Dracula's Daughter (1936) User Reviews

Eerie and groundbreaking film, weighed down by silly humor

[dr_foreman · 7/10 · 11 August 2006]

"Dracula's Daughter" is a trailblazer in many respects. It's the earliest film I can think of that features a truly sympathetic vampire protagonist. It's also the earliest mainstream film that I'm aware of with such a strong lesbian subtext. (Actually, it's not even a "sub" text, it's plain as day!) As you might expect, these rather surprising elements make it a highly memorable viewing experience - perhaps even more memorable than its predecessor, Lugosi's "Dracula," which is basically just a truncated version of Bram Stoker's novel.

Unfortunately, "Dracula's Daughter" misses the mark of greatness that it probably deserves. The film is only about an hour and ten minutes long, so there isn't sufficient time to fully develop Countess Zaleska, the title character. And it's extremely frustrating that the first fifteen minutes or so are basically squandered on a lot of painfully unfunny business involving two comedy constables. The humor has aged really, really badly, unless you somehow find it convulsively hilarious when one of the constables reacts to every strange and dramatic happening around him by saying "oooh..."

I tend to complain that modern-day horror features too much dumb comedy that hurts its credibility, but "Dracula's Daughter" is living proof that studios were injecting silly rubbish into otherwise good horror material as long as seventy years ago!

The serious parts of the film work well, however. Countess Zaleska and her faithful servant, Sandor, have some interesting exchanges about the loneliness of immortality and the darkness of the vampire's universe. The scene when Zaleska burns her father's body is also very moody and dramatic. (How does one get a job like Sandor's, anyway? Don't you think it would be fun to play personal servant to a glamorous female vampire? No? Maybe it's just me, then.)

If the film has another flaw, aside from the comedy, it's the human protagonist, Dr. Garth. Otto Kruger plays the character as stubborn and really rather abrupt. He'll spew a few lines of psycho-babble at the countess, then charge out of the room and leave his job with her half-done at best. A more attentive psychiatrist might perhaps have made for a more sympathetic and proactive hero. As it is, he's basically just an irritating presence who distracts us from the "villains," who are infinitely more interesting and more worthy of our time.

Dracula's Daughter (1936) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 9 August 2005]

One of Universal's most unusual horror films and a more than worthy successor to Lugosi's Dracula (1931) - although I wouldn't go so far as to say it's better: BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) it ain't! The film's approach is very different to its predecessor - despite having the same scriptwriter, Garrett Fort - as it presents the vampire lady of the title as a somewhat tragic figure rather than a mere spook, and Gloria Holden has both the exotic looks and acting talent for the role. Perhaps to make up for Lugosi's absence, the script features a creepy vampire acolyte in the figure of Irving Pichel: fine actor though he is, I think the make-up department went overboard in trying to make him look menacing!

Otto Kruger and Marguerite Churchill are two of the oddest, and yet most likable, leads in a Universal horror film: not only their age difference is immediately apparent, as is their obvious intelligence, but they share a love/hate relationship all through the picture which is both fresh and endearing. The supporting cast is filled with stalwarts of the genre: first and foremost, naturally, is Edward Van Sloan who reprises his seminal Van Helsing characterization as if he had never been away; Billy Bevan, Halliwell Hobbes and E.E. Clive as coppers of different ranks; Gilbert Emery as the unavoidable incredulous Scotland Yard official; Edgar Norton as his 'fresh' butler; and, adding to the fun, there's also Claud Allister as an upper-class nitwit and famed columnist Hedda Hopper as a gossiping socialite. Nan Grey, later female lead of THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS (1940), appears briefly as one of Dracula's victims in what remains perhaps the film's most discussed scene (due to its lesbian overtones). Unlike the original, this sequel is briskly paced and the vampire's demise is not anti-climactic.

Effective and original sequel

[jluis1984 · 7/10 · 22 August 2006]

Right after the success of James Whale's "Bride of Frankenstein" (sequel to "Frankenstein", also directed by Whale), Universal Studios decided to make a sequel to their other horror classic film, Tod Browning's "Dracula". Story says that the studio chose Whale again for the project, but his script proved to be too outrageous and subversive that was immediately rejected. It would be Garret Fort, writer of the first "Dracula", who would give flesh to the sequel's screenplay and the experienced director Lambert Hillyer was set to direct it. Like "Bride", this sequel would be focused on a feminine version of the previous monster; it's name, "Dracula's Daughter".

The film starts right after the original ends, with Count Dracula killed by Professor Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), however, to his misfortune, he is arrested for the murder of the Transylvanian nobleman and sent to prison as nobody believes he killed an ancient vampire. Realizing that nobody will believe him, Van Helsing asks the help of his dear friend, Dr. Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger), a former student of his who has become a prominent psychiatrist. While this events happen, a mysterious woman steals Dracula's body and a new series of murders start, complicating Van Helsing's defense and Garth's investigation. To make things worse, Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden) arrives and her seductive charms will prove too strong for Garth to resist them.

