This is it. The final day of AWESOME-tober-fest. This week I looked at lots of Dracula movies. I usually end these things with “Freaky Friday” in which I’ll review a particularly silly or spoof movie about the subject at hand. I did this with Billy the Kid last year. I also did it with last years’ werewolves AWESOME-tober-fest. So it goes this year. Today I’m going to look at a Mel Brooks spoof of Dracula from 1995.

That movie was Dracula Dead and Loving It. I originally saw this movie in the theater. I am a HUGE fan of Brooks’ Young Frankenstein which spoofs the first three Universal Frankenstein movies.  So I was excited to see what Brooks had in store for Dracula.  This movie not only spoofs the 1931 Universal Dracula, it also pokes fun at the 1992 Coppola Dracula and the 1958 Hammer Dracula.

So overall, this movie isn’t that funny. It’s more along the lines of a modern spoof movie like Date Movie or Disaster Movie. It’s nowhere near as satisfying as a Young Frankenstein. And it’s tough that Brooks had to live up to Young Frankenstein which is a nearly perfect spoof comedy, but that’s how I watched it.  I enjoyed parts of it, though.  Leslie Nielsen is okay as Count Dracula.  The standout performance in the movie, however, is Peter MacNicol as Renfield.  He really gets his crazy on and models his insanity on the original 1931 Renfield, Dwight Frye.  He is a joy to watch.  It looks like he had so much fun.

Steven Weber as Jonathan Harker isn’t bad either. Unfortunately, however, I’m not a huge fan of Weber’s Wings costar, Amy Yasbeck. I just don’t think she’s funny nor a good actress. She similarly tanked another Brooks movie, Robin Hood Men in Tights, which I thought was funny despite Yasbeck’s performance.  And she was terrible in The Mask.  How does she keep getting work?

This movie is all about the sight gags, so I’m not going to sit here and describe that to you. There are some genuinely funny moments onscreen, unfortunately, they come too infrequently. I really think the problem here is the script. Dracula is ripe for some parody, yet the material seemed thin and less a parody of Dracula and had more situational comedy. Maybe the movie would have been better with better actors. I don’t know.  I just wish it would have worked more as a whole because I really like the idea of this movie. Like I said, these horror movies are ripe for a good parody (not looking at you Scary Movie 2-4).

Also, check out the blog Countdown to Halloween for more Halloween-y, bloggy AWESOMEness.

Continuing the final week of AWESOME-tober-fest. This week I’ve been reviewing all Dracula movies. Monday was Nosferatu from 1922. Tuesday was Universal’s Dracula from 1931. Yesterday I reviewed Horror of Dracula by Hammer Films. Today I’m looking at a movie that threw out these past movie versions of Dracula and went back to the source.  The director wanted to do a new, more faithful adaptation of Stoker’s novel.  That director was Francis Ford Coppola.

So, in 1992 we got Bram Stoker’s Dracula.  Coppola was actually given the script for this adaptation by Wynona Ryder.  She wanted a project for them to do together to help patch things up with the director after she pulled out of The Godfather Part III at the last minute. So Coppola agreed to do this and production began.

Coppola really wanted to create an ethereal almost dreamlike quality to this movie. Originally, he didn’t want to build any sets. He wanted elaborate costumes but very sparse, minimalistic backgrounds. Luckily the studio said no and forced him to do “traditional” sets. I’ve attempted to watch this movie several times since the 90s. But I hadn’t tried for a few years, so I thought this might be the year to give it a try, especially since I just read the original novel and watched a bunch of other Dracula movies.

So, what did I think this time? I didn’t like it. At all. They put Stoker’s name over the title, but that was mainly to differentiate it from Universal’s movie, not because there is that much more devotion to the novel. Coppola has created an overly indulgent arthouse flick about Dracula. It’s surreal and strange and boring. He ties the origins of Dracula to “The Impaler” Vlad III who renounces God after his beloved wife kills herself after mistakenly believing her husband was killed in battle.  Then Dracula stabs a stone cross, which starts to bleed, then he drinks the blood from the cross.  WHAT?!

There’s a lot I don’t like. The story. The acting. Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker is terrible. Wynona Ryder as Mina Harker is also terrible. The costumes are pretty good, but the movie is like a fever dream.  It’s so surreal and weird that it’s hard to really follow what the hell is going on.  You would think a Dracula movie starring Gary Oldman, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, Tom Waits and Monica Bellucci as Dracula’s bride would be AWESOME.  But it’s not.  It’s terrible.  I didn’t even finish watching it.  The movie is two hours and I stopped it just after the hour mark.

Is there anything I did like?  Well, Anthony Hopkins is good.  Oldman is pretty good as Dracula.  I enjoyed the costumes and sets.  Monica Bellucci as a topless Dracula bride was fantastic.  Sadie Frost, the chick that plays Lucy’s loses her top several times.  But none of that makes up for the horrible, surreal story that felt like a morphine fever dream and made little to no sense.  I realize this has become sort of a cult hit, but I can’t recommend it.  If you want to watch a thoroughly entertaining Dracula movie, see Hammer’s Horror of Dracula.

