Director: Maximilian Elfeldt
Release date: 2022
Contains spoilers
When the trailer for this flick surfaced, the alarm bells rang. The production company, the Asylum, are known for low grade films that cash in on bigger budget films. In this case it would seen to be an attempt to cash in on the alternative title for the forthcoming (and delayed) Morbius the Living Vampire (actually looking like it’ll just run on the title Morbius). The similarities start and end with the title I suspect.
The film actually wasn’t as God-awful as I expected but it certainly wasn’t great. The issue with the film are manifold as I’ll explain.
It starts with a pair of shadows crossing a bridge. The first a woman, her hair dyed and I’ll explain why that’s an issue in a second, the second a long haired, cloaked man – never seen directly at this point but quite obviously Dracula (Jake Herbert). As he approaches she seems rather pleased to see him and they kiss… cut to a bedroom and some sexual antics that end, unsurprisingly, in a scream (and not of pleasure). I have to mention that, when they meet, she appeared to have a flash of fang - that may have been just motivated perception on my part or indicative of it not being his first visit to her.
Cut and, after some "Read All About It", we see Amelia Van Helsing (Christine Prouty) at the crime scene – the woman from the opening scene dead on the bed. Amelia is chief investigator into the rash of murders in the (unnamed) city. She discusses it with her boss – he isn’t named until a scene a little later but he is Captain Renfield (Stuart Packer). The press are sensationalising things, the headlines suggesting the killings being a copycat of murders a century past (the cops have done sue diligence and the creepy castle tied with those murders is empty).
So, a couple of things here. The establishing shots suggest a fin de Siècle, perhaps early 1900s setting, with occasional carriages on the cgi manipulated streets. The houses seem to be lit primarily with candles rather than gas or electricity. However the clothing often feels more modern (at least for some of the characters) and the dyed red hair was distinctly a modern shade. Van Helsing carries a gun that, and I’m no weapons expert, feels WW2 era (perhaps modelled on a Mauser; Edit 21/1/22: though it may have been a Luger, please see comments), but more she is lead detective (which feels out of era) and in an open lesbian relationship with Mina (India Lillie Davies), which again feels incongruous to the timeframe.
So, she goes and speaks to the coroner, Seward (Michael Ironside, Masters of Horror: The V Word, Vampire Wars: Battle for the Universe, Tales from the Crypt: Come the Dawn & Patient Seven), but he can tell her very little – the body has a pair of punctures at the neck and is virtually emptied of blood. She takes a vial of what little blood is left to her friend and chemist (and occultist) Jonathan Harker (Ryan Woodcock). Meanwhile we see Renfield pass a file to the mysterious (in film plot terms but we all know he’s Dracula) murderer and call him master.
That latter scene was both a shame and a grace – given that he’s called Renfield the film didn’t dangle a “is he good, is he bad” carrot before us – we know now he is working for the vampire and, given his name, we would have expected as much and it would only be a shock if he wasn’t. That said, there was some millage in not revealing it now and doing so more shockingly later. It is Jonathan who deduces it’s a vampire they're looking for – something Amelia is unwilling to accept – and Mina gets a new foreign dignitary client through her law firm, with a brief to help him purchase properties. Dracula has a hang-up about redheads and there is a reincarnated (or at least believed to be) love aspect.
All the normal tropes are there – Dracula can turn into a bat (or a mass of them to be honest), stakes kill, holy water burns, crosses ward and sunlight (as the Dracula megatext suggests) destroys. A bite can turn. Beyond this, and beyond the issue with when this was trying to suggest it was set, there is precious little atmosphere and the dialogue is distinctly average at best. The actors aren’t brilliant for the most part – unfortunately Jake Herbert just hasn’t the presence needed for Dracula and the later makeup when he vamps out is poor. Michael Ironside phones in his performance – however a performance phoned in by Ironside is still better than most. The lighting was particularly poor in places, not too dark per se, just gloomy, often without highlighting the character in shot.