Unlike "Frankenstein", where there was still material in the source novel to build up a sequel; in "Dracula"'s case things get complicated, as the monster is effectively killed at the end. However, Garret Fort builds up an original story of mystery, horror and even nods to screwball comedy. "Dracula's Daughter"'s themes of betrayal, deception, and the quest for redemption are dark indeed, but Fort manages to add some light-hearted moments that break the suspense in an appropriate manner. Another highlight is that the vampire's sex appeal is enhanced and explored even further than posterior sequels of the now-franchise.

Director Lambert Hillyer had a big experience directing many low-budget films, ranging from westerns to crime dramas, so he was used to work with similar budget constrains. The movie's strength is in its story, and Hillyer knew it, so he keeps a simple yet very effective style that, while nothing too impressive, manages to create the perfect atmosphere for the plot. With nothing more than his well assembled cast and Fort's excellent screenplay, he conceives a film that maybe won't be remembered as influential, but will surely tell its story properly and deliver what it promises.

The cast is vital in this film, as their job is what sets apart the film from other Universal sequels. Otto Kruger is a very good lead actor, with nice looks and an ease for this kind of characters. He has great chemistry with both Gloria Holden and Marguerite Churchill and his performance is one of the film's highlights. Holden portrays the seductive Countess with power and grace in a complicated role as her character is at the same time dominated by a strong sex appeal and a sad and tragic fate. Churchill is superb in her comedy role, and more than mere comic relief, she adds the touch of screwball comedy to the film, giving her energy and charm. And finally, Edward Van Sloan returns as the experienced Van Helsing, and while his role here is more as a spiritual guide to Kruger, he gives another fine performance.

The film's main weakness is without a doubt its low-budget, that not only forced the choice of Hillyer as a director, but it also made it have less production values than other sequels. In a way, this may had been of help, as Hillyer's style bends together perfectly with low-budget projects and also gave the film a look closer to crime melodrama, which was rising in popularity at the time. Sure, Bela Lugosi is definitely missed, but "Dracula's Daughter" makes up for his absence with a witty (and bold for its time) screenplay and a well-assembled cast.

Time has left this film unappreciated, but there is a lot in there to praise, and while nowhere near the best of the Classic Universal Horror films, "Dracula's Daughter" is better than many of the films of its time, and an essential viewing for any fan of Gothic horror. 7/10

Surprisingly original.

[jaywolfenstien · 29 September 2004]

Being intimately familiar with modern day horror sequels, I expected this granddaddy (Grandmomma?) of horror sequels to follow the same routine: complete and total retread of the original's material with a significant drop in quality (a la Chainsaw Massacre). But to my surprise, these early horror sequels while not as good as the originals had admirable ambition and originality especially compared to today's horror sequels.

While Dracula was the tale of a man cursed to immortality fueled by a blood-lust, and ultimately ignoring any moral convictions in his continued survival; Dracula's Daughter follows a more tragic tale of his vampyric offspring afraid of both ending her existence and of continuing that existence.

Bela Lugosi's Dracula, while the villain, had a high level of sympathy due to his otherwordly charisma, and the charm of that film was the duality of wanting him to be stopped . . . and wanting to see him succeed. Immortality proved a curse. He's not necessarily evil, he's not exactly on the hero's path either, but you can't help but like the count.

Dracula's Daughter admirably draws a sharp contrast to that film, giving the title character a genuine desire to overcome her cursed heritage. She's not evil. She's not the protagonist . . . but she wants to be and is trying to be.

This sets up an interesting game as the fates play for Marya's future. On one hand, a servant seeking the infamous curse constantly pushes towards giving up these pure pursuits and taking the path of her father, while another character does genuinely try helping her with, sadly, an insufficient understanding of her real problem.

It does provoke a number of questions worth exploring. I wondered if Von Helsing would try to destroy Marya before learning her intentions, if the characters would try to help her, and if they couldn't help her find a way to tolerate her blood lust?

I guess it's appropriate that Dracula's Daughter can never escape the shadow of her father. Lugosi and Browning will forever come first in the minds of audiences before Holden and Hillyer. Even with that said, I still like Dracula's Daughter for finding its own identity and not retreading the film that came before it.

Modern horror sequels have neither a thought nor a question. Modern horror sequels are nothing more than empty shadows of their predecessors. I find it interesting that this was not always the case.

Who is going to tie your tie?

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 23 November 2013]

In London, two policemen find the body of a man, Renfield, with neck broken and Dracula with a stake through his heart. They arrest Prof. Von Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) that tells that he did it and take him to the Scotland Yard. The inspector Sir Basil Humphrey (Gilbert Emery) asks Von Helsing who might defend him and the professor asks for the psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger). Meanwhile, the mysterious Countess Marya Zeleska (Gloria Holden), who is Dracula's daughter, compels the policeman that is in charge to take care of the bodies and takes Dracula's body with her to bury him with her assistant Sandor (Irving Pichel) before dawn, expecting to be released from the family's curse.

