Day 346: Dracula: Dead And Loving It

Dracula: Dead And Loving It

His cape is bigger on the inside

I love to laugh and make people laugh. Nothing makes me happier than having a room full of people laugh at a smart, thoughtful, well-timed joke. Some of my favorite funny people include George Carlin, Lewis Black, Patton Oswalt, Demetri Martin, and good friend/former roommate Drew Mayer (follow him at @mayercomedy). My all-time most favorite funnyman, though, has to be Mel Brooks. He always manages to make me laugh, even if it's with a funny look or a goofy voice. His movies have greatly influenced my own sense of humor throughout the years. His combination for smart jokes, slapstick, and visual humor makes for a thoroughly enjoyable watch. You may be wondering why I'm heaping huge praise on a comedian when this is a horror review blog. Well, Mel Brooks is no stranger to horror. His movie Young Frankenstein has become immensely popular over the years and was even made into a Broadway musical. Everyone knows and loves that movie. I'd like to focus on a not-so-beloved Mel Brooks movie featuring another funny man, Leslie Nielsen.

Dracula: Dead And Loving It is a 1995 horror comedy starring Leslie Nielsen (The Naked Gun, Creepshow) as Dracula and Mel Brooks (Blazing Saddles, Robin Hood: Men In Tights) as Abraham van Helsing. The movie spoofs the classic 1931 Dracula film, following the story relatively closely. Solicitor Thomas Renfield (Peter MacNicol, Ghostbusters II, Ally McBeal) travels to Transylvania to meet with Count Dracula to finalize his purchase of Carfax Abbey in England. When he reaches a nearby village, the villagers (Anne Bancroft and Chuck McCann) warn Renfield that Count Dracula is actually a vampire and with the sun setting, they will not take him to the castle. Unconcerned and with a schedule (pronounced “shedule” by Renfield) to keep, Renfield proceeds on foot to Dracula's Castle. Dracula puts Renfield under a hypnotic spell, turning him into a slave that subsists only on bugs. They travel to England and when the boat docks, all the crew have vanished except for Renfield. He is committed to an insane asylum run by Doctor Seward (Harvey Korman, Blazing Saddles, High Anxiety). That night, Dracula visits the opera where he introduces himself to Dr. Seward who happens to be his new neighbor. He also meets Dr. Seward's daughter Mina (Amy Yasbeck, Robin Hood: Men In Tights, The Mask) and her friend Lucy (Lysette Anthony, Krull, The Advocate). That night, Dracula goes to Lucy's room and bites her. The next day, she is inexplicably exhausted and sick, so Dr. Seward calls on Dr. Abraham van Helsing, an expert on obscure diseases. Van Helsing explains that she has been bitten by a vampire and covers her room with garlic. That night, Dracula breaks Renfield out of his asylum to remove the garlic. He is captured and returned to the asylum while Dracula bites Lucy again and turns her into a vampire. Van Helsing and Mina's fiance Jonathan Harker (Steven Weber, Wings, Farm House) kill Lucy with a stake to the heart while Dracula eventually bites Mina. Will Jonathan and van Helsing be able to stop Dracula before it's too late?

I make the same face when I find out the deli is out of knishes

If this movie sounds just like the 1931 Dracula, it's not a coincidence. Other spoofs by Brooks, such as Young Frankenstein and Spaceballs, had managed to create their own stories while poking fun at the originals. Dracula: Dead And Loving It is more faithful to the source material with just a few little asides here and there. It's perfectly fine because the focus of the movie is more to make you laugh than to make you enjoy the story. For those that have seen Dracula, it may be slightly boring to have to sit through a story you already know. The jokes come quickly, with a mixture of physical comedy, word play, clever asides and all the other hallmarks of Mel Brooks' work. There's even the usual sprinkling of Jewish and Yiddish humor which no doubt will leave some gentiles scratching their heads. For those aware of that type of humor, it's highly enjoyable, as always. Still, the jokes are fairly “by the book”. Those accustomed to Brooks' wackiness in movies like History Of The World Part I and Silent Movie may be a little disappointed with Dracula: Dead And Loving It's straightforward nature.

