Dracula's Daughter or Son of Dracula

Discussion in 'Reader Polls' started by shape22, May 21, 2017.

?

Dracula's Daughter or Son of Dracula?

  1. Dracula's Daughter (1936)

    83.3%
  2. Son of Dracula (1943)

    16.7%
  1. shape22

    shape22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    With the Dracula Legacy Blu-ray set now in circulation, now seems like the perfect time to revisit these two films--particularly since they embrace such different approaches. Do you prefer the artier first sequel, or the "B" movie thrills of Son?
     
  2. buck135

    buck135 Kanamit

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    A dimension of sight, sound and mind.
    While I love the stunning Evelyn Ankers, Dracula's Daughter is vastly superior imo. Lon Chaney Jr. is terrific but he is miscast as Dracula.
     
  3. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,468
    Likes Received:
    419
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I've wanted to revisit these films (and son of Frankenstein) for a long time now...I don't have any immediate plans to upgrade to hd, but I might check out my DVD copies sometime soon. I remember liking Dracula's Daughter, but have no memory of Son of Dracula.
     
  4. buck135

    buck135 Kanamit

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    A dimension of sight, sound and mind.
    Shape will disagree with me, but I think the new remasters are an absolutly stunning. I recommend upgrading for anyone who loves these films.
     
  5. X-human

    X-human I ate my keys

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,880
    Likes Received:
    605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Illinois
    Dracula's Daughter easily. Junior was too obviously American to be a regal count. He was excellent as the Wolf Man, but overall I just don't find him to be a good monster whether that's Frankenstein's or The Mummy. They bayou setting also feels underutilized. The whole thing falls flat even though there's some great set pieces and the story itself has a lot of potential.

    Dracula's Daughter has great acting and even though Edward Van Sloane is not up to par (this time) the rest of the cast more than makes up for it. The story is weak however and the production design seems a little skimpy comparatively, even to Son of Dracula, but even still this version shines. It goes to the old maxim, "I could listen to him read the phone book." I'd rather listen to Dracula's Daughter's cast read the phone book than Son of Dracula's cast do Shakespeare.

    Hard for me to say though if I enjoy Dracula's Daughter more than Werewolf of London... I think I enjoy Werewolf of London more because of its set pieces like the laboratory, arboretum, Himalayas, etc. It's a little more horror/sci-fi/adventure so I get more out of it plus the acting is real good here too.
     
  6. satans-sadists

    satans-sadists Ghost

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,059
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I actually enjoy both films, but Dracula's Daughter has better replay value. Gloria Holden really sells the part for me as The Countess. More credible in the title role than Chaney Jr. as The Son. Another great character in Dracula's Daughter would be Sandor.
     
  7. shape22

    shape22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not really, Buck. These are big upgrades from the older DVD versions, and probably the best transfers we can hope for considering the limited general population appeal of these sequels. As a consumer, I'm not unhappy, especially considering the sub-$25 price point for both sets.

    As a cinephile, I can't help but be disappointed. 4k scans are expensive, and these scans are probably as close to long-term preservation as these films are likely to get. I can't help but lament entirely preventable loss of detail--and that's what I'm seeing. What's missing here is likely gone forever. I'll try to post some screenshots in the other thread so I don't hijack this discussion.
     

Share This Page