Bat versus Bolts: The 2010s

Question: is the Dark Universe dead?

You remember the Dark Universe, surely? Universal’s attempt to create a shared cinematic universe with rebooted versions of their classic monsters? Is that still a thing? Because it seemed to be DOA with the failure of The Mummy. But then The Invisible Man came out this year and did really well and apparently is supposed to be part of the Dark Universe except the director says it isn’t and Universal are apparently refusing to admit its dead despite the fact that all of its upcoming movies appear to be either cancelled or delayed indefinitely and now the whole project seems (appropriately enough) neither alive nor dead.

And that kinda sucks. Not because I was particularly psyched for any of these proposed films but it’s gotta be galling for Universal to keep getting portrayed as failed Marvel wannabes considering they invented the whole concept of a shared cinematic universe all the way back in 1943. I mean obviously they wouldn’t be doing this if the MCU hadn’t made enough money to air condition Hell, but I personally feel that if any movie studio has a right to rip off Marvel, it’s Universal.

Turnabout, after all, is fair play.

In fact, I think you’d be hard pressed to find two non-comics characters who’ve had a bigger influence on comics as a whole than the Universal versions of Dracula and Frankenstein’s monster. For starters, as public domain characters, both DC and Marvel have incorporated their own versions of these characters into their respective universes. Marvel, in particular, made fantastic use of Dracula in their series Tomb of Dracula, which lasted a whopping 70 issues. And that’s not even counting the dozens (hundreds?) of characters in both of the Big Two publishers that take influence both subtle and overt from these two monsters. You can see Dracula’s lineage in Batman, Doctor Doom, Morbius and Count Nefaria whereas pretty much every hulking, misunderstood monster has a bit of Adam in him, whether we’re talking about the Thing, Bizarro, Solomon Grundy or the Incredible Hulk. So if Universal want to start turning their properties into ersatz superheroes to compete with Marvel, I say it’s less a case of stealing from your competitors than breaking into your neighbour’s house in the dead of night to take back the lawnmower that he “borrowed” from you eighty years ago and never bothered returning. And, like in that analogy, while it may be satisfying and even morally justified, it’s probably not a good idea.

I’ve spent this entire intro talking about Universal, but truth be told only one of today’s movies, 2014’s Dracula Untold, is from that studio. I would have preferred to pit two modern Universal monster movies against each other but according to the Dark Universe wiki (which is a thing that exists) the Dark Universe Frankenstein is just putting the finishing touches on.

Suuuuuuuuure it is.

so today Team Bolts is represented by I Frankenstein, a 2014 movie from Lionsgate that’s also trying to do the “shove a public domain monster into a superhero cape and see if he flies” thing. And guys, I swear to God, I’m not setting Team Bolts up to fail deliberately. After the last installment, I really didn’t want to see another curb stomp. But there’s no getting around it, I, Frankenstein is a staggeringly bad film, and leagues worse than Dracula Untold. Cunning and savvy reader that you are, you will notice that is not the same thing as saying that Dracula Untold is good.

The Adaptations

Fair is fair. Dracula Untold has a real, humdinger, “why didn’t I think of that?” killer high concept: what if the historical Dracula, Vlad “The Impaler” Tepes, had the powers of his fictional literary counterpart?

In the 15th Century, Prince Vlad (Luke Evans) of Transylvania and Wallachia is forced to defend his homeland from the invading forces of Sultan Mehmed II (played by Dominic Cooper. In brownface. In the year of Our Lord 2014). Vlad encounters a mysterious Vampire (Charles Dance) who offers to let him drink some of his blood, thereby gaining the powers of a vampire for three days. But if Vlad succumbs to temptation and drinks human blood, he will become a vampire permanently. Given that this is a movie with the name “Dracula” in the title, you can probably guess where that little subplot goes.

