I’d like to start our discussion with two conflicting opinions. The first is that Dracula: Dead and Loving It (the vampiric spoof by Mel Brooks) is far from the comedic icon’s greatest work, and quite possibly towards the bottom of his formidable career. The second is that this is far better than many have made it out to be, and that it was only the victim of heightened expectations and diminishing returns that come with having a name like Mel Brooks on the marquee. However, this is not going to serve to be either a crushing dismissal or hopeful ode to this film, which I found to be, more than anything else, pleasantly competent, a film that was funny when it needed to be, but did very little else outside of offering the mildest of entertainment. However, what is always important to remember is that a mediocre film made by a legendary filmmaker is still going to be worth watching, even if it really only matters on a circumstantial level. Without the director’s name attached to the project, it’s doubtful that this film would have registered as anything other than a mildly funny spoof that stands in the shadow of many other similarly-themed films that are not even close to being as compelling as this one, which is ultimately one of the major reasons Dracula: Dead and Loving It feels like it is a bit of a misfire, since there is something slightly off-kilter about the overall experience, and whether it is in the details that would have previously been subjected to a lot more scrutiny and admiration, since nothing is more spellbinding than a piece of broad humour that is executed with precision. Brooks doesn’t necessarily fail, but he does objectively let his guard down in more ways than one, which is not ideal, and considering this was the final film he directed to date (and it is looking increasingly unlikely that he will step behind the camera again), it feels almost disappointing that he went out to pasture with this film, which is entertaining enough, but not nearly on the level as his greatest works.

A concept that lends itself to some serious thought is one around the possibility that Brooks doesn’t make bad films so much as he makes films that vary in quality when you view them comparatively. If you are going to look at Dracula: Dead and Loving It in relation to Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, the logic is that you are bound to be disappointed, since there is something missing from this film that was present in the director’s earlier works, a zest and comedic joie de vivre that propelled these stories to impossible and absurd heights, which few films have yet to reach. However, if you consider it individually, specifically as a product of its time, then it is easier to be slightly more lenient on this film, which was trying to bring Brooks’ distinctive style to a new generation, which stood on the precipice of a new millennium, where the old masters were scrambling to try and find their voice in a radically changing industry. It takes a lot of effort for a veteran to stay afloat and maintain relevance, and it is doubly hard when your entire directorial approach has been about remaining ahead of the curve and having a strong grasp on the collective cultural pulse, an important quality for any satirist, and the foundation of Brooks’ greatest films. This perception was shattered by Dracula: Dead and Loving It, since even its best jokes sometimes struggle to land – what would’ve been a barn-burner of a gag a few years previously is here met with an almost hostile sense of ambivalence, which is not the fault of Brooks, who was still dedicated to marching to the beat of his own comedic drum, but rather to the fact that he could not get a firm hold on anything particularly original or daring with this premise, which is decent on its own, but a far cry from nearly everything that made his work so exciting in previous years. Whether the decision was made to step away from directing based on the failure of this film, or simply because he just never got around to directing again (especially since he seemed to shift his attention to theatre) remains to be seen, but it doesn’t change the fact that Dracula: Dead and Loving It is not the strongest swan song in terms of great comedic directors – but ultimately like we saw from some of Brooks’ contemporaries like Carl Reiner, your last work is rarely ever considered your best.

