An occasional series where I write about works inspired by Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula…
These reviews reveal plot twists.
Setting: A warehouse in an unspecified part of North America. The modern day.
Faithful to novel? When a young slacker called Nash (Eyal Simko) is asked by his drunkard uncle to cover a nightwatchman shift at a warehouse, he sees it as an opportunity to party. He calls his fellow spliff-loving pal David (Josh Malton), who shows up with his girlfriend, Nancy (Amy Cruickshank), and another woman called Leila (Cailey Muise), who’s mysterious and a bit goth. After some tame hedonism (drugs, loud music, couples having sex in parts of the warehouse where they’re clearly going to be seen by others), things take a dark turn. One of the idiotic lads messes about with a forklift and knocks a crate but doesn’t notice that it contains a creature (Youssef Abed-Alnour). At first, the creature – he’s only identified as Dracula in the film’s title and end credits – is just a voice or a shadow, then we catch glimpse of a bald, hunchbacked, old man; half Nosferatu‘s Count Orlok, half The Addams Family’s Uncle Fester. The only one to discover his presence is Leila. The creature seems to recognise her and says he loves her, which spooks Leila (well, according to the writing – the actress’s performance doesn’t change much). He also tells us that he’s been in his crate for 200 years. When the two male friends both begin to get rapey (whether it’s because of the supernatural effect of Dracula being close by or because they’re just pricks is unclear), Leila runs to the creature for help. He says he will protect her if she helps him drink her friends’ blood…
Best performance: None.
Best bit: The violence in this film mostly happens off screen. It’s framed out or the screen fades to black. This may have been done to save the expense of special effects and stunt performers, but the consequence is a creepy tone. By not seeing the blood and gore and deaths, we imagine something more extreme than could be shown in a film like this. Then, when we do see a horrific image – a victim hung upside down so blood drains into a jar – it’s more effective.
Review: Watch a lot of Dracula films, and you quickly realise that there’s a spectrum of quality as wide as a vampire’s lifespan. For every classy TV adaptation or Hollywood movie, there are several cheapo films with barely professional actors dredging through a script lacking any ideas other than ‘How can we get the word Dracula in the title?’ Bram Stoker’s creation fell out of copyright many decades ago, so anyone with a digi-cam is free to add to the oeuvre and the 2018 film Dracula in Love is nowhere near the top of the rankings. The characters are mostly objectionable morons, the cast is very poor indeed and the ‘drama’ tends to be stilted dialogue spelling out how people are feeling. The story is also exceedingly slight and doesn’t amount to anything interesting. But what rescues it from the dirge pit containing the likes of Dracula’s Guest and Dracula Reborn is its thoughtful shooting style. This is a single-location movie, taking place entirely inside a nondescript and oddly clean warehouse. Eerie shots of boxes create a bit of tension, while the slowly shifting camera often feels like a stalker’s POV. ‘Cinema is dead,’ says Leila during one of the film’s tedious conversations. ‘I hate all those fast, mindless camera moves.’ Dracula in Love agrees with the critique. There’s a stillness to this horror. Moves feel motivated and editing is sparse. The trance-like effect, however, is sometimes spoiled by a dance-flavoured score and occasional trippy sequences with crazy editing. And the appalling script and cast, of course.
Five conversion seating development rooms out of 10
Ian Farrington 