If, however, you can guess where I, Frankenstein is heading I will pay you serious money and also you probably should seek psychiatric help. We start conventionally enough with Victor Frankenstein dying in the Arctic after the events of the novel. The creature (Aaron Eckhart) returns to…generic…Europe…land to bury his father’s body. Then, he’s attacked by a group of demons and rescued by a group of gargoyles disguised as humans because apparently gargoyles aren’t actually statues but have been waging a secret war against demons since the dawn of time to protect humanity…

The One About the B&B with the Mass Grave and Ghosts

…and they take him to meet their Queen Leonore (Miranda Otto) who names the creature Adam and tries to recruit him into their war against the demons. Adam is obviously a gravelly voiced loner who plays by his own rules and instead spends the next few hundred years bumming around generic Europe Land until he gets caught in the war between gargoyles and demons again when the demon prince Naberious (Bill Nighy) tries to use Frankenstein’s research to create an army of reanimated corpses to serve as vessels for all the demons in Hell so that they can take over the world. Now, for all you purists out there popping your monocles and harrumphing that this is a complete bastardization of Mary Shelley’s work, yes, obviously, obviously it is that. The only thing this has in common with Mary Shelley is that I could believe whoever wrote this was doing serious drugs with Lord Byron. But I wish it was as entertaining a trash fire as I make it sound. Sad fact is, I, Frankenstein is just a boring, ugly, dour slog of a film with leaden portentous dialogue and CGI that would have looked bad for 2004, let alone 2014. Hell, 1994 might have wrinkled its nose at it. A lot of the people behind this also made Underworld in 2003, and it really does feel like a throwback to the early aughties; the God awful nu-metal soundtrack, the clear influence of The Matrix, and that very special kind of joyless suck that characterised so many bad movies from that decade. I got serious Van Helsing flashbacks, guys.

You weren’t there man.
You weren’t there.

Dracula Untold, conversely, is a strikingly handsome film. It makes good use of its Northern Irish location, the sets and costumes are all very well designed and there’s some very nice use of lighting and shadow. It’s a good looking film, but unfortunately, like many good looking people, it tries to coast without having an ounce of personality. This is what’s really infuriating about Dracula Untold, all the elements are there for a for a film that I would absolutely love. I like the actors, I think the premise is gold and the technical side is clearly staffed by people who know what they’re doing. The problem is really the script. It’s like the writers came up with this awesome premise and didn’t realise that that’s just the beginning of a good story, not the finished product. I have seen plenty of movies that had difficulty choosing a tone. This may be the first movie I’ve ever seen that doesn’t have a tone. It’s an atonal movie. The script doesn’t seem to be aiming for anything, whether it’s horror, comedy or tragedy. It’s just…there. It’s the narrative equivalent of a wikipedia page. That said, I do occasionally read Wikipedia for fun.


The Monsters

Luke Evans has made a lucrative career for himself as the one good thing in movies I otherwise really didn’t like and I think he has the makings of a great Dracula.

One day I hope to see him play the character.

The script positions Dracula as a good, noble man who foreswears a life of violence to live in peace with his family. But when the Turks return like an old army mentor who needs you to come back for one last mission, Vlad has to risk his immortal soul to selflessly protect his land and people. And apart from the name and the vampire powers there is not a single, solitary point of similarity between this character and literally any version of Dracula I’ve seen or read. Oldman’s version also played up the Vlad the Impaler connection, but at least that movie had the good sense to establish that he was a bloody psycho killer even before he became a vampire. And near the end of the movie, after Dracula has sacrificed his humanity to save his son, the movie skips forward a few hundred years and we see Dracula in the present day, just chillin’ and stalking his reincarnated wife but in a cute romantic way. So…was this Dracula ever really a monster? Did he prey on Lucy Westenra and Mina Murray? Did he imprison Johnathan Harker and feed babies to his three vampire hoochie-mommas? There’s zero indication that he did. So in what sense is this even Dracula?

I had more or less the same feeling about Aaron Eckhart’s monster. “Pshaw!” I cried, “this isn’t Mary Shelley’s monster! This is just a mopey asshole who spends his time wandering aimlessly and bitching about how he doesn’t have a soul and humanity will never accept him and he really wants to get with his bland love interest but wouldn’t you know it…”

And then I thought…wait a minute, that is EXACTLY Mary Shelley’s monster. I mean, the movie is still dumber than shit but we gotta give them kudos for literary accuracy.


