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.
81 Reviews
Atmospheric quality and resemblance to old Hammer films make this a must see!
Fromclassicbookstofilm2 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is not a faithful adaptation of Dracula and Dracula's Guest by Bram Stoker.Too many liberties taken with both stories.This adaptation has more in common with the Hammer Studio Dracula films.The actor playing Dracula is doing a better job on the new NBC miniseries Dracula as Van Helsing and that is not saying much since NBC has also taken too many liberties with the Stoker novel by adding in additional characters and subplots.Asia Argento is likable but lets face fact she is a little long in the tooth for the part of Lucy.Rutger Hauer's Van Helsing is a good portrayal.I didn't care for the staking of a child victim of Lucy's something that did not happen in the original novel.Dracula only has one bride in this version a peasant girl named Tanya whom he turned into a vampire in the guise of an owl instead of a bat.Dracula killing Lucy's father (she had a mother in the Stoker book) as a preying mantis.This version has Mina as the reincarnation of one of Dracula's royal wives a character from Dracula's Guest Countess Dolingen de Gratz.They never used reincarnation story lines in Dracula movies until 1973 when Dan Curtis had the Lucy character as an incarnation of Dracula's wife Maria and then you had Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 version Mina as an incarnation of Dracula's suicidal wife Elizabeta and now in the 2013 NBC you have Mina the incarnation of Dracula's murdered wife Ilona.Four things I appreciate about this version 1.I like the atmospheric quality it reminds me of the Hammer films I watched growing up.2.I appreciate that Dracula's Guest which was originally the lost chapter of Bram Stoker's Dracula has been incorporated into this version with some of it's characters.3. I appreciate that this version at least gives names of one of the brides of Dracula the brides names were never mentioned in the Stoker novel and actually in the historical Dracula only one of his wives was named because the names of his women his first wife a boyar's daughter and mistresses were lost to history.I hope that someone in the future can come up with a Dracula film that also could create some storyline for his wives.Like who were they to him (noble or royal wives or peasant girl mistresses).4.At least this version kept the Lucy,Jonathan,Mina,Van Helsing and Renfield characters.This film isn't the worse but it is far from the best! Best versions to see that follow the novel closely but not completely faithful the 1992 Gary Oldman ,1977 Louis Jourdan BBC version,the 1970 Christopher Lee version and to a lesser degree the 1973 Jack Palance version.If you want just good clean less faithful horror versions there is always the Hollywood Bela Lugosi 1931 and the 1958 Hammer films Christopher Lee version.
It's been overlooked that the relation between the characters is interesting
rasmushistoriker28 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The dubbing, the casting, the acting, the effects, the goofy score. It's worse than you think, even if your expectations were low to begin with.
But there is one element that's fairly interesting, that makes it a damn shame that the execution was so abysmal: A lot of the characters share more than a little history. In this version, Harker isn't a guest, but Draculas librarian. The Renfields character knows Draculas bride, Tanja, before she turns into a vampire. In turn, Tanja is set up as a real rival to Mina Harker later. Yes, Draculas bride does have a name and an agenda. And instead of unnamed gypsies, Dracula has a strongman working for him (as well as a pact with a few other citizens). Lucy is a piano teacher, and when she turns into a vampire and kidnaps a child, it's not just a child - but her own pupil. Going further, Dracula believes that Mina is his dead wife (it seems to be going into "The Mummy" territory here), and van Helsing knows Dracula from a previous encounter. Of course, most characters are killed off effortlessly in the last act. And that's where the movie disappoints the most: It sets out as a character-driven Dracula movie, and then it suddenly comes to an abrupt end.
But there is one element that's fairly interesting, that makes it a damn shame that the execution was so abysmal: A lot of the characters share more than a little history. In this version, Harker isn't a guest, but Draculas librarian. The Renfields character knows Draculas bride, Tanja, before she turns into a vampire. In turn, Tanja is set up as a real rival to Mina Harker later. Yes, Draculas bride does have a name and an agenda. And instead of unnamed gypsies, Dracula has a strongman working for him (as well as a pact with a few other citizens). Lucy is a piano teacher, and when she turns into a vampire and kidnaps a child, it's not just a child - but her own pupil. Going further, Dracula believes that Mina is his dead wife (it seems to be going into "The Mummy" territory here), and van Helsing knows Dracula from a previous encounter. Of course, most characters are killed off effortlessly in the last act. And that's where the movie disappoints the most: It sets out as a character-driven Dracula movie, and then it suddenly comes to an abrupt end.
