Stream it now Dracula's Daughter Reset Status Want to Watch Already Watched Don't Want to Watch

A worthy successor to the original Universal horror classic.

This sequel to Tod Browning's Dracula opens with Van Helsing being arrested for the murder of the count. Some sources say that James Whale was the studio's first choice to direct this, in an attempt to duplicate the success of Bride Of Frankenstein. Sadly, it didn't happen, but what we have isn't a total loss. This movie has the same dry, stagey feel as it's predecessor, and so should be entertaining for those who enjoy that sort of thing.
While Van Helsing is trying to prepare his defense, a strange woman arrives to claim the body of Dracula. Throughout the film she claims to be Dracula's daughter, as the title would indicate, but it seems unclear if she is his daughter in the conventional sense, or if she's his daughter because he made her into a vampire. Van Helsing indicates both in the original film and the beginning of this one that Dracula is over 500 years old, but says that his "daughter" is just over 100. That would mean either that vampires can procreate, or that Dracula is only her father by way of initiating her into the ranks of the undead. Anyway, for the sake of enjoyment, it's probably best not to dwell on logic. So, when the police refuse to turn over Dracula's remains to Countess Zaleska, she steals the body instead, then destroys it in some sort of ceremony, to attempt to rid herself of his curse. It doesn't work. Meanwhile, Van Helsing calls on his psychiatrist friend, Dr. Garth, to prove that he's not crazy. Since the police will not accept that vampires exist and that Dracula was one, Dr. Garth is hesitant to prove Van Helsing sane, because he will then be convicted of murder, and likely executed. By chance, Dr. Garth meets Countess Zaleska, and she seeks his help in ridding herself of the Dracula curse, and soon falls in love with him.
Like Bride Of Frankenstein, this movie uses certain elements from the novel that were left out of the film, mostly at the climax, when the heroes race back to Transylvania to stamp out the evil at it's source. In a way, that ties the two films together and wraps everything neatly into a bundle, ending the story where it began.

Dracula may be dead, but his vampire brides live on. While Van Helsing (Van Sloan) languishes in jail for murder, Countess Zaleska (Holden) steals Dracul'as body from the police, blesses and cremates it in the hope that she will finally be free of her vampire curse. But, she finds she stll cannot resist the lure of human blood, so she seeks the help of a noted psychiatrist (Kruger) to assist her in finding a way to a peaceful life.

"Dracula's Daughter" is a far better movie than the film it is a sequel to. It has a coherent, engaging story (even if the ultimate climax has a of a rushed feel to it), its got an active and engaging hero (Dr. Garth, a psychiatrist who doesn't believe in vampires, even after one seeks his help), and a villain who wants desperately to be the story's protaganist, Countess Zaleska. What's more, the film has a steady tone and look to it--all classic Universal Horror--unlike :"Dracula", which vasilated between creepy, atmospheric scenes and boring, stale drawing-room scenes. (Of course, one can't be too hard on "Dracula", because it was treading new ground and was made on a sparse budget. By the time 1936 rolled around, and this film was released, not only was the horror genre well-established, but Universal was doing very, very well.)

Now, there are some plot holes that a swarm of bats could fly through if one considers it in the light of the original "Dracula"--like where are John Harker and Mina Seward, both of whom could help clear Van Helsing of the murder charge, just to mention the biggest one--and a couple of developments that feel just a little too convienient... but these are flaws that can be forgiven when one considers what a rare sequen this is. Not only is it better than its predecessor, but it has an identity all its own; it doesn't bring Dracula back so it can retreat the same basic plot all over again, but instead follows a new and unique path.

My favorite thing about the movie is the character of Countess Valeska. It's a character that oozes mystery from her first appearance through to the very end--she's the ultimate femme fatale in every way. She's also a character that, despite being a blood-drinking fiend, she's a character the audience gains sympathy for early on. Unlike the Dracula character, Valeska doesn't want to be evil, doesn't want to be a spreader of death and misery... she wants to live and let live. But, she can't shake the taint of Dracula, and she can't resist the call of vampirism. (It doesn't help any that she's got an evil bastard for a manservant, Sandor. One has to wonder how Valeska might have fared if she's just gone ahead and sucked him dry in celebration of Dracula's demise. Further, while the "recultant vampire" has been done over and over in movies and TV shows, Valeska, despite being the first, remains among the most enjoyable... because while she may lament her fate, she doesn't whine.