The Scientists Morally Dubious Mentor Figures

Dracula Untold has Charles Dance as a vampire.

“You haff sunk my battlesheep!”

If Luke Evans tends to be the one thing I like in movies I otherwise hate, then Charles Dance is that on steroids. Charles Dance has appeared in some appalling dogshit over the years, and he seems to take perverse joy in giving performances so much better than those movies deserve that it makes everything else look worse by comparison. He is masterful in Ali G Indahouse,  a tour de force in Space Truckers, pitch-perfect in Last Action Hero and his performance as Lord Vetinari in Going Postal will forever be the definitive take on that character. He is always the lone nugget of gold in the prospector’s shit.  And true to form, he finds the perfect wavelength of dark humour that the rest of the movie really needed to be operating on. And, again, no disrespect to Evans, but it’s really hard to enjoy a Dracula movie that also has Charles Dance in it. Because then you can’t stop thinking things like: “Why didn’t they just get Charles Dance to play Dracula? Shit, has Charles Dance ever played Dracula? Charles Dance should ABSOLUTELY play Dracula. Fuck, I need to make Charles Dance play Dracula. Could I kidnap Charles Dance and force him to play Dracula?” And so on.

By contrast, I, Frankenstein has Miranda Otto as Queen Leonore, head of the Gargoyle order.

Miranda Otto, seeing the script for the first time.

This is a character that I’m convinced came about when the script was incorrectly formatted, turning all the descriptive passages into dialogue. This is an actual line that Miranda Otto, a professional actor, was forced to say:

“The Gargoyle Order was commanded into being by the Archangel Michael. It is our sacred duty to wage war against the demon horde, the 666 legions of hell-born creatures unleashed by Satan after his fall from heaven. Humans think of us as mere decoration. They do not know, nor can they conceive, the brutal unseen war being fought around them every day. A war that may one day determine the fate of all mankind.”

There must be justice. Restitution must be made, and the writers should be put in a museum where their crimes can be re-contextualised. Justice for Miranda Otto.


The Villains who are the real monsters, when you think about it: 

Friends, if even Bill Nighy doesn’t look he’s having a good time…well. Well.

I, Frankenstein Featurette: Bill Nighy Is Naberius | EXCLUSIVE

“A bored, checked out Bill Nighy”. It just looks wrong to see it written down. It’s some weird gibberish.

Nighy plays Naberious, a name taken from a demon described by real life occultist Johann Weyer. Does knowing this little historical factoid make it any less ridiculous when otherwise very serious actors are forced to say things like “We have to stop Prince Naberious”?

Actually, yes, it does.

Eddie Izzard Yes And No GIF | Gfycat

On the other hand…who thought Mr Epic Tanning Bed Disaster here was a good idea?

Dracula Untold: Mehmed Taunts Vlad

Performance wise he’s…fine? Does the trick? I dunno, like so much of this movie he’s just there. Gonna have to give this one to Bats though. Cooper doesn’t actually give the impression that he hates me for watching the movie, and honestly, I’m getting that vibe from Nighy.

I, Frankenstein - Publicity still of Bill Nighy

“Fuck you, you bastard, I hope you die!”

“Jesus! It’s like being shivved by Santa Claus!”

Winner: Bats

The Perpetually Imperilled Ladies Bland Blondes

So by a weird coincidence both Dracula and the monster have love interests, they’re both blonde and they’re both so boring and underwritten my brain started hallucinating like I was in a sensory deprivation tank.

Sarah Gadon plays Mirena, Vlad’s wife.

Lets Talk Movies Blog: I, Frankenstein (2014)

While Yvonne Strahovski plays Terra, a scientist who starts out working for Naberious who turns good.

Meet Mirena, the Bride of Dracula Untold, in a New Featurette - ComingSoon.net

Shit, I just realised I put those pictures in the wrong order. Ah well. Of the two characters, Terra has the more interesting arc on paper as she starts out as a villain before changing sides and learning to love the monster despite his grotesque, abominable appearance…

Watch the First Trailer for I, Frankenstein - Daily Dead | I frankenstein, Frankenstein, Frankenstein 2014

Sarah Gadon does more with less. It’s a completely stock “worried wife” part but she plays the part with a winning tenderness.

