Renfield is a suprisingly fantastic and entertaining action flick

We've seen many iterations of Bram Stoker's iconic vampiric count and his murderous associate in films, TV, books and comics over the years. However, Robert Montague Renfield has been a very undermined character in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, he's a very memorable and, dare I say, iconic part of the original novel and it's many film adaptations. However, he's mostly just depicted as a homicidal bug-eating loone, which, to be fiar, is the way he's depicted in the original novel, but for a good long while I wished for a piece of media that would explore his character a bit more. Fortunately, my wish came true in the form of one of my favorite films of the year (so far): Ryan Ridley and Chris McKay's horror action comedy Renfield.

Before we start, I'd like to tell you some backstory because it's surprisingly interesting (atleast to monster movie fans like myself).

In 2008 Paramount pictures released Iron Man, which greenlit the start of the corporate juggernaut that is the MCU and sparked dozens of imitating attempts at cinematic universes. Most failed (like Sony's universe based on Spiderman characters), some have had a decent amount of success (like Legendary Pictures' Monsterverse).

Universal (the studio that gave birth to cinematic universes with their iconic Universal monsters franchise) decided to dip their toes in the market again, first attempting in 2004 with the monster mashup Van Helsing and it's animated prequel Van Helsing: The London Assignment. However, as both of those hadn't brought in the particularly large profits and didn't recieve the rave reviews the studio was hoping for (even though, I can say that I really enjoyed both), the monster centered cinematic universe project had to be shelved. The project would be given another go, with 2014's Dracula: Untold, which, despite being generally liked by audiences (including myself), recieved mixed reviews from critics and, again, despite making back it's budget, didn't bring in the exact numbers the studio had hoped and doomed the project back on the shelf (despite an idea for a sequel being proposed), almost being pushed into obscurity.

Some even consider the Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins led 2010 remake of The Wolfman to be an attempt at a cinematic universe installment, however, personally I don't count it as it feels very much tonally different to the other two I mentioned due to certainly gearing towards the period horror route rather than supernatural action of the other two.

In 2017 Alex Kurtzman (yes the same guy who worked on shows like Scorpion, Sleepy Hollow and Fringe) directed The Mummy, a very loose reboot of the franchise started by the 1932 classic starring Boris Karloff (who was most iconic for his performance as the Frankenstein's monster in that character's subsequent Universal franchise), which was in an of itself previously remade by Stephen Sommers' 90s action adventure of the same name (which has, oddly enough, gained a far more iconic pop-culture status and nostalgic significance than the original for many). Kurtzman's take on the monster has recieved a decent amount of criticism due to not going into the promised horror (despite containing some very mild horror elements that were never properly expanded upon) as well as seeming to be more interested in setting up a cinematic universe of gods and monsters, rather than trying to tell a self contained narrative that would plant suptle seeds for future arcs and storylines (a similar issue can be seen in Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2). Due to this poor critical and audience reception the movie was quickly pulled from theatres and the announced Dark Universe was completely scrapped (with the next planned film being a re-adaptation of The Invisible Man starring Johnny Depp as the title character and slated for a March 2018 release).

I agree with all of the criticisms regarding the film and wouldn't really care all too much for the franchise if they did indeed go further in the planned direction, however, I'm fond of virtually anything featuring monster hunters (and given that the main interconnective crux is the monster hunting organisation Prodigium) so I feel like my enjoyment of it as a campy dumb switch your brain off action movie isn't all that unapologetic. Screw it, I even bought the DVD of the damn thing.

So what became of the Dark Universe you may ask?

Well, it didn't fully stop existing...

It didn't continue, but it lived on in a way. It's tough to explain, alright?

So, despite the plans for Johnny Depp's Invisible Man being dead in the water, Universal still decided to give the story another modernized take and in 2020 we got a fresh and disturbing take on the story which managed to stand on it's own ground despite there being numerous takes on the source material, not to mention tackling some very important themes such as relationship abuse, stalking, paranoia, agorophobia etc. It still remains my absolute favorite film of that year.

Coincidentally this one would be one of the last movies I saw before theatres shut down due to COVID (well along with Birds of prey, but hey, it still counts alright).

The ending of the film also teases a sequel in form of a possible remake of The Invisible Woman, one of Universal's earliest female led monster films.

In the end, this prompted Universal to experiment more with their monster owned properties, leading them to, once again, go back to the foreboding count which (along with Karloff's Frankenstein's monster) popularized the brand and made it an iconic part of pop culture. I'm of course talking about count Dracula, who (along with being the main antagonist of Renfield) will also star in the upcoming The last voyage of Demeter which I'm also very excited about given that it deals with my favorite part of the original novel. Universal also teased us with yet another Wolfman remake with Ryan Gosling as the lead. Overall, the cancellation of the franchise turned out to not only be profitable and succesful, but also a very positive deal for Universal overall.

