Dracula 3D

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.

I am a huge fan of Gothic horror and Dracula films in particular. I am especially fond of the Hammer films with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. I also like the Bela Legosi ones, as well as big budget Hollywood epics by directors Francis Ford Coppla and John Badam. Hell, I even found Dracula 2000 to be somewhat enjoyable. So it is a huge disappointment to me that the legendary Dario Argento dropped the ball on this production. It seems Mr. Argento, who should know better forgot how to make a film. This flick is poorly edited, looks like crap and is put together haphazardly. Words truly cannot express how bad and fake the digital f/x look in this film. By far THE WORST CGI I have ever seen! The storytelling is inept, made worst with terrible editing. The cast lacks direction and chemistry, which makes it harder not only to view a cohesive film, but care about the characters outcome. Thomas Kretschman lacked intensity and screen presence to make a good Dracula. Casting Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing was one of the things Argento did do right. However, his screen time is limited and was'nt given enough time to develop his character. There is blood (mostly CG) and the lovely ladies of Dracula 3D show us their breasts and backsides.(including Dario's own daughter, the ever so attractive Asia Argento) The erotic elements will receive no complaint from me, but do not make up for such a bad film. Argento's Dracula is 110 minutes long and I would have found that time better spent rearranging my sock drawer.

Miriam Giovanelli, a true peach.

Apart from her nudity n beautiful face ther is nothing redeeming about this cheap take on the Dracula story.

I find Asia Argento attractive n she too goes topless but her juggs ain't good. Haven't seen her Scarlet Diva where she is nude in almost all scenes, some folks say that.

We also have the beautiful Marta Gastini whose nude scenes along with Lio Tipton were amazeballs in the movie Compulsion but in this movie she is completely dressed.

Almost everyone here on IMDb had already discussed about Dracula changing into a grasshopper which was kinda dope.

Looks like Dario Argento was totally under the influence of Datura. Otherwise what kinda dad shoots her daughter in nude scenes?

What kinda director transforms a Dracula into a grasshopper?

The last one I came across was Eli Roth shooting his wife nude n she getting banged by Keanu Reeves' character in Knock Knock. Truly insane fellas.

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