Also, I have gone two Dracula movies now without sexy vampire ladies and that is rank bullshit.

Winner: Bats.

Are either of these movies actually, y’know, scary?

I’ve dug scarier things out from under my fingernails.


Best Dialogue:

Ooof. Real “Thinnest Kid at Fat Camp” contest here. I do like “What kind of man crawls into his own grave in search of hope?” from Dracula Untold. 

I, Frankenstein’s best line is “You’re only a monster if you behave like one” because it rises to the giddy heights of not being actively awful.

Winner: Bats.

FINAL SCORE: Bats 5, Bolts 1

NEXT UPDATE: 08 October 2020

NEXT TIME: Next month sees the triumphant return of Shortstember!

*Checks calendar*

Next month sees the triumphant launch of the very first ShortsTOBER!

To celebrate my first month as a full time writer, I’ve dedicating the whole month to mini-reviews of one of my favourite animated series of all time.

Over the Garden Wall - streaming tv series online

Bats Versus Bolts: The Silent Era

Okay, paws in the air, I kinda goofed with this one.

My whole concept (nay, vision!) for Bats versus Bolts is taking a Frankenstein movie and a Dracula movie that are contemporaneous and comparing them side to side to see whatever random insights on movie-making or film history or social trends or whatever crap shakes loose basically. The point is, they’re supposed to be films from the same era. Frankenstein and Dracula  were both released in 1931. Curse of Frankenstein and Horror of Dracula were a year apart. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein followed two years after Bram Stoker’s Dracula

Conversely, while the better known of today’s movies, Nosferatu, came out in 1922, our representative for Team Bolts was released a full dozen years previously. Frankenstein was released in 1910, and the more I’ve come to work on this post the more I’ve realised that comparing these two movies is kind of farcical. Firstly, while both movies do belong to “the silent era”, that’s a definition so broad as to be almost useless. The silent era lasted over forty years, and went through multiple evolutions and revolutions in style, technology and presentation. Secondly, while all of the other matchups in this series were made in the same country (America, the UK and America again), here we’re comparing a very primitive silent American short from 1910 and one of the greatest examples of German expressionism in all of film from over a decade later. Is that in any way a fair or meaningful comparison to make?

Is it bollocks. But here we are.

Anyway, let’s talk about the amoral scientist and the bloodsucking monster. Let’s talk about Thomas Edison.

Top 11 Things You Didn't Know About Nikola Tesla | Department of Energy

“Ha! Good one!”

“Nikola Tesla? I thought you were dead!”

“Oh you are adorable.”

I have way too many immortal, dark haired, mustachioed men in my life. Far too many.

Anyway, age before beauty, so let’s talk about Frankenstein first. The movie was the product of Edison Studios, who produced and screened the first commercial motion pictures in the United States using the kinetoscope, drooling neanderthal ancestor of the modern movie projector which Edison may even have invented because fuck it, anything’s possible in this crazy world of ours. Now, although Edison’s name is all over this movie he actually had next to nothing to do with its creation (I know, shocking). Being on the ground floor of the new medium, the Edison company could claim many firsts such as the first romance, the first boxing film and the first Western filmed in America The Great Train Robbery (hilariously, the very first Western, Kidnapped by Indians, was filmed in Lancashire four years previously). While they may have done it first, Edison rarely did it best and the studio’s output is not very highly regarded amongst silent era fans, although more recent re-discoveries have helped rehabilitate their reputation somewhat.

Rather charmingly, Frankenstein was a movie that was thought dead and then brought back to life. The film was thought irretrievably lost like around 75% of all silent films made in America, due to being filmed on nitrate which had the durability and flammability of a rummy’s fart. Thankfully, a copy of the film was discovered in the seventies, somewhat the worse for wear but still viewable. And by viewable, I mean “you can watch it right now” as it’s only 12 minutes long and the copyright on it has expired and it’s not like Thomas Edison is going to rise from the grave demanding it be taken down from YouTube.


