Dario Argentos Dracula

Not so bad as expected this Dracula 3d. For sure the acting was rather wooden, the effects (specially the digital ones) looked cheap sometimes and the story was not mind blowing, but I very much liked the retro-look of this film. I had the opportunity to see this film on big screen, in 3D and I was kind of touched by its Hammerish-look. The photography, the use of colors, the set designs... it all reminded me of films that were made decades ago. Sweet memories. Might be a bit out of time for modern viewers, but if you can look through the bad acting and some cheesy effects, you actually find a film with a charming, nostalgically look.

Well, for a "Dracula" movie, then this particular movie was rather stale and uninspiring, if not actually and literally the worst "Dracula" movie or interpretation that I have had the misfortune to come across.

And that sort of surprises me coming from director Dario Argento, as he is usually well-known for his otherwise good horror and suspense movies. But with this 2012 "Dracula" movie, he really swung wide and missed even wider.

For a 3D movie, then "Dracula" was frightfully devoid of any proper 3D effects that worked out on a greater scale. And the movie had probably been better off without this half-hearted attempt of making it in 3D.

The story in the movie is fairly similar to the story that we all know, though Argento does take the liberty of adding stuff here and there, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The movie suffered from horrible dialogue that was for most parts of the movie delivered by people who didn't speak proper English, or sounded like they were synchronized in a very bad way. And whether or not it was Argento's goal and purpose to make this movie appear like it was filmed in the 1970's, then that is how the movie looked. So whether or not you enjoy this is a personal preference. I, however, was sort of baffled how a 2012 movie could suffer and fail on so many levels.

Not only did the movie suffer from the questionable dialogue, but the people in the movie weren't really putting on any memorable performances and most of them seemed like they were in a hurry to get it over with and move on to something else. The acting performances in this movie was awkward and bad. Sadly that is so, but it should be said. Not even Rutger Hauer (playing Abraham Van Helsing) or Asia Argento (playing Lucy) did anything to lift up the movie in any way. And Thomas Kretschmann (playing Dracula) was just so wrongly cast for this role; the way he portrayed his lines was even more strained and oddly-paused-at-the-wrong-times than Jeremy Iron's performances in "Dungeons & Dragons".

The movie made use of CGI as well, which for most parts worked out well enough. However, there was one particular scene that just had me cringing in disbelief that something could be so bad. The scene where Dracula transformed from wolf to man. It was just painful to behold.

Another thing that just had me shaking my head is utter disbelief and laughing was the scene where a giant mantis, taller than a human, came walking up the stairs. Now, why is there a giant mantis in the movie you might ask? Well, apparently Argento wanted Dracula to be able to assume the form of animal and insect alike, I suppose. It was just ridiculous.

There was also a handful of nudity in the movie, which was rather pointless and unnecessary. It didn't really serve the movie in any direction, and would have been better off if it hadn't made it to the final cut, or better yet, hadn't been on the storyboard to begin with.

It is not all bad though. The thing that the movie really had working for it in its favor was the costumes, props and scenery. There was a lot of nice scenes and settings throughout the movie, which I thoroughly enjoyed. And the costumes looked great and seemed proper for the time in which the story was supposed to take place.

If you enjoy vampire movies and have a taste for the "Dracula" myth, then stay well clear of this movie, because it is a shameful attempt at telling the tale. Dario Argento have a lot better movies credited to his name, and you might have to be a fantastic fan of his to actually find some enjoyment in this movie.

The Italian master of Giallo and horror is back, but how, in a ridiculous and cheesy Dracula flick. The story is loosely based on the actual Dracula story, all names involved are in this flick and the famous sentence, listen to them..., is also here but for the rest this hasn't anything to do with Dracula. In fact, Dario should have given this flick another name and people wouldn't had so many difficulties with this flick.

It's not really the story that makes it a bit stupid sometimes but it's the way Dracula is being shown. In the beginning he's an owl and further he transforms into flies and then in a mantis and I can go on and on.

But not only that, even as Sergio Stivaletti as special effects man is involved, who worked on Dario's classics by the way, it's there were things go wrong. A lot is CGI, even here and there some blood. That gave this flick a bitter feeling. There's only one gory moment involved and that's when Dracula is taking revenge. Here heads are flying around and throats are slashed in the old fashion way. If they had done all the bloodletting with the in-camera effects in stead of CGI this would have been much better.

Still, clocking in at almost 2 hours it delivers some good moments but most is boring and it is still worth watching wasn't it for the real 3D only. And I/ must say that it was the first time that I saw Asia Argento's (Lucy) juggs in 3D and it's worth seeing, of course there's more nudity to catch which is normal for an Italian horror.

A pointless return to the story of Dracula done by a master going totally wrong with his latest flicks (those anyone remembers Giallo (2009)). But if you like cheesy effects and a bit of gore and nudity then this is a must see, be sure to see it in 3D if you know what I mean.

Gore 1/5 Nudity 1,5/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

Dario Argento's recent work may not be as solid as his 70's and 80's stuff but he throws enough boobs and blood at the screen in "Dracula 3D" to keep you entertained. The film feels like a throwback to some of his 70's/early 80's output due to the dubbing and bad acting. The opening sex scene set in a barn feels like it was ripped from a classic 70's giallo. The CGI effects are pretty lame and seem cheap (like Playstation 1 cheap). But the practical effects (slashed throats,heads getting ripped off) all look solid.

Asia Argento gets nude and Miriam Giovanelli is sexy as the voluptuous Tanja. Seriously, Giovanelli has the best breasts I've seen in a horror film since the 80's. Rutger Hauer shows up an hour in and he does a solid job, albeit looking very haggard and bored. The film's biggest flaw is that it's too long. At an hour and fifty minutes, "Dracula 3D" could have used some editing to trim it down.

Overall, I'd say it's worth checking out if you're a fan of Argento or want to see a semi-fresh take on the Dracula lore.

I love about 3/4 of argentos films, they are surreal classics of the horror and gore genre, but when he messes a film up he really messes it up. This version of the Dracula story follows all the basics, Jon harper comes to draculas castle, he gets seduced by the resident sexy vampire then van helsing turns up and cleans up the vampire problem. alas its told with such flatness and lack of originality that its boring as hell. the cgi is woefully bad, the acting is even worse (except for rutger). and a giant preying mantis scene is full on laugh out loud funny. its lacking in style, pace and, other than 1 very gory scene, violence. the only thing argento has done that is worse than this is giallo. which should tell you all you need to know . your best bet is to hunt down the one gory scene and give the rest of the film a miss. sorry dario but i think its time to retire.