when a serious movie be pitifully appalling and it be easy to write a comedic review . when a comedic movie fall into the same category and it be almost impossible to make sport of it because any frivolity in the review may be misconstrue a comedic quality that the movie possess . so let me clarify from the outset represent this comedy be not to be laugh at . who would have think that mel brook the genius writer or director behind blaze saddle and history of the world and young frankenstein ( a successful comedy movie wholly in the vein of this fail one pun intend ) would be prone to helm a comedy a pitifully appal a dracula represent dead and love it . one imagine that brook comic radar be so finely attune that he would have see through the financial and corporate layer of this film drudgery and simply either abandon it and cut his loss when he saw that it be not work and or salvage the potential high point and let the cut room floor eat the rest . he do neither and which reveals that something be terribly askew in the brooks universe . no longer be it good to be the king mel brook be merely an old man these day and his taste no longer run congruent with his audience while his comedy no longer a energetic or as biting a the wit of his youth ( which and relatively speaking and be his late 40 anyway ) . the brook gag formula be definitely still there and but seem lazily insert a dependable fallback material and rather than inspire stylistic substance . joke which i can imagine my 15 year old self repeat ad nauseam in the schoolyard and now fall flat and wearisome on inured sensibility . not only do the film suffer from rehash and lazy gag and brook direction lack coherence and be oft time merely cursory while there be wide shot and revers and close ups which serve no purpose and camera blandly flit from one unnecessary shot to the next and not merely misdirect our eye and but search for subject matter to fill the frame judiciously . many shot seem to be second unit throwaway footage . instead of ease back and let the film levity wash over me and as should have be the case and all these logistical detail keep bug my sens and detract from the already sparse humor . during the cast and crew screening for this film and one have to wonder whether there be any genuine laugh or whether the aura of the director past glory taint the crew into believe that they have a good comedy on their hand and thereby elicit perfunctory giggle out of respect for their elder . in this film adherence to the original dracula story and noticeable neglect of comedic opportunity and not only do it fail a a good comedy and it become barely convincing a an a list movie . brook do not need to re make dracula . yet this seem to be all he do in a manner inferior to that of drove of dramatic film maker before him . mel strong suit be comedy . so why be we subject to a film about the infamous psychotic blood drinker and so loosely sprinkle with joke that they seem incongruous within the context of the morbid tale . where you would expect punchlines and there be scene fade while where you would expect a gag and there be exposition of the dracula legend while where you would expect laugh out loud slapstick and there be strain attempt at re capture youthful insouciance from laurel past . and the dance sequence between dracula and mina be needless padding . ( make you wonder what do make the cutting room floor . ) the actor vacillate between parody victorian character and actually play them . harvey korman dr. seward can almost be an actual over actor from one of the real dracula movie and whilst steven weber jonathan harker frequently come across a an exaggerated english nobleman from a christopher lee film . peter macnichol and though and make the perfect renfield for any dracula film and serious or spoof and be the only actor who truly nail his role in this blunt toothed parody . amy yasbeck and lysette anthony be just too damn hot to be funny represent all the self deprecate melodrama in the world be not gon na help and chickie babes look at those rack . on paper and leslie neilsen dracula seem like a hilarious coup and a do mel brook dr. van helsing and but both seem to be labor under the specter of their own reputation a funnymen . neilsen play straight and be oblivious to his own humor be how he work best and but here he actively go for laugh and which mean that even brook and a director and do not discern neilsen forte or do discern it and choose to make neilsen play against type anyway either way and an erroneous decision . and brook van helsing seem too self aware of every mispronunciation he make for the sake of schoolyard quote to be regard a genuinely hilarious . if mel brook have grow so blind that he can not see that the comedy boat have leave him onshore while if he have become so oblivious to discernment that he actually think this film be noteworthy enough to be consider a vital comedy and the movie subtitle may well be apply to him dead and love it . ( movie maniac and visit represent www . thedunmore . com or poffy moviereviews . html ) .