Two years later, a very similar attempt would be made with Mary Shelly’s book, Frankenstein. Acclaimed director Kenneth Brannagh would film a re-adaptation of Shelly’s novel starring himself as Victor Frankenstein, Helena Bonham Carter as Elizabeth and Robert DeNiro as the Monster.  Click the link to read if I thought it was successful or not.

So, one more day of AWESOME-tober-fest.  Tomorrow will be Freaky Friday, I’ll be looking at a Dracula “spoof” movie.   See you then.

Also, check out the blog Countdown to Halloween for more Halloween-y, bloggy AWESOMEness.

Continuing the final week of AWESOME-tober-fest. This week contains all Dracula movies.

Next up is another very famous version of Dracula.  It was by an independent movie production company known for horror movies.  That company was Hammer Films.

Hammer Films garnered its first hit in 1955 with an adaptation of an old British television serial called The Quartermass Experiment.  During production of a sequel to that movie, Hammer developed a re-imagining of the Frankenstein story.  This was released in 1957 as The Curse of Frankenstein with Christopher Lee as the monster and Peter Cushing as Victor Frankenstein.  I reviewed this movie back in 2009 for my Frankenstein AWESOME-tober-fest.  Curse became a huge hit which led to Hammer wanting a Frankenstein sequel as well as investigating other horror movie icons that could be given the “Hammer treatment”.

After beginning development on The Revenge of Frankenstein, Hammer decided to remake Dracula.  Several scripts were submitted, certain rights agreements had to be signed with Universal Pictures and production began for in 1957 for Hammer’s Dracula.  Hammer released Dracula (titled Horror of Dracula in the States) in 1958.  It starred Christopher Lee as the titular Count Dracula and Peter Cushing as Dr Van Helsing.  The movie would break box office records in the UK and America.

Many changes were made in the Hammer movie that deviated from both the novel and Unviersal version. Jonathan Harker does visit Dracula in the beginning, but he’s there to kill him, not to help him sign some real estate documents. Dracula appears to only have one bride. Dracula only uses two supernatural powers; hypnotism and travel through fog. Other powers like shapeshifting into bats and wolves is never shown. Also, Dracula is killed by sunlight in this movie (like Nosferatu) but in the novel, the sunlight only removes the Count’s powers.

So, anyway, what did I think of Hammer’s Dracula? Honestly, I loved it.  I now see why these Hammer movies are so popular.  They are truly fun to watch.  And the performances are excellent.  Again, Peter Cushing brings his A game to the Van Helsing role.  He is so great.  If you remember, I also loved his performance in Curse of Frankenstein.

And Christopher Lee was great, if understated, as Count Dracula. He really only speaks to Jonathan Harker in the beginning of the movie. After that it’s all grunts and groans. But I liked the little bit Lee got to do with the character. And I love the oversaturated Technicolor palette Hammer went with on this movie. And the set design, wow, was it amazing. I just really enjoyed this movie. I’m looking forward to watching some of the Dracula sequels.

Hammer next re-made Universal’s The Mummy’s Hand. It was released in 1959 as The Mummy and also starred Cushing and Lee. I may have to track that one down and watch it. Plus, I’ve still never seen Curse of the Werewolf with Oliver Reed, so I’ve got some more catching up to do with my Hammer viewing.

Also, check out the blog Countdown to Halloween for more Halloween-y, bloggy AWESOMEness.

Continuing the final week of AWESOME-tober-fest. This week contains all Dracula movies. Next up is one of the most famous Dracula movies, the one that defined the image of Dracula today. Universal’s 1931 Dracula.

Universal’s Dracula was directed by Tod Browning and starred Bela Lugosi in the title role. The movie wasn’t based directly on Bram Stoker’s novel, it was actually based on a 1927 theater production of Stoker’s book.  Bela had played the Count in that production and actively lobbied to get the movie role as well.  However, Universal, after acquiring the rights to the play, wanted Lon Chaney to play Dracula.  Unfortunately, Chaney passed away in 1930 before production could begin, so Universal agreed to let Lugosi play Dracula.

The stage play changed much of the detail to Stoker’s novel, but left much of its structure intact. The beginning of the movie is much the same as the novel, however it is Renfield that visits Castle Dracula, not Jonathan Harker, to attend to the Count’s real estate dealings. Renfield is at first attacked by Dracula’s brides, but is then bitten by Dracula himself. Dracula uses Renfield to get himself and his coffins to London safely. When the ship crashes in London, an insane Renfield is found to be the only living person on board. Renfield is sent to Dr Seward’s sanitarium (where he is in the novel). Dr Van Helsing studies Renfield’s blood and talks to him about his obession with eating insects and, of course, vampires.

Several nights later Dracula meets Dr Seward, Jonathan and Mina Harker and their friend Lucy at the theater. Lucy becomes fascinated with the Count. Dracula enters Lucy’s bedroom and drinks her blood. Lucy dies the next day after several blood transfusions to try to save her life. Dracula visits the Sewards, Harkers and Van Helsing for dinner. When it is discovered he has no reflection in a mirror, Dracula reacts rather violently and leaves. This is where Van Helsing deduces that he is a vampire.

Jonathan discusses with Mina about certain changes he’s noticed in her (that she’s turning into a vampire). Mina attempts to kill Jonathan but Van Helsing shows up just in time. Dracula kidnaps Mina later that night and takes her to his lair under Carfax-Abbey. Harker and Van Helsing chase after him. Dracula kills Renfield by throwing him down the largest stone staircase I’ve ever seen in my life. The sun begins to rise which forces Dracula to his coffin. Van Helsing and Harker discover the coffins and Van Helsing stakes Dracula (off camera, of course) as Jonathan and Mina walk off in the distance.

This movie is a classic for a reason. It’s fun to watch. Lugosi definitely plays the Count to the hilt. It’s a fun ride, if it does tend to drag a bit in the middle.  It’s defnitely worth a watch to see where a lot of the modern ideas of Dracula began.  Universal released three sequels to Dracula.  Dracula’s Daughter, Son of Dracula and House of Dracula.  Unfortunately, none would star Bela Lugosi.

Even though Dracula was Lugosi’s signature role, he would only play Dracula in one more movie, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein. Lugosi would play other vampires in movies like Mark of the Vampire which was a remake of a famous Lon Chaney “lost” film called London After Midnight.  Lugosi would also star in Return of the Vampire from Columbia Pictures.  Columbia intended Return as a direct sequel to Dracula however they were sued by Universal and had to change all the character names to avoid paying fines.  But the plot is obviously the “unofficial” sequel to Dracula.

Also, check out the blog Countdown to Halloween for more Halloween-y, bloggy AWESOMEness.

This is it. The final week of AWESOME-tober-fest. This week I’ll be looking at lots of Dracula movies. Let’s get this Dracula party started with one of the first filmed adaptations of Bram Stoker’s novel. Nosferatu is a silent film from 1922 written by Henrik Galeen and directed by FW Murnau.  Galeen originally wanted to do an adaptation of the Stoker novel, but the movie studio couldn’t secure the rights.  So Galeen wrote the adaptation anyway and changed some of the character names and details of the story.  He kept the main characters, like Jonathan and Mina Harker but changed their names to Hutter.  And Count Dracula was changed to Count Orlock, which is a pretty bad ass name itself.  This movie was the first time sunlight was said to be lethal to vampires.  Stoker’s Dracula was not physically harmed by sunlight, only weakened.  In order to make Orlock a little different, Murnau made sunlight lethal to Orlock, even using it to kill him at the end of the movie in order to avoid being sued by the Stoker estate.  All instances of sunlight being lethal to vampires after this are based on Nosferatu.

Count Orlock was played by Max Schreck. Schreck was a popular stage actor at the time he was cast as Orlock. Many legends have been built up around Schreck. Some rumors say this was his only movie and he mysteriously disappeared afterwards.  There are even rumors of his being an actual vampire which is why he played the part so well. Urban legends like this were examined in the 2000 movie Shadow of the Vampire starring John Malkovich and Willem Dafoe as Schreck.

In 1979 Werner Herzog remade Nosferatu with Klaus Kinski as the lead. As Stoker’s Dracula was now in the public domain, Herzog reinstated the original character names, changing Hutter back to Harker and Orlock back to Dracula.

Many people consider this movie the best adaptation of Stoker’s novel. I’ve watched this movie a few times and I do enjoy it. Schreck is pretty scary as Orlock and the sets and lighting are very effective. However, honestly, silent movies, for me, are a tough sell.  Plus, Orlock is only on screen for about 9 minutes of the hour and twenty four minute run time.  More fascinating to me than the story unfolding on screen is the fact that this movie was filmed in 1922.  Watching the movie unfold it’s just mesmerizing to think that we are watching events that took place nearly 90 years ago.  It just blows my mind to think about it.  It’s like watching that Kodak color film test footage also from 1922.  Those people were living in 1922.  What was going on at the time?  The Depression wouldn’t hit for another seven years.  It’s just so cool to see all of this actual film footage for a time period we know very little about and mostly only know through black and white pictures and movies.

Anyway, being what this is, yes I can recommend it.  It’s very atmospheric and it’s sort of fun to watch.  However, if you are like me, your mind may wander a bit during certain parts but you’ll be interested again whenever Orlock is onscreen.

Also, check out the blog Countdown to Halloween for more Halloween-y, bloggy AWESOMEness.