I noticed a direct referencing in the script to othering – but rather than the vampire being othered, Amelia accuses the murderer of othering and killing women. It works within the serial killer motivation context (and the term serial killer is used, which again does not fit the time period) and adds an academic layer of interest in terms of the othered monster othering victims. The Amelia and Mina relationship failed because of the incongruity with the time period – I don’t have an issue with queering parts of Dracula (I know there will be an accusation of it being 'woke' from some, but queering the vampire story is an integral part of the genre) but, let’s face it, it was far from original – after all a female Van Helsing has already been done. Not a great film but not as bad as expected – 3.5 out of 10.
The imdb page is here.
On Demand @ Amazon US
The film actually wasn’t as God-awful as I expected but it certainly wasn’t great. The issue with the film are manifold as I’ll explain.
 |
| assignation |
It starts with a pair of shadows crossing a bridge. The first a woman, her hair dyed and I’ll explain why that’s an issue in a second, the second a long haired, cloaked man – never seen directly at this point but quite obviously Dracula (Jake Herbert). As he approaches she seems rather pleased to see him and they kiss… cut to a bedroom and some sexual antics that end, unsurprisingly, in a scream (and not of pleasure). I have to mention that, when they meet, she appeared to have a flash of fang - that may have been just motivated perception on my part or indicative of it not being his first visit to her.
 |
| Stuart Packer as Renfield |
Cut and, after some "Read All About It", we see Amelia Van Helsing (Christine Prouty) at the crime scene – the woman from the opening scene dead on the bed. Amelia is chief investigator into the rash of murders in the (unnamed) city. She discusses it with her boss – he isn’t named until a scene a little later but he is Captain Renfield (Stuart Packer). The press are sensationalising things, the headlines suggesting the killings being a copycat of murders a century past (the cops have done sue diligence and the creepy castle tied with those murders is empty).
 |
| Christine Prouty as Van Helsing |
So, a couple of things here. The establishing shots suggest a fin de Siècle, perhaps early 1900s setting, with occasional carriages on the cgi manipulated streets. The houses seem to be lit primarily with candles rather than gas or electricity. However the clothing often feels more modern (at least for some of the characters) and the dyed red hair was distinctly a modern shade. Van Helsing carries a gun that, and I’m no weapons expert, feels WW2 era (perhaps modelled on a Mauser; Edit 21/1/22: though it may have been a Luger, please see comments), but more she is lead detective (which feels out of era) and in an open lesbian relationship with Mina (India Lillie Davies), which again feels incongruous to the timeframe.
 |
| Michael Ironside as Seward |
So, she goes and speaks to the coroner, Seward (Michael Ironside, Masters of Horror: The V Word, Vampire Wars: Battle for the Universe, Tales from the Crypt: Come the Dawn & Patient Seven), but he can tell her very little – the body has a pair of punctures at the neck and is virtually emptied of blood. She takes a vial of what little blood is left to her friend and chemist (and occultist) Jonathan Harker (Ryan Woodcock). Meanwhile we see Renfield pass a file to the mysterious (in film plot terms but we all know he’s Dracula) murderer and call him master.
 |
| Jake Herbert as Dracula |
That latter scene was both a shame and a grace – given that he’s called Renfield the film didn’t dangle a “is he good, is he bad” carrot before us – we know now he is working for the vampire and, given his name, we would have expected as much and it would only be a shock if he wasn’t. That said, there was some millage in not revealing it now and doing so more shockingly later. It is Jonathan who deduces it’s a vampire they're looking for – something Amelia is unwilling to accept – and Mina gets a new foreign dignitary client through her law firm, with a brief to help him purchase properties. Dracula has a hang-up about redheads and there is a reincarnated (or at least believed to be) love aspect.
 |
| Dracula's vamp face |
All the normal tropes are there – Dracula can turn into a bat (or a mass of them to be honest), stakes kill, holy water burns, crosses ward and sunlight (as the Dracula megatext suggests) destroys. A bite can turn. Beyond this, and beyond the issue with when this was trying to suggest it was set, there is precious little atmosphere and the dialogue is distinctly average at best. The actors aren’t brilliant for the most part – unfortunately Jake Herbert just hasn’t the presence needed for Dracula and the later makeup when he vamps out is poor. Michael Ironside phones in his performance – however a performance phoned in by Ironside is still better than most. The lighting was particularly poor in places, not too dark per se, just gloomy, often without highlighting the character in shot.