The reality is that the vast majority of comedies (if not all of them) are built around a singular premise, whether deeply complex or hopelessly simple. In the case of Dracula: Dead and Loving It, the general belief is that this film will appeal to everyone who ever had been intrigued by the idea of Leslie Nielsen playing Count Dracula. That is the genesis of this project, and ultimately the only aspect that bears any relevance, which makes sense considering where we were at the time as a culture. Nielsen was one of our great comedic actors, a fact that we all collectively learned years after he entered into acting when he was hired to add some gravitas to Airplane! (a film that in itself is heavily indebted to Brooks), but somehow not only became the breakout star of that iconic comedy, but one of the great comedic institutions of his generation. It is surprising that Dracula: Dead and Loving It is the first and only collaboration between Nielsen and Brooks, since they just make sense as being artists who exist on similar wavelengths, since their penchant for the absurd and adoration for broad, over-the-top parody made them cherished individuals that continue to remain beloved. Nielsen is clearly having fun throughout this film, but he is surprisingly subdued – outside of a few moments in which he exhibits extraordinarily broad humour, his performance is mostly straight, with the more eccentric traits coming from the supporting cast, which includes a mildly annoying Peter MacNicol, the always hilarious Harvey Korman and Brooks himself, who takes on the part of Abraham van Helsing, and is as funny as ever, even when he occasionally fades into the background. The film also features a small but memorable appearance by Anne Bancroft, one of the only two pairings between the director and his longtime partner (and in both this film and Silent Movie, she has very small roles), and it is obvious that for the few moments she is on screen, the film feels so much more alive and vibrant – Brooks himself has said that appearing with Bancroft in To Be or Not to Be is his favourite collaboration, so it only makes sense that he would capture her energy in a way that none of the other actors were able to benefit, which can probably explain the feeling of ambivalence that persists throughout this film.

Ultimately, the reason behind Dracula: Dead and Loving It feeling so minor is that it came at a time when the concept of a horror parody was not yet fully established. It certainly was not a pioneering work (especially since Brooks himself set the standard over two decades previously), but in an era before the release of Scary Movie and other similar projects that reaffirmed the fact that horror doesn’t even need to be frightening to be effective, and that it is that tone and atmosphere that is usually the main attraction – these were films that openly and unapologetically lampooned the genre with initially strong ideas, it is only logical that something like this would feel slight in comparison. The comedic references are very funny if you understand them, but considering we are constantly inundated with comedies about vampires (who have come to be seen as hilarious entities, whether intentionally through this brand of comedy, or in the form of more unconventional and unintended uses of humour, as we have seen in certain teen horror films), some of them fall flat from their first moment. Brooks’ style lent itself to parodying only one kind of film, which seems reductive considering more notable parodies tend to overstuff their films with pop culture references to the point of nearly bursting, but which ultimately worked for Brooks. Dracula: Dead and Loving It is undeniably well-intentioned, but the subject matter was original at neither the time in which it was made and in hindsight – when the most humorous reference is to the hairpiece worn by Gary Oldman in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, it is easy to understand why this film feels quite slight and limited in its perspective, since there isn’t really anything valuable about the comedy on a holistic level, which is why the film feels so restrictive, especially when it could have been so much more concise and entertaining had it paid slightly more attention to the details rather than the broader aspects.

By the time it is done, it isn’t clear why Dracula: Dead and Loving It was specifically made for – in terms of Brooks, even his more ardent supporters are likely to place this quite low in comparison to some of his other work. For casual viewers, both at the time and recently, the film feels like it is drawn from an era where nearly all of this material was executed with more consistency, and that the only reason this holds even the smaller iota of cultural cache is based on the presence of Brooks, and the fact that it was his last film, a piece of information rarely use to indicate the strengths of the film, and more to show that even the mightiest of filmmakers can sometimes fumble, which becomes more evident when it is likely their final project as a director. Dracula: Dead and Loving It has its moments of brilliance, but they are few and far between, and come across as almost inauthentic, a deliberate attempt to tie everything together when such a process would have benefited from a slightly more organic approach. Brooks remains one of the greatest comedic minds of his generation, and there are certainly many devotees to his work that will appreciate this film, but even they have to admit it takes effort to find consistent value in this film, which feels like it was cobbled together hastily and without much thought, an unfortunate but relevant criticism that many directors face, and one of the primary reasons it is so easy to neglect a film like this and instead focus on his peaks, which are not only far superior in form and content, but have far more heart and soul, one of the many aspects missing from Dracula: Dead and Loving It, a decent film that is only mildly entertaining at its best moments, although never veering towards being absolutely dreadful, one of the merits of this otherwise conventional and overall slightly disappointing film.