But what's the story of today's article's main topic you may ask? (just kidding, I know you're not).

Well, back when the franchise was still planned, Robert Kirkman (the author and creator of horror comics The Walking Dead and Outcast) was asked to pitch an idea for one of the potential films, and he came up with an idea for a horror/comedy/thriller about Dracula's assitent Renfield trying to adapt in living between the human world as well as the world of monsters and the people who hunt them. All in all sounds like a fairly decent idea and something I would have been fond of seeing.

However, the final product turned out to be quite good on it's own and still payed hommage to some ideas presented in Kirkman's concept, despite being very much different in terms of story.

But, enough blabbering, let's get into the meat and potatoes of what I liked about the actual flick.

(1) The Set-Up and References

Bram Stoker's Dracula is one of my favorite novels of all time. It's a book that, whilst not being the first vampire novel, certainly redefined the genre and turned the creatures of the night into the icons of various branches of pop-culture today. Not to mention that it's arguably the most adapted vampire story out there with hundreds of films, several stage shows, numerous re-editions of the original book, a couple of radio plays, two TV shows and dozens of comics, not to mention the guest appearences the character made in various forms of media, from the slick and scary gentleman on Showtime's Penny Dreadful to the comedic wacko of Hotel Transylvannia. However, very few incarnations manage to stand the test of time and remain as iconic and influential on other portrayals of the character as the 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi as the titular vampiric count and Dwight Frye as Renfield (which also just so happens to be the first major success in the history of the Universal monsters franchise) which was in an of itself adapted from a stage show version of the original book. A little fun piece of behind the scenes trivia: Bela Lugosi was considered to be quite the sex symbol of his era after the stage show premiered, sort off like the Idris Elba or Leonardo DiCaprio of his day. Take that as you will.

Now, this film could have easily been standalone flick (and it is for the most part), however, I do appreciate that it is a canonical modern day sequel to Browning's masterpiece, even going so far as to actually have the leads deepfaked into the iconic I am... Dracula scene from the original in a flashback sequence at the very beggining. It feels like Universal is embracing it's roots once again which goes to show that they do seem to have a raised level of integrity after the afframentioned flop that The Mummy was.

This isn't the only nod to Dracula's previous incarnations, however, as many eagle eyed (or should I say eagle-eared haha) viewers will notice that the surname of one of our two leads is Quincey, which could be a very likely nod to Quincey Harker, the son of Jonathan Harker and Wilhelmina "Mina" Murray who are the main vocal points of both the original novel and all of it's adaptations. Sidenote: Quincy did recive a spin off book series of his own called Quincey Harker: Demon hunter by John Hartness, which is a great entry into the Dracula fanon and if you're a fan of the original book, you should certainly give these little gold nuggets a read.

Then again, her last name could also be a reference to Quincey Morris, the American gunfighter, suitor of Mina's friend Lucy Westenra and one of the leads of the original novel, after whom the afframentioned Harker boy is named after.

The movie also features some fun easter eggs and nods to other vampire properties. Renfield is called Dracula's familiar, which could be a reference to Taika Waititi's horror comedy short What we do in the shadows: interviews with some vampires (2014) as well as it's spin off television series of the same name which premiered in 2019. Whilst familiars in European folklore are a completely different thing (demons sent from Hell to assist magic users), the depiction of this position in the mythologies of both Renfield and WWDITS is pretty much identical (a human serving a vampire's bidding and wishing to become a vampire himself one day). Another sneaky reference I caught was the setting of New Orleans, a city notable for it's association with vampires, particularly due to Anne Rice's book series The Vampire Chronicles, especially the first book (Interview with the vampire) which was adapted damn near perfectly with the 1994 Tom Cruise movie and the recent AMC+ tv series (which I haven't seen, but hope to check out some day).

(2) The Amazing Casting

So the casting of this movie got quite a lot of buzz whilst in preproduction, but not because of it's title lead, but because of the casting of the main antagonist, which is Nicholas Cage as Vlad Dracula Tepesh, prince of Vallachia and resident vampire count for the evening.

Now you either love or hate Nick Cage, there's literally no in between. Personally, I'm in the love him camp. Yes, he's made some real stinkers in the past (like Jiu Jitsu, Mom and dad, Between worlds, The Wicker Man remake and the Ghost rider films), but he's delivered some brilliant roles as well (Color out of space, Mandy, Lord of war and Con-Air just to name a few). I also enjoyed some of his more divisive films like the National treasure duology, the live-action remake of Sorcerer's apprentice and the ever dividing Vampire's kiss (which everyone was mentioned around the time of this movie's production for obvious reasons).