If this is Dario Argento's vision of Dracula, it would have been better if he kept it to himself
dworldeater13 February 2014
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.
Abysmal
stu_miller1 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I had heard people say how bad this was but kept faith that there would be something about it that I liked.
Unfortunately, within the first 15 minutes, I knew I wasn't going to find that something.
It is probably up there with some of the worst films I have seen in my life and I am really sad to have to say this.
The characters are poor and the acting is excruciatingly bad. Especially the guy who plays the priest, Unax Ugalde and Asia Argento. Kretschman is the only thing that saved me from giving this film one star, and even he isn't that great which surprised me, as he is a fine actor.
The dubbing is hideous; soulless voices and ridiculously long and unnecessary pauses between dialogue. It's almost like they did it as an intentional joke. It's not funny. Then there's the CGI; the owl, the train station, Dracula shape-shifting from a wolf back into a vampire are all terrible and look like bad video game graphics.
Some of the other less ambitious CGI is OK, however. The preying mantis is just plain stupid. You'll be laughing and embarrassed at the same time.
I can't remember seeing a worse or more clumsily amateurish take on Bram Stoker's book and anyone who tries to pull similarities between this and any of Hammer's fine works are clearly wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This film bares no resemblance to any of Hammer's films. To say as such is a massive slur on Hammer's name.
Awful.
Unfortunately, within the first 15 minutes, I knew I wasn't going to find that something.
It is probably up there with some of the worst films I have seen in my life and I am really sad to have to say this.
The characters are poor and the acting is excruciatingly bad. Especially the guy who plays the priest, Unax Ugalde and Asia Argento. Kretschman is the only thing that saved me from giving this film one star, and even he isn't that great which surprised me, as he is a fine actor.
The dubbing is hideous; soulless voices and ridiculously long and unnecessary pauses between dialogue. It's almost like they did it as an intentional joke. It's not funny. Then there's the CGI; the owl, the train station, Dracula shape-shifting from a wolf back into a vampire are all terrible and look like bad video game graphics.
Some of the other less ambitious CGI is OK, however. The preying mantis is just plain stupid. You'll be laughing and embarrassed at the same time.
I can't remember seeing a worse or more clumsily amateurish take on Bram Stoker's book and anyone who tries to pull similarities between this and any of Hammer's fine works are clearly wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This film bares no resemblance to any of Hammer's films. To say as such is a massive slur on Hammer's name.
Awful.
Boobs, blood, cheesy FX, and Rutger Hauer...Awesome!
ManBehindTheMask6322 February 2014
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.
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.
"Dracula 3D"- Oh, boy...
TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness9 January 2017
I may not be the biggest fan of famed Italian horror director Dario Argento, but I definitely have nothing but the utmost respect for he and his contributions to the world of cinema. He's done some incredibly work and his style is the sort-of thing that movie-goers dream of and film students salivate over. So I loaded up his recent 3D adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" with a certain sense of intrigue. I saw an early concept trailer some time ago that looked woefully bad, but it was clearly unfinished, so I opted not to judge the film by its quality. I needed to see the entire completed film start-to-finish to be fair and balanced in my assessment.
...I should have just stuck with the trailer. It had all the camp and unintentional hilarity of the finished film, but none of the prolonged and shockingly boring padding.
"Dracula 3D" might just be one of the worst adaptations of the character I've ever seen thanks to the nonsensically and bizarrely awful production. While lead Thomas Kretschmann salvages what he can in a surprisingly decent performance, the film just implodes around him. Forget what you've heard about the incompetent craftsmanship, laughable visual effects and amateurish direction, because despite what you might suspect... it's far worse than what you might have imagined. Nothing will quite prepare you for just how poor this work is in virtually every conceivable sense.
The film predominately follows Mina Harker (Marta Gastini), as she travels to the village of Passo Borgo at the foot of the Carpathian Mountains sometime after her husband Jonathan (Unax Ugalde) was sent to meet Count Dracula for business. Soon enough, she encounters the vampire count (Thomas Kretschmann), who is entranced by her resemblance to his beloved Dolinger- who had died some centuries ago. And it soon becomes clear that he desires Mina for a dark and devious purpose. And so, Mina must team with famed vampire hunter Van Helsing (Rutger Haur) to try and stop the vile vampire lord...