“Oh no. He’s definitely dead. Heh heh heh.”

“Not gonna ask.”

Anyway, enough talking about the production of Frankenstein because we need to talk about the production of Nosferatu like right now. One of the greatest horror films of all time. Terrifying even to this day. What kind of production company could create such a thing?

If told you that it was a production company created by a mysterious German occultist to produce supernatural themed films which then folded suddenly after creating this one, terrifying masterpiece would you, as I did, punch the air and say “Oh fuck yes“? Because that’s what we’ve got here, people. That’s what happened. Fuck yes.

Now, granted, the reason why occultist Albin Grau’s Prana Films folded does not include mysterious drained corpses showing up every which way, and more’s the pity. It actually had to do with Bram Stoker’s widow suing his Teutonic testes for filming an unauthorised version of her husband’s novel.

Do not come between an Irishwoman and her royalties. She will cut you down.

Anyway, despite the film-makers hunnish perfidy, what they created still stands almost a century later as the greatest vampire film of all time. And yes, it’s also public domain so you can watch that too.

The adaptations

Frankenstein really is a film from a time before anyone knew what the fuck they were doing in terms of pacing and staging.

Scene 1: Frankenstein goes to college and says goodbye to his fiancée and father.

Scene 2: Frankenstein discovers the secret to LIFE ITSELF.

And, from a modern understanding of cinematic language, both of these scenes are treated with equal importance. The story is extremely faithful to Shelley’s novel with a few minor changes like the monster no longer being created from body parts, the monster no longer pursuing Frankenstein across Europe, the monster now being a manifestation of Frankenstein’s dirty thoughts who vanishes once Frankenstein’s love for his bride reaches “full strength and freedom from impurity” like some kind of isotope, the monster apparently being jealously in love (?) with Frankenstein and the story ending with the monster vanishing and Frankenstein happily married. But other than that, y’know. Pretty much a page for page retelling.

Alright, it’s easy to scoff, but remember. This was a time when people couldn’t see a train coming towards them onscreen without running screaming from the theatre. A jig-sawed together shambling corpse man might have led to a fatal epidemic of the vapours.

In Germany in the 1920s, of course, they were made of sterner stuff. Young German lawyer Jonathan Harker Thomas Hutter travels to Transylvania at the behest of his employer Mister Renfield Herr Knock to sell a house to the mysterious Count Dracula Orlock. Upon suspecting that his host is a vampire and a threat to English virtue pure Aryan womanhood*, he escapes the castle and returns home to save his wife Mina Ellen from Draculock with the help of Abraham Van Helsing Professor Bulwer.

“See ALL you motherfuckers in court.”


The Monsters

Edison Studios specifically set out to make a tamer, uncontroversial version of Mary Shelley’s story, which is why, instead of sewing his monster together out of cadavers, this Frankenstein makes his monster like he’s microwaving some popcorn or something. This scene, incidentally, was described by Edison’s own publicity as “the most weird, mystifying and fascinating scene ever shown on a film” which is probably true considering that the medium was so young that people would pay to watch a dude sneezing. But fair is fair, the creation scene where the monsters flesh slowly forms on a dancing skeleton is genuinely creepy. Actually, the silent era may have been a perfect time for horror films. The jerky unreality of the motion, the complete absence of any human voice, it all combines to give the queasy sense of watching a nightmare unfold.

As I mentioned, the monster (played by Charles Stanton Ogle) is not a reanimated assemblage of dead body parts, but a manifestation (I guess) of the evil in Frankenstein’s soul that he has to purge, adding in a bit of Jekyll and Hyde to the story. It’s not a great film, but it’s honestly a pretty great monster.

But. Y’know. Let’s not kid ourselves.

Count Orlok GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

He may not be the most layered Dracula. He may not be the most compelling Dracula. He may not be the most faithful Dracula. He may not, strictly speaking, be a Dracula.

He is by far the most terrifying Dracula.

