Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995) review

21. Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995)

Directed by: Mel Brooks

Produced by: Mel Brooks

Screenplay by: Mel Brooks, Rudy De Luca, Steve Haberman

Starring: Leslie Nielsen, Peter MacNicol, Steven Weber, Amy Yasbeck, Lysette Anthony, Harvey Korman, Mel Brooks

A few years ago, I reviewed Mel Brooks’s brilliant spoof film “Young Frankenstein,” a wonderful mockery and celebration of the entire “Frankenstein” franchise. But that came out back when Brooks’s material was new and fresh, and by the time 1995 rolled around, the routines had become…well, routine. Still, he got his chance to poke fun at the “Dracula” films with “Dracula: Dead and Loving It,” starring comedic legend Leslie Nielsen as Count Dracula. Unfortunately, unlike “Young Frankenstein,” which is still considered a masterpiece, this movie got shredded by critics and failed to make an impact at the box office. But I think it’s been unfairly judged; it’s definitely not as consistently hilarious, and the plot isn’t paced very well, but there are some funny highlights and concepts.

The plot plays out very similarly to a basic “Dracula” film; a solicitor named Renfield (Peter MacNicol) travels to Transylvania to finalize Count Dracula’s (Nielsen) purchase of Carfax Abbey in England, and is put under a spell to become his slave, eventually ending up in a lunatic asylum. Upon returning to England, Dracula meets his neighbors: Dr. Seward (Harvey Korman), the head psychiatrist of the asylum, his daughter Mina (Amy Yasbeck), her fiancé Jonathan Harker (Steven Weber), and their friend Lucy (Lysette Anthony). When Lucy becomes Dracula’s undead victim, they enlist the help of Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Brooks), who concludes evidence of Dracula’s vampirism. Will they stop the Count before there’s any more bloodshed, and how many in-jokes and tributes will they make in the process?

It's interesting that while “Young Frankenstein” was presented in black-and-white to emulate the old Universal films, this is in color, despite the story being closest to the 1931 Béla Lugosi version, and even featuring Nielsen emulating Lugosi’s Hungarian accent; however, the production values are more reminiscent of the Hammer Horror films with Christopher Lee, which made their own cinematic impact. Indeed, the Gothic aesthetics are impressive at times, particularly in the opening credits; we flip through pages of a book and see all kinds of gruesome images depicting the monstrosities of vampires, while a grand orchestral score plays. It’s such a foreboding and dramatic intro, it momentarily tricks you into thinking you’re watching a serious horror movie.

Did you know there was a time when Nielsen was known as a serious actor? Well, after his iconic role in “Airplane!” he became known as the Hollywood spoof star in films like “Repossessed” and “The Naked Gun” movies; and he would appear in many more in later years like “Spy Hard,” “Wrongfully Accused” and “2001: A Space Travesty.” His performance as Dracula is very standard and typical of what you’d expect of him; he’s boisterous and he has decent comedic timing. Some of the better jokes regard situations a serious Dracula would find himself in, like trying to possess multiple from afar to do certain things, but the message gets mixed up so that they’re both doing the same thing until they walk into each other. But the funniest role in the movie is Peter MacNicol as Renfield; it’s such a pitch perfect sendup to Dwight Frye, which was already a darkly comedic portrayal, so it’s somehow more fitting with how he incorporates his expressions and body language. He has a great scene with Seward where he tries to convince him he’s sane while attempting to hide the insects he eats.

Brooks veteran Harvey Korman is solid as Seward, while Brooks himself plays Van Helsing, who doesn’t so much try to stop Dracula as much as try to one-up him in their knowledge of Romanian language, making for a pretty funny running gag. The humor itself definitely has its pros and cons; I like the poking fun of relationship taboos of the time period, they make fun of the Gary Oldman hairdo in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” and one scene that made me crack up the first time I saw it is when Harker stakes Lucy, and it unleashes a geyser of blood all over the crypt. Apparently, Brooks didn’t tell Steven Weber how much there would be, hoping for a genuine reaction.

But there are a lot of bits that don’t make me laugh at all, like Van Helsing’s first scene when he tries to gross out his freshman students with an autopsy, just for kicks I suppose. I also think most of the slapstick prat falls are lame, and some of the deliberately silly speaking mannerisms are just awkward. There’s also a really strange recurring joke about Seward ordering enemas for his patients; I really can’t tell if I find this funny or just stupid. But personally, the most enjoyment I get out of the movie is all the ways they incorporate the different cinematic incarnations. I mentioned the nods to Lugosi and Frye, but there’s also staging reminiscent of Max Schreck in “Nosferatu,” the shots and story beats are similar to the Hammer films—as well as the many views of beautiful seductive women—there’s a gorgeous candlelit dance number with Dracula and Mina that wouldn’t have looked out of place in the Frank Langella version, and there are jokes with the shadow play in Francis Ford Coppola’s film.

I’m sure there are more nods to more “Dracula” films I’m not aware of; who knows how many jokes can be made about this tale, now over 126 years old and having seen more than 30 adaptations? Regardless, I went in to “Dracula: Dead and Loving It” fearing the worst, and what I got wasn’t nearly as bad as its reputation. Some parts drag and others have me rolling my eyes, but for what works as far as the humor is concerned, I think it’s okay. To date, this has been the last theatrical film Brooks has directed, although he did pen a remake of “The Producers” in 2005, and more recently, has been a producer for “History of the World, Part II,” which premiered on Hulu back in March, proving to still be quite the showman at the spry age of 97. You can make the argument that this is his worst spoof film, but for a talent like Brooks, it’s still much better than other filmmakers’ worst.

My rating: 6/10