While the story is nothing special and there's no scares to speak of, the performances from the cast help move the film along. Leslie Nielsen is fun and occasionally hammy, but in a good way. Fans of his Naked Gun movies will enjoy him immensely. Mel Brooks is his usual funny self while never hogging the spotlight. Amy Yasbeck is good as well, though I would have liked her to have a bigger role. She was great as Maid Marian, so it's not like she wasn't capable of having a larger role. The same could be said for Steven Weber as Jonathan Harker. Despite being a comedy, there is one scene that contains more blood than many horror movies. When Jonathan kills Lucy, blood literally explodes all over him multiple times. Other than that, there isn't much action of violence to speak of. There are some pratfalls and physical comedy thrown around for good measure just to keep the audience visually stimulated. The sets look OK, but tend to have a fakeness to them that takes away from the overall movie.

"Uhhhhh...she tripped!"

Dracula: Dead And Loving It may not be the best Mel Brooks movie, but it's still very funny. There are many negative reviews out there, but I feel that the movie has gotten better with age. The jokes are still capable of making people laugh which is more than what most new movies can do. I would take this movie over any of those Date Movie, Superhero Movie, Meet The Spartans crapfests. There isn't much story to speak of and if you've seen the 1931 Dracula, you already know what is going to happen. If you need something fun to watch, but still want a touch of traditional horror, Dracula: Dead And Loving It is worth your time.

7.5/10

Day 318: Dracula

Dracula

Don't call him "Drac"

Dracula. The Mummy. Frankenstein. The Wolfman. Call them “classic monsters” or “cinema monsters” or the “Universal Four”. These four are the ones you think of when you hear the words “monster movie”. Their main stories come from literature, but the basic premise from each come tales passed down from generation to generation. Each theme, whether it's man battling the beast within or man versus the unknown, has played out for centuries. It's this ability to reach out across generations that has allowed these characters to be reused and remade over and over again across literature, entertainment and pop culture. The most popular of these Universal monsters is Dracula. Need proof? Next Halloween, count how many vampires you see with black capes and fangs. Kids aren't going around like sparkly vampires with emotional problems. At least, let's hope not.

Dracula is a 1931 vampire horror film starring Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula (Son Of Frankenstein, Bride Of The Monster). The film is based on the play Dracula by Hamilton Dean and John L. Balderstonr, which was based on Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. Renfield (Dwight Frye, Frankenstein, The Invisible Man) travels to Transylvania to meet with Count Dracula to settle a business deal. He is dropped off at a small village and informs some people that he is going to Dracula's castle. He is warned that vampires inhabit that castle, but insists on having a carriage take him. An innkeeper's wife gives Renfield a crucifix for protection. The carriage ride is particularly rough and when Renfield sticks his head out the window to ask the driver to slow down, he is shocked to find the driver has disappeared and a bat is now leading the horses. Once inside the castle, Renfield is greeted by the eccentric Count Dracula. Through Renfield, Dracula has purchased Carfax Abbey in London and is planning to go there the next day. Dracula turns Renfield into his slave who protects his coffin as they travel by ship to London. When the ship arrives, a raving mad Renfield is found to be the only living person on board. He is committed to Dr. Seward's (Herbert Bunston, Cardinal Richelieu, The Enchanted Cottage) sanitarium. At the same time, Dracula meets Dr. Seward at the theater, along with his daughter Mina (Helen Chandler), her fiance John Harker (David Manners), and family friend Lucy Weston (Frances Dade). Dracula charms them and later that night, drinks Lucy's blood, eventually killing her. Professor Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan, A Shot In The Dark, The Mummy) is brought in to treat Renfield, and after studying his blood, begins to suspect a vampire is in their midst. Dracula then bites Mina with plans to turn her into a vampire. Will Professor Van Helsing and John be able to stop him before it is too late?

Can you smmmeeeeellllllll what Dracula is cooking?