In Edinburgh, Jeffrey is hunting with friends and his assistant Janet Blake (Marguerite Churchill) comes to tell him that he has an appointment with the Scotland Yard to help his friend Von Helsing. When Von Helsing tells him about Dracula, Jeffrey believes that he is obsessed with the vampire and promises to help him. During the night, he goes to a party where he meets the Hungarian Countess and he tells his theories about the vampire blood thirsty that he believes is an obsession. Now, Countess Zeleska believes that Jeffrey can heal her and release her from her blood thirsty and she wants to bring him to her castle to spend the eternal life with her in Transylvania.

"Dracula's Daughter" is a great vampire movie, with the dramatic story of a vampire woman that wishes to be free from the curse of her father, Dracula. The plot is naive and funny, and the relationship between the annoying Jeffrey and the witty Janet is amusing. This is one of the best movies of Universal Studios in this genre. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Filha de Drácula" ("The Dracula's Daughter")

Unusual sequel

[psychoren2002 · 7/10 · 29 October 2006]

It's difficult to understand why Universal Studios choose this film as an official sequel to the legendary Bela Lugosi's "Dracula", more than five years after, since "Dracula's Daughter" works better as a female vampire film rather than the follow up to such landmark movie. Is clear to see some lesbian undertones in the story, even for those times, and it was a clever idea to start the film exactly after the Lugosi/Dracula's death, with the same actor (Edward Van Sloan) playing Van Helsing again. It helps to keep the viewer interested, even when the film lacks some of the eerie atmosphere of the original, and the climax is pretty rushed and dull. Gloria Holden was a perfect choice for the role of the Countess, Otto Kruger is convincing as the good doctor and Margarite Churchill as his secretary looks just gorgeous. Worth seeing for fans of classic Universal horror.

A worthy follow-up to Tod Browning's masterpiece

[The_Void · 7/10 · 5 April 2006]

Dracula's Daughter begins right where Tod Browning's Dracula left off, and ironically sees vampire slayer, Van Helsing in trouble with the law for the murder of Count Dracula. This follow up doesn't have the same quality feel about it that the original had, and it seems clear that this was always meant to be very much a 'B' movie picture. But at the same time, its lots of fun to watch; and the fact that it begins straight after the ending of the Bela Lugosi film ensures that it's credible as far as Universal's series is concerned, and that fact will also give many fans of the original film a good reason to see it. The plot starts properly when a young woman turns up at the police station, wanting to know if Count Dracula really is dead. We then follow her as she tries to undo her family curse, aided by psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Garth. However, around the same time that this is going on; corpses begin appearing around London, and jailed Van Helsing is convinced that vampires are roaming the streets of London again.

Unfortunately, this follow up doesn't feature the bloodsucking demon of the first film, and as the title suggests; follows his daughter instead. Gloria Holden excels in the title role as the daughter of Dracula. She's seductively sexy and has a definite air of understated evil about her at the same time. The rest of the support cast back her up excellently, and while nobody other than the title character is a real standout; the ensemble comes together nicely. Atmosphere is obviously a big thing here, and director Lambert Hillyer does a great job of photographing the locations, and ensures that the film benefits from a malevolent aura at all times. The story is obviously nowhere near as great as the original, which was based on the novel by Bram Stoker; but it's good enough. Writing a follow-up to Dracula can't be easy, and while the plot isn't too engaging, it's always at least interesting. There's an underscore of black humour hanging around just behind the central plot, and overall I would say this is a worthy sequel, although it's not a patch on the original film.

"If we only knew what caused those two sharp punctures over the jugular vein."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 2 August 2018]

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.

Dreamy Gothic horror

[drmality-1 · 8/10 · 2 August 2005]

After years and years of being a Universal horror fan, I finally see "Dracula's Daughter". What an interesting and haunting film it is,too. It's way ahead of the curve in portraying a vampire that wants to escape its cursed existence. The "daughter" of the title longs to live as a real woman but must answer the call of her blood. Is she really a blood relation to Count Dracula or merely a past victim who was especially close to him? Beginning exactly where Todd Browning's "Dracula" left off years earlier, we see Prof. van Helsing arrested for murder when he is found in the vicinity of Dracula's staked-out body. The dull-witted police commissioner believes van Helsing is either a lunatic or a liar but respects his scientific credentials enough to keep him out of jail. Van Helsing seeks the aid of his old student, psychiatrist Jeffrey Garth, to prove his innocence.

Meanwhile, in a truly unusual scene, the body of Count Dracula is stolen from a pair of bumbling policemen by Countess Marya Zaleska and her pale, sinister servant Sandor. The undead Countess merely wants to give Dracula a dignified cremation by fire. His torment is over, but Marya's lingers. She is struggling mightily to resist the call to vampirism but Sandor seems to encourage his mistress to enjoy her bloody deeds.

Through a tangled web of fate, Prof. Garth and Countess Zaleska become entwined. The Countess begs the psychiatrist to give her the willpower to escape her "obsession"...meanwhile, Garth is becoming uneasily aware of Marya's link to several vampire-like murders that have occurred in town. Most tellingly, he notes that her apartment does not have a single mirror...a sure sign of a vampire, according to Van Helsing.

It all ends in Transylvania as the forces of good and evil collide once more.