In fact, as I'm thinking about it, Countess Valeska is probably one of the best-presented, tragically romantic vampires in any movie I've seen, tying Jack Palance's portrayal in the 1973 Dan Curtis-directed "Dracula" adaptation starring Jack Palance. In both films, the audience can't help but root for the "bad guy" and can't help but feel sorry when their inevitable demise comes about.

One thing that I've often seen made reference to in reviews of "Dracula's Daughter" is lesbianism. I've seen it commented upon as "subtext" and I've seen it stated that it's there, blatant and wide-open. And I simply don't see it; it looks like it's a case of critics reading too much into the film as it unfolds. The scene they tend to point to is the one involving Valeska and a young woman Sandor picks up for her. Maybe I'm just too innocent (or my mind just isn't deep enough in the gutter), but I see nothing sexual about that scene... or any other scene in this film for that matter.

"Dracula's Daughter" is a film that, like "Dracula" is a landmark of cinematic history. It may not be the most famous of films, but it can be found in the DNA of many vampire movies that have been made since. It's worth seeing by anyone who is a serious student of the development of the horror genre, as well as those out there who enjoys classic cinema.


Dracula's Daughter
Starring: Gloria Holden Otto Kruger, Edward Van Sloan, Marguerite Churchill, Irving Pichel, and Nan Grey
Director: Lambert Hillyer

Dracula's Daughter (1936)

This is a decent sequel to the 1931 Bela Lugosi movie but it doesn't even compare to the first movie. Lugosi is absent obviously and Dracula's daughter just isn't very intimidating at all. The only thing I liked is the atmosphere of the movie because I dig these classic 30s horror movies. The highlight is the return of Prof. Van Helsing even though his role is not as big as in the first movie.

There were two more Dracula movies in the collection, but after Dracula's Daughter, I was kind of Dracula'd out. It's not, you'll note, that these movies are bad--though all things considered, I don't really think they're Dracula, either. It's just that sequels almost invariably keep going downhill once they've started (leaving out such horrorshows as Temple of Doom and its followups), and Dracula's Daughter wasn't terribly good. It wasn't terribly bad, but it wasn't terribly good, either. It was an interesting experience of an onscreen character with some serious lesbian overtones who could not have actually been made a lesbian. No wonder this is in The Celluloid Closet. (They throw in some token guys for her to attack so she isn't totally a lesbian, but whatever.)

Dracula we know. Well--maybe Bram Stoker wouldn't've really known this version; his widow didn't want to sell the rights to the studio. We've lost most of the story here, but what bothers me more is the bizarre switch into modern dress. The story works best as a costume drama, not with women slouching around in backless evening gowns. But that's okay, because we seem to have lost Lucy, and Mina isn't half so much of a focus as she was in the book. Then again, we've lost the epistolary nature, so we're no longer experiencing it through Mina's diary. Still, the boys are the focus again.

Not so in Dracula's Daughter? You wish. Oh, our vampire's a woman, true enough. But we come in just after the events of the previous story, and half the story is that van Helsing is in trouble for, well, driving a stake through someone's heart. (Go figure. That's enough reason to leave that part of the story in Transylvania instead of Whitby or London--which are shown here as way closer together than they are in actual England.) The other half the story is the man that Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden) is trying to win over--and his own relationship with his girlfriend/assistant/whatever-the-hell-she-is. The vampire bits are only sort of a bridge to hold the rest of the story together. We're missing a real horror story here.

Actually, Dracula's Daughter doesn't have that much worse filming than the original. Then again, I'm given to understand that the director was kind of falling down on the job, so the style is fairly impressive on both, all things considered. Dracula's Daughter is also just about the last film ever produced with Carl Laemmle was in charge of a film studio. The studio's debtors took over four days after shooting wrapped.

Here's the thing. I don't think I've ever seen a vampire movie that actually scared me. Bela Lugosi's no exception, and Gloria Holden assuredly isn't. I'm not even that much in suspense. I mean, I seldom am in any movie. Generally, Good Triumphs. It's not mandated anymore, as it was under the Code, but it still generally happens. So when Bela, there, looms on the staircase, it's going to take some pretty damn fine looming to catch my interest. Neither of these loom that well. I like to think that Bela was a better actor back in Hungary.

Not the best of classic horror, but a nice one as it is

Decent, but there are some noticeable flaws. The way Dracula's daughter hypnotizes people is slow and repetitive, and happens way too many times. On top of that, some of the comedic parts felt forced. However, what does work works well, and this one contains one of my favorite movie lines.
"Do you know anything about this man who was killed?"
"Yes, I do."
"Who killed him?"
"I did."
"How long's he been dead?"
"About 500 years."