This movie is over 80 years old. Let that sink in for a moment. Some movies barely hold up 5 years after they've been released. Dracula is completely timeless, still capable of striking fear into the audience while maintaining an exciting story. Though the run time is shorter than modern movies (a little over 70 minutes), the story has a steady layout. The film has a great atmosphere thanks in part to keeping the aesthetics from the play it was based on. Simple tricks like lighting and fog add to the overall creepiness of the story. One interesting thing that I noticed was that there wasn't a lot of music throughout the film. Maybe I'm just so used to movies blaring strings and telling the audience when to be scared, but it was refreshing to see a movie that didn't assault my ears. Instead, we are free to focus on the fluid dialogue and, even better, Bela Lugosi's performance.

There are few actor's who so perfectly define a role than anyone playing the character after them will never come close to their greatness. Bela Lugosi is Dracula. His unblinking, steely glare and hand motions truly give the character a supernatural feel. He is both charming and dangerous throughout the film, making it difficult to root against him. The supporting roles are played well, adding credence to the story. While there were a few scary movies prior to this, Dracula was one of the first to completely embrace the supernatural themes. There was no wink-and-nod at the end saying it was just a work of fiction. Nowadays, the special effects may seem quaint with the giant rubber bat on a string, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

I love his invisible puppet trick

Dracula is the quintessential classic horror movie. It takes a classic character from literature and brings it to the big screen with the effort and respect it deserves. Bela Lugosi is fantastic as Dracula, creating a timeless character that is enjoyable to watch while still being scary. The story has a fast pace but hits all the important parts of the story. For the time, it has good excitement and even a bit of action. Dracula can be enjoyed by both young and old, though I would suggest waiting to show this one to the very young. You're better off with Hotel Transylvania or a box of Count Chocula. Dracula is still thoroughly enjoyable despite being over 80 years old and well worth your time.

10/10

Day 284: Blacula

Blacula

Going black in time

It's time to get funky, you jive turkey. OK, I promise never to do that again, but I couldn't help it. Today's movie comes from the deepest, darkest depths of movie hell: The 1970's. The era of unrest, ridiculous clothes, and disco did manage to spawn some great horror movies, but it also brought about the exploitation era. Many of these movies found their way into grindhouse theaters due to their high levels of violence and sex. With the exploitation movies came the blaxploitation movies, which was geared towards the African American community. It was only a matter of time before horror made it's impact on the sub genre.

Blacula is a 1972 vampire movie starring William Marshall (Pee-Wee's Playhouse, Scream Blacula Scream) as Prince Mamuwalde, the leader of a small African nation. The prince is visited by Count Dracula and asks for his help in stopping the slave trade. Dracula refuses and attempts to capture Mamuwalde. When he fights back, Dracula bites Mamuwalde, changing him into a vampire, and imprisons him in a coffin. In 1972, the castle containing the coffin is purchased by two interior decorators, Bobby McCoy and Billy Schafer. They open the coffin, awakening Mamuwalde, now Blacula, are both killed. At Bobby's funeral, Blacula meets Tina who looks identical to his now-deceased wife. Believing she is the reincarnation of his wife, Blacula pursues Tina, posing as a human Mamuwalde. At the same time, Dr. Gordon Thomas (Thalmus Rasulala, Sanford And Son, Mom And Dad Save The World) and Lt. Peters begin investigating the strange deaths around town. Eventually Tina begins to fall in love with Mamuwalde. The victims of the strange murders change into vampires and soon join Blacula as his undead army. After finding a picture in which Mamuwalde does not appear, Gordon and Lt. Peters, joined by the police, move in to stop Blacula. Will they be able to save Tina before she is turned into a vampire?