Gloria Holden is striking as "Dracula's Daughter". Her exotic Slavic looks and wide, hypnotic eyes make it easy to believe she is more than merely human. She has a tragic aura to her, but when she seduces a young girl to become a victim, she also seems repellent.

The real monster of the movie is Sandor, who seems to be manipulating Marya for his own evil ends. Irving Pichel later became a director of some repute, but here he is a scary, foreboding presence with his ominous bass voice, deathly pale skin and Russian garb. Sandor's relationship with Marya is truly unique, as he talks to her as an equal, not a servant.

Otto Kruger is great as Jeffrey Garth, a man of reason and wit who is thrust into the twilight world of the undead. Kruger was a very under-rated actor who should have been more well-known. His sarcastic romantic sniping with his sexy and uppity secretary comes across just as well as his more serious dialogs with van Helsing and Marya. He's a refreshing change from the usual David Manners type hero in the old Universals.

It's a real treat to see Edward van Sloan return in the role of Dr. van Helsing. Calm, rational and collected in his thoughts, he is a contrast to the unholy creatures he duels with. ONe wonders if van Helsing would be sympathetic to Countess Zaleska...or if he would be hell-bent on her destruction. Never do we hear van Sloan's van Helsing voice any understanding or sympathy for the vampires he stalks.

There's some odd comic moments...the two nitwit bobbies at the beginning in particular stick out like a sore thumb...and director Lambert Hillyer's vision of Transylvania seems more like a clichéd Germany, but "Dracula's Daughter" dares to be different from its more famous predecessor and in so doing, emerges as a bit of a classic itself.

Lesbian undertones?

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 11 August 2005]

Did "Dracula" need a sequel? That's debatable, but "Dracula's Daughter" was worth seeing. Picking up where the original left off, Prof. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) is arrested for murdering Dracula. (Those ingrates! He gets rid of an evil force and this is how they repay him?!) Anyway, Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden) turns up and we learn that she is the Count's daughter. By which I mean that she inherited her father's taste for blood. And her assistant Sandor (Irving Pichel) keeps her addicted to being a vampire.

One thing that I now have to wonder is whether or not they were implying that Marya might have been a lesbian, the way that she comes on to women. Obviously they couldn't talk openly about it back then, but you know...occasionally they look for ways to push the limits. Anyway, "Dracula's Daughter" is worth seeing if there's nothing else to do.

Eerie and haunting tale of a lonely woman.

[michaelRokeefe · 5/10 · 31 October 2001]

Countess Zaleska(Gloria Holden)travels to London in search of two things. She wants to be convinced that she is actually the daughter of Count Dracula and wants aid in curing a mysterious illness. She discovers her urges for human blood becomes stronger and especially if the sustaining elixir is from a female. The lonely Countess does romance a man that she tries to manipulate with hypnosis. A distinguished psychiatrist(Otto Kruger)seems to do little to help the Countess with her torments.

Real creepy atmosphere and tight dialogue mixed with haunting score makes for an interesting horror flick. Other cast members are: Edward Van Sloan, Marguerite Churchill, Irving Pichel and Hedda Hopper.

Different but solid official sequel to the classic "Dracula".

[Boba_Fett1138 · 8/10 · 13 June 2005]

This movie literally starts off were "Dracula" finished. Since it is a sequel you would expect only more of the same old routine but "Dracula's Daughter" is surprising original and good on its own. This ain't your average bloodsucking vampire movie.

Thing that was best about this movie is that they came up with a quite original and solid story that goes deep enough and features some strong and interesting characters. It's not like they wanted to surpass the original "Dracula" movie or became too dependent on the events that occurred in that movie. Instead they just tried to be original and create a new and different kind of vampire movie.

Only returning character is professor Von Helsing (why did they ever changed his name?) played by yet again Edward Van Sloan. Van Sloan truly was a fantastic actor, I already loved him in "Dracula" and in this movie he reprises his role with just as much flair. Another actor that impressed me was Irving Pichel as the creepy looking Sandor.

It's definitely a movie worth watching. It never becomes scary, mysterious or tense really but the story and acting are what makes this movie a very solid one.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Moody, belated sequel to 1931's Dracula...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 2 February 2023]

...from Universal Pictures and director Lambert Hillyer. Picking up almost immediately after the ending of the prior film, vampire hunter Professor Von (sic) Helsing is arrested by police after being found standing over the staked corpse of Count Dracula. Scotland Yard enlists noted psychologist Dr. Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger) to ascertain whether Von helsing is crazy, since he keeps talking about the undead. Meanwhile, the mysterious Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden) arrives in London and, with the assistance of her valet Sandor (Irving Pichel), makes off with Dracula's body. It seems she's the old count's "daughter", and as such is also a vampire, and she soon becomes convinced that Dr. Garth's psychological techniques may be able to cure her of her unholy desires. Also featuring Marguerite Churchill, Gilbert Emery, Halliwell Hobbes, E. E. Clive, Nan Grey, Claud Allister, and Hedda Hopper.