 |
| Amelia and Mina |
I noticed a direct referencing in the script to othering – but rather than the vampire being othered, Amelia accuses the murderer of othering and killing women. It works within the serial killer motivation context (and the term serial killer is used, which again does not fit the time period) and adds an academic layer of interest in terms of the othered monster othering victims. The Amelia and Mina relationship failed because of the incongruity with the time period – I don’t have an issue with queering parts of Dracula (I know there will be an accusation of it being 'woke' from some, but queering the vampire story is an integral part of the genre) but, let’s face it, it was far from original – after all a female Van Helsing has already been done. Not a great film but not as bad as expected – 3.5 out of 10.
The imdb page is here.
On Demand @ Amazon US
3 comments:
Good review. The film's title is very misleading when you think about it. Morbius is a living vampire because he never died; he was transformed into a vampire through science. Dracula is classic undead, living dead, whatever...he died when he transformed. Marvel has always kept Morbius unique within the 616 Universe as The Living Vampire. Thus endeth my rant.
I wanted to like it since it had Ironside in it, but even he couldn't save this film. It just fell so flat, even as a trashy B grade vampire flick.
I thought after the opening scene, even though the bite was off camera, that this was going to be a good ol' vampire straight to DVD/Streaming movie to turn my brain off to and enjoy, like the early Subspecies films maybe. With so many vampire movies in today's world often too scared to show a strong male vampire of a sexual manner with a woman, I thought this one might be an exception and I got my hopes up, even with a lesbian Van Helsing which could have made for some interesting conflict and motivation for her character.
Unfortunately I was sorely mistaken and soo damn bored that not even the most basic distraction that is nudity couldn't hide that from me. The action, the drama, the sex, the horror, I couldn't find any redeeming quality in this vampire movie, thankfully it didn't even attempt comedy.
The story could have been perfectly at home without calling itself Dracula or anything vampire related, I got the impression it wanted more to be a Sherlock story about strong women doing it better, think Enola Holmes.
The only character that really caught my attention was Renfield, he really shined as a vampire in contrast to the other characters, but he too was underutilised.
The one real bite scene in this movie, which can make or break a vampire movie in my opinion and he just bites her jacket, if they hadn't shown the puncture marks later you could have missed that it even happened, it doesn't take much to make a believable bite scene be it practical or CGI effects for a vampire, a creature whose defining characteristic is its turning bite, but hey, at least the fangs looked believable.
My biggest gripe is that 80% of the film is spent doing detective work or dialoguing then Dracula the title character is barely in it and has the presence of a 17 year old drama student in his first play, afraid to lean into the role and maybe even chew the scenery a little. Then the climax, Dracula is easily overpowered by two petite blonde women and a curtain, no outsmarting him, no plan, no utility belt with a save the day gadget, as Tommy Lee in Batman Forever said "Just plain CURTAINS!".
I think aside from me being a tad harsh and frustrated with the genre as a whole at the moment, we had similar experiences, I will point out I think the gun might have been a Luger, which would have been around 1900 at the earliest if that helps with the theme and continuity at all.
Let's hope Nicholas Cage returning to the role of vampire and donning Dracula's cape will revive the genre in the coming months/years instead.
Thanks guys
Fang fan - absolutely right, but the Asylum will name a film to cash in that is, at heart, unrelated. I could be wring with why they misnamed this but I think I'm right.
Epime I think you are right, our experiences with this one were similar. Though I think I'm less frustrated. There has been some poor films but there were also Jakob's Wife, Morbid Colors (flawed, true, but worthwhile), Bingo Hell (if you class it as vamp), Midnight Mass and Black as Night last year - amongst a host of perhaps more mid level releases (not forgetting the continuation of the What We Do in the Shadows)
That said, I also get if some of those mentioned weren't your bag - we all like different things. I agree, of course, that Nick Cage as Dracula could have a positive impact on what is churned out (at least, like you, I hope so).
Re the gun - you know what my first instinct was Luger but then, having googled some pics, I went Mauser. If he sort of model of Luger was early 20th century that does help the somewhat fractured time issues - though the societal norms issue was the biggest, and still stands.
Really appreciate both your comments
Post a Comment