Don't fall for Blacula's "Free Hugs" trick

I have to say, I haven't seen many exploitation and blaxploitation movies. Most of my knowledge probably comes from other mediums making fun of the movies. I was expecting Blacula to be an over-the-top, jive-talking, funky vampire movie with goofy rhyming lines and the word “honky” being thrown around like a baseball. Much to my surprise, this wasn't the case. Blacula is far more of a real movie than I could have expected. That's not to say it isn't ridiculous, but it has character motivation and a somewhat decent story. I think a large part of the movie being watchable is the good performance of William Marshall . A veteran of stage, opera, and screen, Marshall brings an air of legitimacy to the role. Surrounded by polyester and blaring funk, Marshall's portrayal of Blacula is both regal and scary. Some may find his performance hokey, but I would attribute that to the rest of the cast playing their characters straight. Unlike many other vampire movies, Blacula manages to actually make the head vampire a sympathetic character.

The movie is very much a product of the 1970's which should be a surprise to no one. There are plenty of bell-bottoms, afros, and unnecessary long scenes of funk bands playing. The movie never goes full “blaxploitation” but you can still sense the racial overtones. While there isn't much in the way of racial slurs, the word “faggot” is used quite a lot. As they say, it was a different time. There are some scenes of violence, but I wouldn't call Blacula a scary or even creepy film. I think part of that is due to seeing the movie through 2012 eyes. The supporting acting is quite bad and certain scenes jump around with no explanation. It's not particularly clear just how Blacula made it to America, although I could have easy missed it while blinded by the ridiculous clothes. There are plenty of holes in the plot, but when you're watching a movie called “Blacula” were you expecting Citizen Kane?

Is it too soon to make a Whitney Houston joke?

Blacula is a fun and bewildering look into a strange time in American cinema and cultural history. Deeply entrenched in the 70's, the movie is full of stereotypes and certain language that would almost never fly in movies today. William Marshall is fun to watch, but he doesn't get a lot of help from some of his supporting cast. There is some violence, but not a whole lot of blood or gore. Blacula spawned a few other horror related blaxploitation movies such as Blackenstein, but I don't think I'll be searching for that one any time soon. Ultimately, Blacula has lots of problems, but it's still an entertaining watch, sometimes for the wrong reasons.

5/10

Day 178: Countess Dracula

Countess Dracula

The 70's were a crazy time

Hammer Films is a film production company based in the United Kingdom. They are best known for their “Hammer horror” series of movies from the 60's and 70's that focused on classic stories such as Frankenstein, The Mummy, and Count Dracula. They've had a recent resurgence in new movies with the acquisition of the library by Cyrte Investments. Many horror fans are well versed in Hammer's films, but they are almost completely unknown to me. What better way to dive in than with a classic, Countess Dracula?

Countess Dracula is a 1971 horror film starring Ingrid Pitt (Where Eagles Dare, The House That Dripped Blood) as Countess Elisabeth Nadasdy. After the death of her husband, Elisabeth attends his will reading with Captain Dobi (Nigel Green, Zulu, Jason And The Argonauts), the castle steward, Master Fabio (Maurice Denham, Oliver Twist, Hysteria), the historian, and a strapping young soldier named Lt. Imre Thoth (Sandor Eles, The Evil of Frankenstein, The Saint). Lt. Thoth receives the Count's horses, much to the chagrin of Captain Dobit and the countess, who are secretly lovers. After an accident with a servant girl, Elisabeth discovers that the blood of the servant restored her youth and beauty. She enlists Captain Dobi to acquire girls to murder in order for her to bathe in their blood. To explain her rejuvenated state, Elisabeth assumes the identity of her daughter, Ilona, who has been stuck on the other side of the river due to floods. Elisabeth seduces Lt. Thoth and they fall in love. Fabio is suspicious and finds a book that talks about blood sacrifice. He informs Elisabeth that only the blood of virgins will work. Fabio tries to tell Thoth the truth, but Dobi kills him and makes it look like suicide. What will happen to Lt. Thoth if he marries Elisabeth and what if the real Ilona finally arrives?