This expensive (for Universal) production was fraught with problems. James Whale was initially contracted to write and direct, but his script proved too "outrageous", so his script was rewritten (although shades of his sensibility still pop up here and there) and he was replaced by A. Edward Sutherland. When pre-production dragged on, Sutherland also left, and Hillyer was made director shortly before filming began. Lugosi was originally set to return, with a substantial role, but he asked for too much money and the story was rewritten to remove his character. I'm not sure why the Professor character's name was changed from "Van" Helsing (which is Dutch, and fits with the Stoker character) to the more German "Von" Helsing for this sequel.

There's a lot I like in this movie, despite its inconsistent tone and pacing. I like Holden as the tormented Zaleska, which is one of the earliest depictions of vampirism as a romantic curse rather than a monstrous evil devoid of conscience. I also like character actor and sometime director Irving Pichel as the odd manservant Sandor, who seems more interesting than most horror character sidekicks. This movie proved to be the last Laemmle family horror production, as they were forced out of the company shortly after production concluded.

Weak Methadone for the Dracula (1931) Addict

[hamandcheesecroissant · 4/10 · 17 October 2020]

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and the daughter doesn't fall far from the Dracula. Son of Frankenstein's got nothing on this awful offspring. Her vacant gaze and grim monotone will drive you batty. And watch out for her manservant Sandor. He parts his hair down the middle and has a bow and arrow.

The film picks up after the end of Dracula (1931). Having driven a stake through titular's heart, van Helsing is arrested to by two extremely unfunny cops and locked up, his sanity in question. In an effort to free herself from the vampire's curse, Dracula's daughter, Countess Zaleska steals her father's body and burns it but to no avail. Her last hope is van Helsing's psychiatrist, who just isn't all that into her. Manservant Sandor gets jealous and let's just say he has a couple of pointed remarks for them both.

Maybe you need to adjust your expectations. Maybe all you really need is the one scene of a woman wearing a black robe, setting fire to Dracula's corpse, with lots of fake fog and spooky trees and stones. Sound effects of owls hooting. 10 kilograms of pure, uncut classic horror.

Maybe you're chasing the rush of the original 1931 Dracula, or just confused why Dracula's daughter doesn't have an accent, why her vampiric qualities are scarcely represented, why almost nothing happens, or how unlikable van Helsing's pscyhiatrist is, what'shisname, the main character. See what passes for lesbian subtext in a 1936 American film.

4.6 out 10. For the eyebrows.

Vintage Universal Fare

[BaronBl00d · 10 September 1999]

Dracula's Daughter is a Universal monster movie made in 1936, picking up where the original Dracula left off. The opening scene has the police discovering that Dr. Van Helsing has just staked Count Dracula. The plot moves quickly on with two strands, one involving a friend of Van Helsing.....Dr. Jeffrey Garth....in pursuit of defending his colleague and the other strand involving the daughter of Dracula....Marya Zaleska....in London trying to rid herself of her family curse finding it an impossible task. The two strands finally meet and intertwine. The movie has some rather obvious shortcomings. One is Otto Kruger, whom is irritating as one reviewer earlier stated. He is lacklustre and pompous in a very hollow way. The film also lacks a credible story line and is given in to the temptation of assuming a great deal from the viewer. However, Dracula's Daughter still is a very enjoyable film. It has wonderful atmosphere, grand sets(particularly when in Translyvania), and a good performance from Holden as the lead and Van Sloan in a reprise of his role as the good doctor Van Helsing. Above all it has a wonderfully eerie, disturbing, and macabre performance from Irving Pinchel as the servant of the female vampire. He is her reminder of what she is, and he never lets her forget that curse which forces her to live by night and sleep by day.

Above average sequel to a film classic

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 4 July 2016]

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.

"She was beautiful when she died, a hundred years' ago."

[Prichards12345 · 7/10 · 20 July 2018]

Dracula's Daughter has become very influential in its own way. The lethargic vampires of Anne Rice owe a debt to this movie, which features a fine performance from Gloria Holden in the titular role, seeking a cure for vampirism. A lush, well-produced movie which well overstepped its alloted budget.

While the pacing is still quite slow, it suits the mood of the picture splendidly. Its closest cousin in the Universal stable is probably The Mummy and its own sequel Son of Dracula.

It mixes humour and horror suprisingly well, and the humour is never overdone in the manner of a lot of 30s horrors. Otto Kruger and Marguerite Chuchill make an excellent bickering couple, contrasting nicely with the mood of death surrounding the Countess Marya Zeleska (Holden). She steals the body of her father early to cremate and exorcise his remains in the hope of gaining freedom from the curse, but to no avail. The subtle lesbian tone of the seduction scene, where Nan Grey's street waif succumbs to the Countess, is pretty remarkable for the time.

The film is set immediately after Dracula, and Edward Van Sloan returns as VON Helsing (why not Van?), which is more than can be said for Dr. Seward, Jonathon Harker and Mina!

All in all a worthy sequel to the Lugosi classic.

Promising character in a missed opportunity

[jaibo · 7/10 · 17 January 2012]

The first official sequel to Universal's Dracula film loses both director Tod Browning and star Bela Lugosi as well as the central character the latter played, Count Dracula (Universal obviously didn't have as much nous as Hammer and think up various ways of revivifying him for sequels). Despite the film's beginning just moments after the 1931 film ends and in the same location, the bulk of the plot concerns the crimes and travails of the titular character, Dracula's Daughter.

