Dracula

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.

If someone was interested in checking out the work of Dario Argento and they started with Dracula 3D, they probably would never come back to check out the rest of his filmography. I'm no Argento expert. However, I have seen Suspiria and Phenomena and think both are absolutely excellent. I especially love Phenomena. Argento is a master at making his films pop with colors and lights. His brand of horror also portrays beautiful cinematography amidst gruesome scenes. The BLOOD usually looks excellent. Naturally, I wanted to check Dracula 3D out. It just seemed like a good cheesefest; a film that looked like it would be "so bad that its actually good." I'm quite disappointed to say that I was wrong. This film is not very fun at all. I like the way the film looks. The images and scenes look crystal clear, colorful, and lively. Its all that I would expect from Argento, very indicative of his craft. From there I really struggle to find any other positives. Okay maybe one more, there are beautiful girls on display. This had the feel of a B rate film that offers a few scenes of erotic nature and this did not disappoint in that department. Okay, now I'm certain that that is where the positives of the film ends.

The effects good lord, they look like something you would see in a SyFy channel movie, maybe even worse. I don't know if its from the 3d conversion but it looks like the worst type of B movie effects. Normally I wouldn't mind that, but it was distractedly bad. Just pay attention to the scenes where a vampire turns into dust, it looks ridiculous. The dialogue and general acting is the next thing here. it goes from over the top and hammy to uninterested characters just reading lines. All kinds of scenery chewing present from the actors (most of who I have not heard of apart from Asia Argento).

The above negatives may sound good to someone who would think "this movie sounds like its bad but in a way where you can find cheesy enjoyment out of it." That is not true. The plot is another retelling of the story of Dracula, which is fine because Bram Stoker's Dracula is a great story and I welcome different interpretations of the tale. This variation is mind-numbing and incredibly dull. You get no enjoyment in what happens and just pray for the end of the torture. I need to see more of Argento's later work to make a full assessment but its likely the magic of his earlier films is completely gone. I don't think I'll even bother with the later work and check out the stuff from his glory days because I'm sure its exceptional.

4/10

Dario Argento's retelling of the Bram Stoker classic has Count Dracula as a mature count who grows younger whenever he dines on the blood of gorgeous maidens . Bram Stoker's ¨Dracula" 3D turns out to be an entertaining picture directed by Dario Argento with a good cast , brilliant cinematography and atmospheric soundtrack . As this last version ¨Dracula¨ 3D (2012) by Dario Argento with Rutger Hauer as Abraham Van Helsing , Asia Argento as Lucy , Unax Ugalde as Johnathan Harker and Thomas Kretschmann as Dracula . The tale begins with Jonathan Harker (Unax Ugalde) , he goes to an eerie castle in the fogs of eastern Europe . Harker is journeying by train and carriage from England to Count Dracula's far castle situated in the Carpathian Mountains on the frontier of Transylvania . The purpose of his assignment is to catalogue the wide library of Dracula (Thomas Kretschmann). At first enticed by Dracula's gracious manner , Harker soon discovers that he has become a prisoner in the crumbling castle . One night while searching for an exit of the castle , and against Dracula's strict admonition not to venture outside his room at night , Harker falls under the spell of his bloodsucker girlfriends . Harker is captured and imprisoned by a strange vampire who is accompanied by wanton female vampires (Miriam Giovanelli) , the Brides of Dracula . At the ending Dracula to face off Van Helsing (Rutger Hauer is Van Helsing in this, he previously played Dracula in Dracula III: Legacy). Meanwhile , Mina (Marta Gastini) looks for his lover Jonathan Harker .

Italian/Spanish co-production about known characters , Dracula and his nemesis Van Helsing . This thrilling as well as terrifying film contains horrifying scenes , chills , lots of gore and a liquid similar to red tomato was used for the blood along with a lot of C.G. effects . This recounting of Dracula is freely based on Bram Stoker's 1897 classic novel of the same title and one of the biggest differences with Bram Stoker's original novel is that this version's plot takes place entirely in Transylvania , as Stoker's work moves the action to England . This isn't a faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula novel , the film ultimately made numerous significant changes to the story .

Passable version about the famous personage with an European all-star cast , colorful cinematography by Luciano Tovoli , holding a photography similarly to Hammer Films , glamorous gowns and regular production design , including evocative sights from villages , woods and remote castle from Candelo , Biella , Piedmont, Italy . Thomas Kretchsmann , who plays an acceptable Dracula, and the Dutch Rutger Hauer , who plays stunningly Dr. Van Helsing , being the first time Van Helsing , a Dutchman in the novel, has actually been played by someone from the Netherlands . Well produced and written by Enrique Cerezo , a nice producer who financed several successes such as ¨Juana La Loca¨ , ¨The long kill¨, "The Final Inquiry" , ¨Witching & Bitching" , among others . Being a Spanish/Italian production , here appears some Spanish actors such as Unax Ugalde as Harker and the Spanish/Italian busty girl Miriam Giovanelli who is in charge of the nude scenes along with Asia Argento . Special mention to rousing and powerful musical score composed and conducted by Claudio Simonetti , ex-Globin, and he formerly composed a lot of Argento classic films . The motion picture was regularly directed by Dario Argento , being the first time Dario Argento has worked in 3D . Considered the Godfather of Giallo, Argento has been the creative force behind numerous influential Italian films including : The Bird with the Crystal Plumage , Suspiria , Inferno , Tenebre , Deep Red , Phenomena , and Opera , among others . Rating : 5,5/10 ; acceptable and passable , though middlingly realized .

Other films retelling the known legend based as originally conceived on this Bram Stoker novel are the followings : ¨ Dracula¨ (1974) by Dan Curtis with Jack Palance , Simon Ward , Nigel Davenport , ¨Bram's Stoker Dracula¨ with David Suchet as Abraham Van Helsing , Marc Warren as Count Dracula and Sophia Myles as Lucy ; of course , splendid versions from Hammer Production mostly starred by Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing ; and Jesus Franco retelling titled ¨Count Dracula¨ with Christopher Lee , Herbert Lom , Soledad Miranda , Klaus Kinski ; the best results to be ¨Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula¨ with Gary Oldman , Winona Ryder , Gary Elwes , Keanu Reeves and Anthony Hopkins .

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.

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.