Nearly a century later, no director, no actor, no special effects maestro has come close to creating the pure, skin-crawling wrongness of Max Schreck’s Orlock. If Lugosi’s Dracula is still the default for this character in the collective consciousness, it’s because Lugosi is safe. Cuddly, goofy, easily imitated. Schreck, I think, never had the permanent residence in all our minds that Lugosi does because we fundamentally do not want him there.


The Scientists

Augustus Phillips’ performance as Victor Frankenstein is…well, it’s a silent movie performance from 1910. Big expressions, big gestures, not exactly bringing forth the subtle and nuanced layers of the character, you feel me? This is definitely the most innocent Frankenstein we’ve seen so far. For all that the film makes his inner evil the source of the monster, we see absolutely nothing of that in his interactions with the other characters. He seems driven a by a pure, childlike urge to discover. He doesn’t even engage in grave robbing! Frankly, I don’t see this Frankenstein fitting in very well with the rest of the gang.


“He hasn’t said anything in FIVE HOURS!”

“Possibly a mute. A vivisection of his throat might yield the answers we seek.”

“Oh! We could replace his tongue with an eel! And then use amniotic fluid…”

“And who, pray tell, let you out of your box?”

Our Van Helsing analogue, Bulwer, doesn’t really do much besides hanging outside Ellen’s bedroom looking worried so we’re going to give Team Bolts the win here just to prevent this from being a total blow-out.


The Dashing Young Men

Okay. Straight face. So.


Sorry, sorry. Serious now. So. Thomas Hutter is played by GUSTAV VON WANGENHEIM.

That was his name and it is perfect.

“Why is this funny, please?”

“Oh nothing, nothing you gorgeous teutonic slab, you.”

Anyway, Nosferatu skillfully avoids the Too Many Dudes problem by just…not having the extra dudes. I mean c’mon. It’s 1922.

“You expect Quincey Morris? In this economy?!”

Hutter is basically German Johnathan Harker, and so is more efficient and hard working and is basically a more traditional hero than most Harkers in that he retains the main narrative focus for most of the film. Like most silent movie stars Wangenheim seems to have got the job for his ability to look VERY HAPPY or VERY SCARED as the scene requires but hey, that was what the medium needed.

Frankenstein doesn’t really have a male lead outside of Frankenstein himself, so Bats gets this by default.

Winner: Bats

The Perpetually Imperilled Ladies

I wish there was more I could say about Mary Fuller’s Elizabeth Frankenstein but…it’s kind hard to judge this performance because a) she’s hardly in it b) the picture quality is terrible and c) every scene she’s in is just terribly, terribly framed.

“What a perfectly staged shot” said someone in 1910.

I went down a bit of a wiki wormhole with Mary Fuller, honestly, and this film really doesn’t do her justice.


She was one of the biggest movie stars in the world for a few years in the late teens as well as being a successful screenwriter. But after a few flops she suddenly became persona non grata in Hollywood. She tried to re-start her career in the twenties to no avail and suffered a nervous breakdown after the death of her mother and spent the last 26 years of her life in a mental institution. It’s heartbreaking.

In Nosferatu, Greta Schroder plays Ellen, our Mina who is quite a fascinating character, honestly. On the one hand she is portrayed as a demure, wilting virgin who doesn’t even like to see flowers killed. But by the end, she’s actually one of the more pro-active and heroic Minas. Entirely on her own bat (heh) she researches vampires and then sacrifices her own life to lure Orlock so that he can be destroyed by the dawn’s sunlight (an invention of Murnau, vampires had never been depicted as being harmed by daylight prior to this). Couple that with quite a lot of screentime, and you could argue she’s actually the movie’s principal hero.

No vampire ladies unfortunately because it was the twenties and feeding on the blood of the living was considered unladylike.

Winner: BATS

Are either of these movies actually, y’know, scary?

Frankenstein is a little creepy which is far more than I expected from a 110 year old film.

But Nosferatu…shit. Did you hear that? Sounds like someone’s coming up the stairs…

Winner: BATS

Best Dialogue:

Real close contest here. I do love the line “……………” from Frankenstein but Nosferatu has the absolutely iconic “……………..” (even though it’s been ruined by being quoted so often).