Countess Zaleska is not happy being a vampire and hopes that the death of her father will break her habit of going out after dark and sucking the blood from the necks of innocent victims. No such luck, as Dracula still controls her from beyond the grave and she goes through men and women at a pace. The existential situation of the Countess is the most intriguing feature of the film – she is like a sinner incapable of repentance or an addict unable to kick her addiction. In the course of seeking a cure for her behaviour/condition, she meets and falls badly for a psychiatrist, Dr Garth, but he is neither capable of reforming her nor interested in spending eternity as a member of the living death alongside her, so Zaleska is on a losing game. There is something moving and horrifying about her predicament and many people who aren't vampires will be able to identify with her inability to kick her addictions and avoid a terrible fate.

Whilst the main plot line is fairly successful, with many creepy moments, convincingly sick encounters and relationships and a fine performance by Gloria Holden as the Countess, the sub-plots in the film are mostly played for laughs, with Dr Garth and other characters' dialogues peppered with wise-cracks better suited to a Thin Man film than a Gothic horror. If the film had the courage of its convictions and concentrated on the existential malaise of its heroine, it would still hold up strong today. As it is, it looks like it was a missed opportunity at the time and is a curate's egg for us. But the good bits of the egg might well inspire the viewer.

The Count's bloody offspring

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 9 March 2013]

In a recent biography of Bela Lugosi one of the things I learned was that it was for lack of a decent property that Lugosi never repeated his Count Dracula role. And there was money involved. But Universal which had spawned at least one successful Frankenstein sequel at this point caved into public demand, sort of for a Dracula sequel.

I guess the Laemmle family figured that no one could where Lugosi's cape with authority so it was decided that Dracula would have a daughter. Cast as said daughter in her second feature film is British actress Gloria Holden.

Holden does her best and she will really creep you out as the sanguinary daughter of the legendary Transylvanian Count. But the whole story is rather clumsily connected with the first film. A couple of London Bobbies find Edward Van Sloan with a pair of dead bodies, Renfield with a broken neck and the Count himself with a stake in his heart. Van Sloan as Van Helsing and the only one to repeat his role from the first film, matter of factly confesses he did the deed at least to Dracula's corpse. The Bobbies take him in of course, but instead of asking for an attorney, Van Sloan consults psychiatrist Otto Kruger.

At the same time Gloria Holden claims the Count's body and has him cremated so that his influence might be broken. But she's gotten the sanguinary habit and it's hard to break even with consulting Dr. Kruger.

At some point Holden and her Renfield Irving Pichel decide to go with the flow and accept her undead state. But she kind of likes Kruger and to insure he cooperates she takes his girlfriend Marguerite Chapman as an undead hostage so to speak.

It all ends where the first film began in Count Dracula's Transylvanian castle. How it ends? All I'll say is that Irving Pichel gets some payback from the Dracula clan for poor Renfield in the first film.

The clumsy connection and the lack of Lugosi renders Dracula's Daughter an inferior product to the real deal.

The best of the Universal Dracula sequels

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 27 December 2014]

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

The Lesser-Known Sequel to Dracula

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 21 February 2011]

Dracula's daughter, Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden), with the aid of her manservant, Sandor (Irving Pichel), steals Dracula's body from Scotland Yard and ritualistically burns it, hoping to break her curse of vampirism. However, Sandor soon makes her realize that her thirst for blood has not been quenched and that all that is in her eyes is death.

Some elements of the plot are from Bram Stoker's story "Dracula's Guest" which was written as a chapter in his 1897 novel "Dracula," but excised due to the novel's length. It was first published in 1914, two years after Stoker's death. Other elements are loosely based on the 1872 short story "Carmilla" by Sheridan Le Fanu.

Unfortunately it no longer is the story written by R. C. Sheriff under the direction of James Whale. That script, according to the censors, consisted of "a very objectionable mixture of sex and horror", and the two men were soon off the project.

I am so glad that Edward van Sloan returns as VanHelsing. Obviously, Dracula could not return without some interesting explanation, but you cannot have a sequel without at least one returning character. (Well, I guess you could. It has been done. But you should not!)

Mike Mayo says the film "is at best half successful", and Howard Maxford says it is "half hearted" while praising the "lesbian overtones". Indeed, it has not had the success of "Dracula" or even other horror sequels (such as "Bride of Frankenstein"). The casual horror fan probably does not know the film exists and will likely never see it. It is largely forgettable, with some good acting from Nan Grey and Marguerite Churchill, two actresses who disappeared in the 1940s.

Do I recommend you see it? In short, it is not necessary, but completists should be sure to catch it. It is an instant play on Netflix, so set aside a free hour and check this one off your list.

I know all about the birds and the bees, but when it comes to the bats and the bees, I'm not so sure.