 It gets awfully drafty in these old castles

When you hear the title “Countess Dracula,” you immediately think of a female version of Dracula, neck-biting, turning into a bat, and lurking in the shadows with a cape. Sadly, we don't get that, but the title is actually quite accurate as this movie is essentially the story of Countess Erzsebet (Elisabeth) Bathory. It is believed that Countess Bathory killed hundreds of virgins and bathed in their blood to retain her youth and beauty. Since she is the basis for Dracula, the title is probably more apt than most horror movies. The movie brings to mind old versions of Robin Hood, with great looking costumes and sets. I don't know if they are particularly accurate, but they look good nonetheless. The story itself, though, is pretty much by-the-numbers. You have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen and to call this movie “horror” is a bit of a stretch. It's not scary so much as it is unnerving at points, like Elisabeth's addiction to virgin blood and the countess's maid Julie expressing not wanting to ever leave the castle.

What helps the movie most is Ingrid Pitt. She is absolutely beautiful, even more so when you see the transition between her old makeup and her actual face. She puts on a very good performance and I was shocked to find out that her voice had actually been dubbed. I have no idea why, but it didn't hinder her portrayal in the movie. Nigel Green is very good as Captain Dobi and Sandor Eles plays his part just as well. There are a few scenes of nudity, far more than there are scenes of violence. I can't really complain about that, so I won't!

Beard time!

I was expecting a vampire movie when I decided to watch Countess Dracula and was a bit disappointed when there was no blood sucking. Essentially a story about Countess Bathory, you pretty much know what is going to happen, so there is not a lot of mystery or excitement. What sets it apart is the very good acting all around and the fun costumes and sets. If you're like me and you're not well-versed in Hammer horror, Countess Dracula is a good starting point. It won't blow you away, but you'll still enjoy the movie for what it is.

6.5/10

Day 117: Waxwork

Waxwork

Hunter S. Thompson's brain on a good day

A friend of mine that reads my blog, who is a big horror fan himself, asked me if a movie quote came from Dolls or Waxwork. I had never seen Waxwork, so I wasn't entirely sure at the time. In fact, I had never even heard of Waxwork. I wasn't sure what to expect, especially since I had no idea what a “Waxwork” was. Would the movie be a mixture of House of Wax and Dolls or something completely different? Judging from the poster art, it looks like it could really be scary! Seriously, look at the poster. That is some crazy shit right there. Let's give it a shot and see if I can figure out where that quote came from.

Waxwork is a 1988 horror/comedy starring Zach Galligan (Gremlins, Infested) as rich student Mark Loftmore. Mark is having trouble in school and his ex girlfriend China is going out with the school jock. China and her friend Sarah are invited to a viewing of a Waxwork museum at midnight by the strange David Lincoln (David Warner, Cross of Iron, Tron) and are told to invite their friends. The group splits up to look at the very life-like displays and two of the friends step beyond the velvet rope and are transported into the living scene. One is a scene involving a werewolf that kills the boy that walked into the scene and the other involves China being attacked by Dracula. The wax scenes alter to make the dead bodies look like they are not real. Mark gets a detective to investigate the waxwork, but Lincoln shoves the detective into the scene containing The Mummy who kills him. Mark and Sarah do some research and find out that Mark's grandfather was murdered and the only suspect was a man that looks exactly like Lincoln. They speak with his grandfather's friend Sir Wilfred, and learn that Lincoln sold his soul to the devil, stolen trinkets collected by his grandfather from the 18 most evil beings who ever lived. By feeding each wax scene a soul, it will bring about the being's resurrection, which will destroy the world. Mark and Sarah go to the waxwork to burn it down, but Mark ends up in a zombie scene and Sarah in a Marquis de Sade. Mark escapes the zombie scene because he does not believe it is real. Sarah does not want to leave de Sade, but Mark convinces her that the scene is not real and they escape back to reality. Unfortunately, Lincoln was able to get 2 other souls to be sacrificed and the 18 beings come to life. Will Mark, Sarah, and Sir Wilfred be able to stop them and save the world?

"Did you eat all the raspberry pie?