FINAL SCORE: Bats 5,Bolts 1

NEXT UPDATE: September 24th 2020

NEXT TIME: Bats versus Bolts month continues and it’s time for us to jump to the other end of movie history. It’s the 2010s. Which means it’s time for sexy superhero monsters who FUCK.

* Okay, because nothing originating in Weimar Germany can be discussed without bringing the fucking Nazis into it let’s get this out of the way. The movie has been accused of perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes with Orlock and Herr Knock. It’s not entirely invalid reading but honestly I think it’s people reading things into the movie with the benefit of hindsight rather than anything consciously placed there by the film-makers. Murnau emigrated to the States long before the Nazis came to power and as a gay man who worked with many Jewish collaborators, I doubt he was a fan.

Bats versus Bolts: The Nineties

This review was requested by patron Mathom. If you’d like me to review a movie, please consider supporting my Patreon.

Here’s a recommendation for you if you like vampire stories (and, since you’re reading this post I’m going to assume that you’re at least on cordial terms with them): Kim Newman’s Anno Dracula series. The first novel is set in an alternate universe where Dracula succeeded in bringing vampirism to Britain, married Queen Victoria and has become the Prince Consort. The rest of the books detail the history of this alternate Earth where vampires are everywhere with virtually every literary and historical character that Newman could think of nodding their head in at some point or other.

The fourth book in the series, Johnny Alucard, begins in the 1970s where Francis Ford Coppola is in Romania filming a biography of Dracula, who is dead by this point (or is he? Ooooooooooooooh). The whole joke is that the filming of this version of Coppola’s Dracula ends up mirroring the legendary clusterbollocks that was the shooting of Apocalypse Now, complete with storms, the military extras being called away to fight battles, Martin Sheen (Harker) almost dying during a scene and Brando (Dracula) being…well, Brando.

Seriously, somewhere there’s an alternate universe where the dominant life on Earth is sentient gazebos and in that universe Marlon Brando is still an asshole.

The filming of our universe’s Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula’s Spooky Fun Time Emporium wasn’t nearly as hellish as all that, but it did arise from another legendarily troubled production; Godfather 3. Winona Ryder had been cast by Coppola to play Mary Corleone, but dropped out, leading to Coppola having to cast his daughter Sofia in the role. Ryder was worried that Coppola resented her for that (like the rest of the human race) so she brought him a script for Dracula that she had found as a peace offering. Coppola had been a fan of the book since he was a teenager and was taken with James V. Hart’s screenplay (I don’t know that the “V” stands for vampire, but I also don’t know that it doesn’t stand for that). Filming began in…



“What about me?”

“What ABOUT you?”

Sorry Team Bolts, if it seems like your movie is kind of an afterthought this time around, it’s because your movie is kind of an afterthought this time around. Whereas Dracula was one of the ten highest grossing movies of 1992 worldwide and a veritable icon of nineties cinema, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein…well be honest. You’d forgotten it existed, hadn’t ya? If this bout was decided on pop culture legacy alone, Bats would take it in a walk. But is that really fair? Did Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein really deserve to be forgotton? Did Bram Stoker’s Dracula really deserve to be acclaimed? Did you know that they actually had the stones to release a novelisation of the movie and call it “Bram Stoker’s Dracula by Fred Saberhagen”? All these questions, and more, shall be answered!


Bats versus Bolts: Universal Horror

This review was requested by patron Mathom. If you’d like me to review a movie, please consider supporting my Patreon.

New Year, New Mouse, New Regular Feature!

This is Bats versus Bolts!

Someone ask me what Bats versus Bolts is.

“Sigh. What’s Bats versus…”

Glad you asked! Dracula and Frankenstein are two of the most famous and frequently adapted stories of all time. Hell, Dracula alone has been adapted…hang on let me just Google that…

Uh. No, Google. I’m pretty sure that’s not right.

Anyway, in every decade there are Dracula movies and Frankenstein movies that reflect the culture, trends and social forces that created them and I thought it would be cool to take two from each decade and pit them against each other in a no holds barred monster mash. So let’s start with the two most iconic versions, Universal’s Dracula and Frankenstein from the nineteen thirties.