[BA_Harrison · 5/10 · 11 April 2010]

Picking up immediately from events in Dracula, this film opens with Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) being arrested for murder, having been found by the police in the presence of the bodies of Renfield and Dracula. As Van Helsing tries to convince the law of his innocence, a woman steals the Count's body and burns it in a funeral ceremony; she is Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden), daughter of Dracula, and by cremating her father's corpse, she hopes to break the vampire curse that has taken hold of her.

After this course of action fails, the Countess seeks the help of noted psychiatrist Jeffrey Garth, who might be able to free her of her ghastly urges; but when Garth refuses to co-operate any longer, Zaleska kidnaps the doctor's beautiful assistant and whisks her to Transylvania, agreeing to release the poor girl only if Garth becomes her partner in death. This upsets the Countess's loyal assistant Sandor (Irving Pichel) so much that he loses the plot and goes mad with a bow and arrow...

Dracula's Daughter, the follow-up to Tod Browning's 1931 Dracula, has me a little bit confused: is Countess Marya supposed to be the biological offspring of the infamous bloodsucker? Is it even possible for a dead man to procreate (surely his sperm would be a little on the inactive side)? Or is the titular character simply a victim of Dracula's bite who has come to see the Count as her 'creator'—her father figure, so to speak? I just don't know: the film sure doesn't explain facts.

What I am clear about, however, is that this sequel is seriously lacking in bite: high on Gothic atmosphere but very low on excitement, horror, or particularly memorable moments, I found it to be even less engaging than its creaky predecessor, which at least had Lugosi doing his best to exude an atmosphere of evil, mugging away menacingly whilst delivering his iconic lines of dialogue. Holden's character, in contrast, is a rather pathetic creature of the night, who spends most of her time moping around morosely, longing to be normal instead of embracing her power and willingly abusing us mere mortals like any self-respecting vampire would do. In short, she gives the family a bad name!

Director Lambert Hillyer should receive some kudos for giving his lead character lesbian undertones, leading the way for all those buxom, sapphic Euro-horror lovelies of the 60s and 70s, and he does manage one of two fairly effective scenes set amidst swirling fog; points are lost, however, for the unnecessary inclusion of light relief in the form of Claud Allister as Garth's chinless toff friend, and Billy Bevan, Halliwell Hobbes and E.E. Clive as comedy coppers, whose laugh-free buffoonery doesn't suit the film at all.

Daddy's Little Ghoul

[lugonian · 8/10 · 26 October 2001]

"Dracula's Daughter" (Universal, 1936), directed by Lambert Hillyer, based on Bram Stoker's story, "Dracula's Guest," is a long overdue sequel to the 1931 classic, "Dracula," starring Bela Lugosi, the film that started the Universal horror cycle of the 1930s. With Dracula being one of the most famous of vampire movies, it's sequel, which ended the first cycle of horror, captures all the moods and atmospheric elements of a fine horror film, is sadly very underrated and seldom revived these days possibly because of its lack of "star names" heading the cast. Tastefully underscored, by which the original lacked, also helps make this movie worth viewing.

"Dracula's Daughter" begins where its predecessor ended. In spite of the five year span between films, minus all the principle players from the earlier film, only Edward Van Sloan reprises his role as Professor Van Helsing, the role he originated from the 1927 stage production that featured Bela Lugosi. The leading romantic characters of Mina Seward and John Harker are gone and not seen nor mentioned again. The story opens in a gloomy mansion in England where police officials arrive to find a dead body of a Mr. Renfield and the body of Count Dracula in a coffin with a stake pressed through his heart as committed by Professor Van Helsing. Confessing to the deed of Dracula's demise, he is then placed under arrest and taken to Scotland Yard. Later, a mysterious woman named Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden), Dracula's daughter, along with her evil looking assistant named Sandor (Irving Pichel), take the body of her vampire father and burns it to ashes during a Black Mass. Although she feels she is free from her father's curse, Zakeska continues to seek out her victims as did her late father. One of her proposed victims is a young blonde streetwalker named Lily (Nan Grey), who is "hired" to become her model, but learns that this mysterious woman wants more than her time to pose.

Otto Kruger heads the cast as Doctor Jeffrey Garth, a psychoanalyst who is called on by Zaleska for help, but instead she becomes very much interested in this mortal. Marguerite Churchill co-stars as Janet Blake, Garth's assistant and fiancée who is later kidnapped by Zaleska and taken to Dracula's castle in Transylvania where the young girl is held hostage in order to get Garth. Unlike "Dracula," this sequel includes some moments of intentional humor, supplied by Hedda Hopper as Lady Esme Hammond, a society woman, who recites one particular line, "My guests are just dying to meet you"; Billy Bevan, a comedian of silent comedy, as a frightened policeman; Claude Allister as Sir Aubrey Vail. Look for E.E. Clive (the noted burgomaster from "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935) in a smaller role.

The sole interest to this minor horror gem is Gloria Golden, a newcomer making her second screen appearance. In spite of her fine performance, she never became a household name as Bela Lugosi. In fact, Holden even looks like she could have been Lugosi's overgrown daughter, especially with her dark mannerisms and ghostly features. Since there wasn't much of a market for female movie monsters, Holden's career in this genre was thus short lived. She appeared in other movies, but this is possibly the one film that showcases her best, leaving some lasting appeal to her character. Her moments of horror such as her gloomy moments during the Black Mass and her hypnotizing her proposed victims are notable mentions. While "Dracula's Daughter" is nearly forgotten, it is worth digging up again.

DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, available on either video cassette or DVD, formerly aired on cable TV's Sci-Fi Channel (late 1980s), American Movie Classics channel (prior to 2001) and Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: November 30, 2012). Horror movie fans should some great chills and thrills with this one. (**1/2)

She's got the "Mark of the Vampire".

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 25 February 2015]

A year after Carroll Boland introduced us to a Vampira/Elvira predecessor in "Mark of the Vampire" as Bela Lugosi's vampiress daughter, stage actress Gloria Holden took the spotlight as the unseen Lugosi's daughter in a sequel which gave her one shot at horror film fame. Borland's unspeaking spook looked like a hippie thirty years before her time, but Holden here looks as if she could have been sired by the count and "She who must be obeyed". In fact, a year after Helen Gahagan played the ageless underground queen in "She", Holden played "She who must drink blood to live". Holden's Marya is a Hungarian countess who shows up to destroy her father's body (don't worry, he'd be back....) so she can hopefully escape his curse of an eternal death. So for much of the film, she's a neck biter with a conscience, but when one requires a certain substance to live, one is going to steal or kill to get it, no matter how hard they are trying to get off the stuff....

One thing is certain in this film, and that is the fact that Marya wanted no part of her father's curse. It seems like there was no love lost between them, and it is a shame that the proposed flashback featuring Lugosi in his pre-vampire days ended up being scraped. What remains, however, is a thrilling Gothic melodrama where the often partially hidden Holden makes for certain that if she can't be cured of her vampirism, she's at least going to have love through the presence of doctor Otto Kruger who is in love with somebody else. Of course, a woman scorned (especially one with fangs) is going to use the other woman to get what she wants, even if it means leading Kruger back to Dracula's castle in order to make the decision: His life or his lady love's. Von Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) is back too even if he's more there to explain the background rather than move the plot forward. While it appears that dummies representing Lugosi and Dwight Frye's mad Renfield are the actors themselves, studio documents have shown otherwise. Replacing Frye is Irving Pichel as Sandor, an equally creepy character who follows Holden around like a lost mouse.

The film has a genuine creepy atmosphere, although it seems to be set in more modern times than its predecessor, even though it takes place right afterwords. There's enough fog and slow moving photography to make for a really chilling atmosphere, and the insinuations of Holden's lesbian provocations in one scene are obvious even though it is clear that she wants to make Kruger her love slave. It would take another decade for Lugosi to return to his Count Dracula role on film, but playing cape clad characters in the classic horror films reminded the many fans of what he would ultimately be remembered for. It's just a shame that he didn't end up here and that more family exposition was made, a factor which greatly damaged the next "Dracula" film where his supposed "son" turned the family name around to disguise who he was.

The dullest horror film ever?

[1930s_Time_Machine · 2/10 · 9 May 2023]

Unlike FRANKENSTEIN's sequel, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN which was even better than the superb original, this sequel to DRACULA is awful. It's like they went out of their way to ensure that everything that could be done to make a film as staggeringly boring as possible was done.

The story makes no sense, the dialogue manages to sound both mundane and ridiculous at the same time and the characters are the dullest, greyest bunch of non-entities you could imagine - if you had no imagination that is.

Gloria Holden really embraces the undead vibe by basically playing a corpse without any character whatsoever. Her method of conveying the inner torment of whether or not she wants to expunge herself of the vampire within or indeed whether she has this condition or whether it's all in her head is achieved by doing an hour and a half staring contest. As for the rest of the cast, they're so utterly grey I can't be bothered wasting words on them.

Surprisingly this film did actually have a director. Lambert Hillyer was his name - no, never heard of him either. How he manages to ensure there's zero atmosphere, tension, creepiness or engagement must have taken some effort. I've seen ANGEL so am fully aware that there's a large population of undead and zombies living in America so maybe Mr Hillyer was himself one of the undead, maybe he was Lambert Simnel who died 400 years earlier and was catering for the brainless zombie market?

The terribleness of this picture can be attributed to two things: money and poor management. Spurred on by the success of his BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, Carl Laemmle, owner and head of production of Universal wanted to do the same with DRACULA. He wanted his star director James Whale to make it but Whale's plans were too expensive for the struggling studio so instead a budget director was brought in along with budget actors, budget sets and a script which seemed to be cobbled together by anyone who owned a typewriter. For some reason Universal decided to allow James Whale to spend all the studio's money - which mainly consisted of loans, on SHOWBOAT. Within a couple of weeks of the release of these two pictures Universal was in receivership and Laemmle no longer had a studio. Universal of course lived on but for the next several years just making low budget fillers and serials such as FLASH GORDON (OK, SON OF FRANKENSTEIN wasn't too bad but that benefited from having a decent actor - Basil Rathbone). At least the new management wouldn't impose on us any more pretentious garbage like DRACULA'S DAUGHTER again.