Personally, I believe Cage usually does a great job at all of his roles, and his deliciously goofy and over the top nature do make even the most mediocre or unwatchable flick geniuenly fun and enjoyable on many levels. This one is no exception.

This is probably the most charismatic, fun, menacing and deliciously odd villain role I've seen in any film to come out of this decade so far (there might be some others that will beat it, but I sincerely doub't that anyways). His transformation from a smooth talking manipulator desiring on taking over the world to a violent and depraved monster desiring nothing but the crimson flow of blood. I'm also really glad that they used a lot of makeup and practical effects on the character because, as I mentioned before, I've been experiancing CGI fatigue. Plus, they just look so much more realistic and tangiable then CGI. He isn't my favorite Dracula, but one of the better ones I'm sure.

The second role I wish to highlight is Nicholas Hoult as Robert Montague Renfield.

I was very much familiar with Hoult from before. He starred as the lead in the romantic biopic Tolkien (which I consider to be my favorite film of 2019), as well as The Beast in the X-Men prequels, the legendary English folk hero in the flawed but enjoyable Jack the giant slayer, Tesla in yet another fantastic period piece The Current War and in my favorite flick of 2021, Taylor Sherridan's thriller Those who wish me dead. He isn't one of my favorite actors, but he's certainly a good draw in. I believe he did a great job as Renfield due to being one thing. Unique.

Most Renfields are your typical crazed wackos who enjoy committing vehicular manslaughter and muching on insects. And that's not a bad thing, far from it, they delievered some iconic and notable performances in cinema history by doing exactly that. And I don't mind films where the lead is an insane psyhchopath, with films such as American psycho (2000), Behind the mask: the rise of Leslie Vernoon (2006) and Henry: Portrait of a serial killer (1986) showing us that you can create incredibly layered narratives out of people who are usually simple bad guys in most stories. But, whilst in those films the leads are truly demented murderers and just plain evil, here our main vocal point is quite sympathetic and you geniuenly sympathize wiith him, wishing to give his pale skinny body a massive warm hug for everything he's been through. Holt manages to carry all that raw emotion really well and make a character you want to see suceed in his intentions. I'm really happy that's the case because this brings a lot more variety and opens up new doors in the Dracula adaptation domain.

I don't think the rest of the cast did THAT good of a job. Nora Lum's Quincey is... ok? She has her moments for sure, but she (along with her character) ends up coming off as pretty one note and nothing too special despite me desperately trying to enjoy her. Ben Shcwartz's crimelord Teddy Lobo didn't really do it for me. He tried coming off as both over the top and menacing and didn't juggle it very well, nor was he that intmidating to begin with.

Overall, the movie is very much elevated by the inclusion of Holt and Cage who manage to shine like the North stars over the rest of their costars.

(3) The Themes

My main issue with comedy as a genre, especially nowdays, is that it doesn't really feel the need to cover some more serious themes. Now granted, that's not what the genre was ever about, but it doesn't leave the viewers or readers with much supstance when there's no stakes or emotional backing to the story. Hence why, over the years, I started gravitating moreso towards comedy-dramas, black comedies and tragicomedies.

Renfield is a great example of the latter, providing smart satyre of the vampire genre (albeit it's not very original in it's satyre, but hey, that doesn't make it a bad thing) as well as serious and nuanced themes. Which are those you might be wondering?

Well, the main theme prevelent throught the runtime is relationship abuse and manipulation present within it. Yes, this is quite a heavy and deeply upsetting subject for many, but, as somebody who hasn't been in an abusive relationship (or any relationship for that matter haha) I don't think I'm too qualified to speak on how well it deals with those issues. However, according to people who have experianced this type of behaviour this movie portrays it suprisingly well and realistic, despite being about vampires and their superpowered assistants. And I applaude it for that. It would have been really insensitive and make the whole experiance feel a bit degrading for the victims who went to see it. I sincerely believe that all societal issues should be presented with a lot more accuracy in media and pop culture today, as they unwillingly do affect us and our perception of these topics wheater we want to admit it or not (althought I did enjoy Shyamalan's supernatural thriller Split despite that one giving a very inaccurate portrayal of DID).

Do I reccomend it?

If you're a fan of Dracula and other vampire stories and want to see a fresh and unique take on the genre, then by all means, please, go and see Renfield, it will surprise you for many reasons as much as it surprised me. It's a violent, crazy, bizzare, fun but deeply enjoyable ride that will enthice both the old fanboys and fangirls and surprise newcomers equally. I sincerely hope you'd enjoy it as much as I did.

Trailers: