncture marks.

Cineanalyst "Dracula's Daughter" is a disappointing sequel to both the 1931 film and to Bram Stoker's novel. Although it begins where the 1931 "Dracula" ended, at Carfax Abbey after the killing of Dracula, and it ends where that film began, at the Transylvanian Castle Dracula, most of what happens in between is antithetical to the spirit of either the "Dracula" film or novel. There's no Bela Lugosi. The only actor and character from the 1931 film has a minor role and is inexplicably renamed from "Van Helsing" to "Von Helsing." And Stoker's novel about faith and a female leader and surrogate storyteller (in the Mina character) is turned into one of pseudoscience and a female vampire largely reduced to a damsel-in- distress stereotype stuck between the wills of two men (the shrink and the dead Dracula, as aided by the living Sandor).This is essentially the same misogynist tripe, brought even more to the forefront, that the 1931 film did to the Mina character, where two men, Dracula and Van Helsing, had a contest of wills for her soul. At least, that film kept some of Stoker's religion. This time, the Countess tries to exorcise her father's body with a cross, but after that fails, and she continues to be haunted by him, she turns to psychiatry—specifically one male psychiatrist, who specializes, of course, in hypnosis. It's the Madonna and the Whore dichotomy once again, and when the Countess submits to being the "bad" one in the end, she's punished by the scorned man penetrating her with an arrow. (Interesting that they show this and didn't show a man staking another man in the first film.)Too bad, too, because this sequel has some things going in its favor. There's good atmosphere in parts, highlighted by the fog and musical score. Gloria Holden is a worthy successor to Bela Lugosi. She bares no physical resemblance to him, nor similar acting style, but she's convincing as Dracula's daughter because she shares an eerie aura about her. And she paints and plays piano. It doesn't suffer as much from the early-talkie staginess of its predecessor. And the homoeroticism when the Countess preys on a female victim is more explicit than Dracula's predation of Renfield in the first film. Otherwise, the psychiatrist is a jerk. He expresses his shock over a female not having the vanity of 20 mirrors in her flat. He demands that women fondle his tie and, then, demeans them when they don't do it correctly. Good thing he's not a Freudian.The vampire-meets-psychiatry premise is ripe for parody; unfortunately, however, this film plays it straight. Years later, the Dracula parody "Love at First Bite" (1979) realized that pseudoscientific shrinks (in that case, a Freudian) are the most gullible and so readily and enthusiastically believe in vampires. "Dracula's Daughter" is more pretentious, so we listen to characters rattle on with a straight face for a while regarding the "modern science" of the magic of hypnosis and some other misplaced notions that make about as much scientific sense as Stoker's blood transfusions performed without regard to blood types. After the bumbling bobbies, most of the comic relief here comes from the screwball-type banter between the shrink and his secretary, but even this comes off as mostly mean spirited. Meanwhile, cinema's first sympathetic vamp is little more than a misogynistic trope.(Mirror Note: Besides the hypnosis machine, the only mirror shots are of a man fiddling with his tie. Figures.)

Leofwine_draca A worthy sequel to the original classic, this film is actually better than it's predecessor in some ways. The addition of music -something sadly lacking in Dracula - helps to enliven things quite a bit, meaning that the film is not quite as dated as the original was. The opening scenes are excellent. I love it when films directly continue on from the previous instalment (the Hammer Dracula series did this). Film highlights include the moment where Bela Lugosi's rubber corpse is burnt on a huge fire in a graveyard! Just the kind of classic image we've come to expect from these Universal horror flicks.After this excellent opening the film changes track and becomes the usual drawing-room horror that we're used to seeing in the 1930s. People talk, argue, and shout, and intrigue is everywhere. I found the love sub-plot between the Countess and the Doctor to be a little dull and I could have done without it. However to spice up the action there are a number of vampire attacks and the film's most memorable image, where a young girl strips for the Countess before being bitten. This sequence was pretty raunchy for its day and even lesbianism is implied, which we are more used to seeing in Hammer's Carmilla trilogy.The actors range from being quite wooden (Otto Kruger) to rather good (Gloria Holden). However on hand are two regular horror actors who definitely add the element of fun to the film. Firstly there's Irving Pichel, playing an evil assistant (he looks devilish here) and then we have Edward Van Sloan (FRANKENSTEIN) as Van Helsing. Sloan is excellent when he's going on about vampires and the like and it's a pleasure to see him again. All in all it's a pretty good film but it sorely lacks the presence of a leading horror star (such as Lugosi). Apart from that it's atmospheric and has some great scenes to look out for. An above average sequel to a classic film.

TheLittleSongbird The best of the Universal Dracula films will always be the one from 1931 with Bela Lugosi, which is one of the best and most iconic Universal Studios horrors. But its follow-ups generally are worth a look; Son of Dracula despite Lon Chaney Jnr's miscast Dracula was much better than expected, being a good-looking film with a lot of atmosphere and at least two scenes among the best of any Universal Studios Gothic horror film but House of Dracula while watchable was disappointing apart from a couple of effective sequences, nice sets and a few good performances but did suffer mainly from having too many ideas and not enough time to explore them.Dracula's Daughter however is the best of them. Is it as good as the 1931 film? No, but it almost is. Two or three things do bring it down. The humour at the beginning with the cops was incredibly hokey and more overly-silly and misplaced than funny. Otto Kruger is an unappealingly stiff male lead, Garth has some very abrupt decision-making that Kruger overdoes to the point it gets annoying. And while the banter between him and Marguerite Churchill's Janet was very enjoyable and witty there was a little too much of it, it could have taken up less of the film and the film could have focused more on Von Helsing. Personal opinion of course.On the other hand, Dracula's Daughter has great production values. The costumes and sets are sumptuous and splendidly Gothic and the film's beautifully photographed too. The music score, actually sounding original and not stock, compliments the mood very well and has to be one of the eeriest of any of the music scores in the Universal horrors. Dracula's Daughter is wittily scripted as just as I appreciated the film noir-ish-like direction of Son of Dracula I also appreciated the sombre, moody approach that the direction in Dracula's daughter took. The story, apart from the hokey start, is fun and atmospheric, there is a real eeriness but a poignant edge too. Of individual scenes the scene with the Countess Zaleska and Lilli is infamous and for a reason. Apart from Kruger the acting is good, Marguerite Churchill is amusing and Edward Van Sloan once again brings class to Von Helsing but the most memorable turns are from Irving Pichel and especially Gloria Holden. Pichel is effectively sinister especially towards the end while Holden is unforgettable in the title, subtly creepy but somewhat tragic.All in all, not as good as the 1931 film but of the Dracula sequels Universal made to me Dracula's Daughter's the best one. 8/10 Bethany Cox