Dracula: Dead and Loving It

Film: Dracula: Dead and Loving It

Year: 1995

Director: Mel Brooks

Writer: Mel Brooks, Rudy De Luca and Steve Haberman

Starring: Leslie Nielsen, Mel Brooks and Peter MacNicol

Review:

This is a film that I used to watch all the time growing up. Part of it was that it was always on the movie channels. I didn’t necessarily realize who Mel Brooks was at the time. Having horror elements in it helped. It is interesting, I don’t necessarily care for comedy horror, but when it works, I am a fan. Nostalgia also probably comes into play here. I’ve now given this a rewatch for my Voyage through the FiVes.

Synopsis: Brooks’ parody of the classic vampire story and its famous film adaptations.

This begins with a solicitor, Renfield (Peter MacNicol), who is in a carriage traveling through Transylvania in 1893. With him is a peasant couple. Renfield deals with a bout of motion sickness. The man offers to ask the coachman to slow down. Realizing it will be dark soon, he instead tells them to speed up. Renfield bounces around wildly.

Once in the village, he tells the coachman he has to continue on. A gypsy woman, played by Anne Bancroft, tells him that he needs to take a cross that she has. He refuses her, but she finally forces him to take it, as well as to pay for it. They’re afraid of the local count, who they claim is a vampire.

Renfield continues on regardless of the warnings where he meets Dracula (Leslie Nielsen). The count fills out the paperwork to purchase Carfax Abbey in London. He then makes Renfield his servant, one who needs to feed on the blood of small creatures to survive.

We shift to London and into an opera house to meet the rest of the cast. There is Dr. Seward (Harvey Korman). He states that Renfield has been brought to his sanitarium. His daughter is Mina (Amy Yasbeck). She is engaged to be married to Harker (Steven Weber). Also with them is her best friend, Lucy (Lysette Anthony). Dracula hilarious tries to get an audience with the aid of an usherette. When that fails, he goes into their booth. Lucy catches his eye and becomes his victim.

The following morning, with Lucy taken in and Dr. Seward being unable to explain why, he sends a message to his friend, Professor Van Helsing (Brooks). He’s an expert on supernatural and strange illnesses. He examines Lucy and believes she’s been attacked by a vampire. Dr. Seward and Harker don’t believe it. That is until Lucy passes away and Harker goes to the cemetery with the professor. When she comes out of her tomb and attacks a caretaker, it becomes a race to figure out who the vampire is, before Mina succumbs to the same fate.

That is where I’ll leave my recap and introduction to the characters. Where I want to start is by acknowledging that this isn’t top level Brooks comedy. That’s not to say it isn’t fun still. You see how smart of a guy he is with his ability to incorporate so much Dracula lore into this film, pulling from the novel, the 1931 classic with Bela Lugosi, Gray Oldman’s take from 1992 and I’d even a bit of Hammer is paid homage to.

Where I’ll then go is saying that the version of the story we have here is the 1931 version as well as the stage play that one adapted. Dr. Seward isn’t a suitor to Lucy, but the father to Mina. They completely remove the character of Quincy Morris. None of these are issues. It condenses down the characters. Since this is a comedy, you don’t necessarily want it to overstay its welcome. With the less than 90 minute runtime, this gets in and gets out which I appreciate.

Let’s then explore why this works as a comedy horror. It is definitely in that order. Most of the comedy comes from our cast. First, you have Nielsen. He is great as Dracula. What I like with him is that he asks things, tries to save time and it messes up. His frustration is great. MacNicol also helps here as well as Renfield. There’s a great scene with him eating insects in front of Seward. Their back and forth is also good. Brooks isn’t on his A-game but still great. Yasbeck and Anthony are here because they’re busty and attractive. Weber also adds comedy. There is just a solid cast that works together to make this funny.

There are also situations that we get. It’s like the first introduced in Dracula’s castle with Renfield. Another is at the opera. I particularly like the ‘daymare’ that Dracula has. Then of course, we get the climax that starts at a ball put on by Dr. Seward. This leads to an abandoned church. I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up Harker and Van Helsing going to the cemetery with the blood gag we get there. Not all work. They aren’t all gut busting funny. It does have its moments.

All that is left then would be with the filmmaking. There’s something interesting I noticed this time is that you can tell certain things are sets. One is the village in Transylvania. Having seen other Brooks’ films, there is charm there. I do think that this has solid cinematography and framing. There isn’t much horror here, but I do like the blood we get. That was all practical. We get CGI with Dracula becoming a bat. Since it is played for laughs, it is fine. I like the look of the vampires. It does feel like it is set in Victorian England, for the most part. I’d say that the soundtrack also fits what they needed.

In conclusion, this may not reach the comedic heights of Brooks' most iconic works, but it remains a charming and intelligent parody. Its successful blend of Dracula lore, a talented comedic cast led by Nielsen and well-executed situational humor makes it an enjoyable watch. While some gags may not land perfectly, the film's brisk pace, effective cinematography, and practical effects contribute to a satisfying experience. I would recommend this film to fans of the original Dracula story and its various adaptations, as well as those who appreciate the unique brand of comedy that Brooks consistently delivers.

My Rating: 7 out of 10