Movie review - "Dracula's Daughter" (1936) **1/2

One of the least well known of Universal's horror cycle, despite being a sequel to Dracula itself, mostly because of the lack of star power. Few films better demonstrate "undercasting" than this one, with plenty of roles for a Lugosi, Karloff, Atwill, Rains, etc - but, alas, none. The actors who play the leads are competent, just not among the faves, and it's not as much fun without the old gang.

This takes place right after the end of the 1931 film with Edward Van Sloan (who mysteriously says at the end of that film "I'll be along shortly" when David Manners and Helen Chandler leave) being arrested for the murder of Dracula, whose corpse is then stolen by his daughter (Gloria Holden). The whole concept of Dracula's daughter is a terrific one, even if it throws up a bunch of unanswered questions (eg Who was mum? If dad was 500 years old but the daughter was 100, does that mean dad was fertile all that time?).

Gloria thinks dad's death will free her from her vampiristic tendencies, and when it doesn't she goes to a shrink (Otto Kruger) to be cured, which is a terrific idea, very modern - its something you'd expect to find in a smart '80s vampire film. The said shrink has been called to London to help defend Van Helsing - he's also called in when a girl appears with vampire bites, which is one coincidence too many.

For the most point I enjoyed this quite a lot, lack of star power notwithstanding: director Lambert Hillyer may have been a hack but he keeps things moving along (certainly it's not creaky the way the original film was); Gloria Holden is effective in the title role; the basic concept of the film is a decent one; the daughter has a great creepy assistant (Irving Pichel), there is a terrific scene where said assistant picks up a girl (Nina Gray) who is about to kill herself and takes her back to the daughter's apartment "to pose" and gets her blood sucked (this scene is quite sexy and full of lesbian overtones which has caused the film to receive extra critical attention in recent years - added to this is the fact that ladyship Hedda Hopper is very excited when Holden arrives and Holden also takes a chunk out of Marguerite Churchill's neck); Marguerite Churchill is very pretty and engaging as Kruger's madcap heiress secretary/love interest; it's great to return to Transylvania and the cobweb castle at the end; the gay subtext is fascinating (Holden continually says she wants to lead "a normal life").

But its a frustrating movie to watch, too: you're constantly aware of how better it could and should have been - had, say, a more charismatic actor than Kruger been cast as the hero (he's a good actor just not a hero), or James Whale directed as was supposed to happen, or they'd used Van Helsing more (watching this you realise Edward Van Sloan is pretty much a "whatever" horror star), or they'd made the final shift to Transylvania more logical and exciting (she wants Kruger... so she abducts Churchill and takes her all the way to Transylvania?? And what happened to Van Helsing's murder charge?). While it is more polished than Dracula it lacks the first film's magic.