This movie has an interesting, if not weird concept. I couldn't get over the fact that of the 18 most evil beings, most of them come from horror and literature. They use zombies, Dracula, the Mummy, the Wolfman, and body snatchers for example. If you're going to use fictional characters, why would you include the Marquis de Sade, who actually existed? I guess they wanted to get across some weird, Cinemax After Dark thing with Sarah (which was incredibly uncomfortable and unnecessary), but why use a real person? They clearly got lazy because we see flashes of unknown, generic beings like some sort of mutant baby and an axe murderer. What, there wasn't enough famous monsters to use? I like the idea, but the execution wasn't very good. Waxwork is also classified as a comedy, and while there are a few scenes worth cracking a smile at, it wasn't particularly funny.

It was weird seeing a movie where the protagonists are rich yuppies. Watching this through 2012 eyes, I can't really think of a reason why they made the characters rich snobs. It just seems odd and unnecessary. There are a few good scenes of violence and plenty of nods to classic movies and literature. The acting is decent, with David Warner putting on the best performance. Mihaly Meszaros (Big Top Pee-Wee, Freaked) is enjoyable in his small role as Hans the butler. The directing is good and makes the best of an odd and sometimes convoluted story.

So...incredibly...uncomfortable

Waxwork is an interesting and fun premise, but unfortunately the execution is poor. The movie doesn't know if it wants to be horror or comedy and achieves neither. The story is a bit confused and jumbled with logic taking a backseat to cramming in different classic horror references. There are some good scenes of violence and decent acting, but not enough to overcome the weak writing. Waxwork is good if you're looking for something from the 80s that you may not have seen before. Otherwise, you can probably skip it. Oh and to answer the question, the quote came from Dolls. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

4/10

Day 19: Dracula 2000

Dracula 2000

Presented by X-treme Doritos and Mountain Dew

Remember when the year 2000 sounded so far off and futuristic? Now in 2012, it feels like ancient history. There are no flying cars, no robots serving us, and meals don't in pill form. Lots of things in the mid 90's had “2000” thrown at the end of it, just like the word “Extreme” (or X-treme if they were being really extreme)

The movie stars Gerard Butler (300, Gamer) as Dracula, Christopher Plummer (Syriana, Malcolm X) as Matthew Van Helsing, and Justine Waddell (Great Expectations) as his daughter Mary. Thieves break into Van Helsing's vault and steal a silver coffin. Unwittingly, they release Dracula from the coffin and he turns the thieves into vampires as they make their way towards New Orleans. Meanwhile, Mary has vivid nightmares and visions of Dracula reaching out to her. It turns out she shares blood and a psychic link with Dracula. Van Helsing and his assistant Simon must get to Mary and kill Dracula for good. 

Perfect Strangers 2000

Dracula 2000 has a small nostalgic place in my heart. I remember seeing it in theaters with my dad. I don't know why, but I enjoyed the movie back then. It's fun to see some of the late 90's clothes and hair styles. It harkens back to a simpler time, before 9/11, the recession, and Justin Bieber. Maybe I'm getting crankier as I get older, but things were better then. At least, I like to pretend they were. Dracula 2000 revels in it's 90's awesomeness. A great soundtrack including Pantera, Monster Magnet, Slayer, and System of a Down makes me happy, but I'm not really sure if it helps the movie. Even Monster Magnet's video for their song Heads Explode makes a cameo (watch it here)

All that being said, when you step back and look at what happens in the story, it seems kind of silly. There are some gaping plot holes and too much focus is put on updating the story. Most of the acting comes off as over-the-top and cheesy, but in a fun way. Gerard Butler looks absolutely ridiculous as Dracula. Maybe its the hair. Or maybe it's his face. Dracula 2000 has some decent effects and fun bits of bloody violence.

Wow! Look at that ass!

Overall, Dracula 2000 is a fun vampire movie. Certainly not the best, but definitely not the worst. As long as you don't try to dissect every little thing, you'll have a good time. So-so acting and a weak script tend to drag the movie down at points, but some neck-biting and blood spurts are not far behind. The nostalgia factor for watching this movie is still high for me, but the shine has definitely worn off. Still, its a fun watch and worth your time.

6.5/10