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.
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.