Review of Dracula's Daughter (1936) by Tim H — 04 Jul 2008

Hey, at least the poster is very cool.

There's things that are wedging my review in two different directions. I can't say that this movie is any better or worse than the original Dracula.. The big thing that is going for this movie is that it actually is a better film. Tod Browning really turned in a pretty awful product when it came to the original Dracula. Five years had past since that initial film and I guess Universal had time to learn something about filmmaking at the time. This is a far better paced movie than the first one and has actual character involved to it besides that of Renfield. (Unfortunately, there's no equivalent to Renfield in this movie. If you read my other review, you know that part of the story is the part that intrigues me the most. I guess there is a kind-of Renfield character, but doesn't have a hint of the complexity of neurosis seen in the original film.) But there's a bit of really fun silver-screen comedy in this movie. Sometimes a bit much, but the main characters are really interesting. I'm not talking about Dracula's Daughter, the titular character, but rather the doctor and his assistant. I guess people get more scared when people exist in real relationships and are then threatened. Who knew that automatons don't do much for audiences? (Hollywood, I'm looking at you with a lack of subtlety that you are probably used to.) But the thing that was really dropped in this movie is the scares.

The titular villain is an interesting idea that just has a poor execution. Being a woman, clearly, she has issues with being a vampire and is trying to quit cold turkey. (Undead women! Am I right, undead fellas?) The thing is that she kind of comes off as whiny as opposed to a sympathetic character. Bela Lugosi, say what you will about his hamfisted performance in the first film, was evil through and through. He was an evil you loved to hate. But this character doesn't want to be a vampire and I don't know what to do about it. Part of the allure of the vampire is that he or she is part demon. That demon is unrelenting and without conscience. I like that. I always loved the television show Angel because a curse took away that killer instinct and he's terrified to get it back. But this movie screams that vampires are victims of their own nature, and I just can't have any of that. Maybe this idea could be pulled off, but the movie wasn't strong enough to support it.

There's also the vampire rules that I have to follow. I have mentioned this time and time again, but I know that I'm probably wrong about compaining that I like the Buffy rules best. In Dracula's Daughter there's a scene where she is performing an exorcism over Count Dracula's corpse that is burning. The thing is that she's holding a homemade crucifix. I call "bullsh*t." Sure, it's 1936. They're using 1931's Hollywood rules where vampires just can't look at the crucifix, but I don't believe that she could make that damned thing without looking at it. No sir.

But I do like the relationship that is going on. The jokes I don't like are the ones that come from the cop right at the beginning. First of all, the mood in the movie is trying to be established as scary, not goofy. Yet, the opening line is "ooooh!" I don't mind comic relief. Hell, in most horror movies, I welcome it at times. But this just came off as wildly inappropriate and lame. Not only that, but the "oooooh" joke was used three or four times. Who decided to fill up page after page with "oooohhh...".

I'm also pretty sure they changed "Van Helsing" to "Von Helsing." Was this just a mistake and people really didn't do their research when writing the second movie? I mean, the movie was suggested by a dude, which I find completely absurd and hilarious. I can just imagine a Universal meeting where they're trying to figure out a way to resurrect Dracula to get more in the franchise. This guy's suggestion was probably, "What if he had a daughter?" GENIUS! There seems to be a lot of shortcuts when it came to making this movie. I'm sure standards up to the levels they're up to now (a bit ironic because they're making a G.I. Joe movie right now), but this movie just feels lazy. It's put together very well and performed fairly decently, but you can just smell the "rushed into production" aspect of this film.