The film is an absolute trainwreck. The quality of filmmaking is shocking, with very little effort put into basic facets of production like frame composition and flow, and a complete lack of post- production tweaking like color- timing or pacing. Most sequences are constructed with only the most basic of set-ups; poorly framed with one or two cameras simply set- down somewhere vaguely near the action on tripods with a complete lack of cinematic lighting or eye towards capturing the scene dynamically. It feels completely thrown together without interest. Completely apathetic. And outside of maybe mildly tinting scenes vaguely a dark blueish- green during the night or lazily brightening the image with a mild yellow "tinge" for daytime scenes, it seems no effort was put into trying to manipulate the cinematography. The editing is also inorganic and lacks any sense of real flow, lending to the film feeling bloated and boring despite being less than two hours long. There's plenty that could have been done to improve the speed at which scenes play out, but the lack of effort prevents this.
The effects? My god, the effects! This was a 2012 film, but it boasts digital trickery about on par with a 1992 TV-movie. I know not to expect "Avatar" quality digital trickery, but when an early green- screen sequence at a train-station actually boasts some of the same stock background elements I got for free online over five years ago, lazily patched together with no treatment to blend them realistically, you know the effects are gonna be something else... in all the wrong ways. Digital creatures all move with hilariously inorganic motion and shine like plastic. Green-screen sequences look cartoonish and completely unreal. And then there's the Mantis. If you've seen the trailer, you know what I'm talking about. It might be the worst digital effects sequence I've ever seen. It comes out of nowhere, lacks any set-up or pay-off and looks like something out of a children's cartoon. It might be the single most unintentionally hilarious thing ever committed to the screen.
Add to that flat performances from the bulk of the cast, forgettable music that fails to thrill or enthrall, atrocious cinematography and some of the most bland screen writing I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing, and you got yourself one of the most perplexing failures in recent cinematic memory. If it weren't for one or two decent roles performed by actors far too talented to be here, the unintentional humorous moments of camp that crop up here and there and gorgeous co-star Miriam Giovanelli's penchant to be nude for much of the run- time, it'd be unwatchable. Argento... you're a talented man. And you've made some phenomenal films. But crap like this won't do.
"Dracula 3D" barely scoots by with a 2 out of 10. If you want some laughs, maybe pop it on. But even then, they're few and far in- between, and the bulk of the film is just an incoherent, incompetent, boring mess.
...I should have just stuck with the trailer. It had all the camp and unintentional hilarity of the finished film, but none of the prolonged and shockingly boring padding.
"Dracula 3D" might just be one of the worst adaptations of the character I've ever seen thanks to the nonsensically and bizarrely awful production. While lead Thomas Kretschmann salvages what he can in a surprisingly decent performance, the film just implodes around him. Forget what you've heard about the incompetent craftsmanship, laughable visual effects and amateurish direction, because despite what you might suspect... it's far worse than what you might have imagined. Nothing will quite prepare you for just how poor this work is in virtually every conceivable sense.
The film predominately follows Mina Harker (Marta Gastini), as she travels to the village of Passo Borgo at the foot of the Carpathian Mountains sometime after her husband Jonathan (Unax Ugalde) was sent to meet Count Dracula for business. Soon enough, she encounters the vampire count (Thomas Kretschmann), who is entranced by her resemblance to his beloved Dolinger- who had died some centuries ago. And it soon becomes clear that he desires Mina for a dark and devious purpose. And so, Mina must team with famed vampire hunter Van Helsing (Rutger Haur) to try and stop the vile vampire lord...
The film is an absolute trainwreck. The quality of filmmaking is shocking, with very little effort put into basic facets of production like frame composition and flow, and a complete lack of post- production tweaking like color- timing or pacing. Most sequences are constructed with only the most basic of set-ups; poorly framed with one or two cameras simply set- down somewhere vaguely near the action on tripods with a complete lack of cinematic lighting or eye towards capturing the scene dynamically. It feels completely thrown together without interest. Completely apathetic. And outside of maybe mildly tinting scenes vaguely a dark blueish- green during the night or lazily brightening the image with a mild yellow "tinge" for daytime scenes, it seems no effort was put into trying to manipulate the cinematography. The editing is also inorganic and lacks any sense of real flow, lending to the film feeling bloated and boring despite being less than two hours long. There's plenty that could have been done to improve the speed at which scenes play out, but the lack of effort prevents this.
The effects? My god, the effects! This was a 2012 film, but it boasts digital trickery about on par with a 1992 TV-movie. I know not to expect "Avatar" quality digital trickery, but when an early green- screen sequence at a train-station actually boasts some of the same stock background elements I got for free online over five years ago, lazily patched together with no treatment to blend them realistically, you know the effects are gonna be something else... in all the wrong ways. Digital creatures all move with hilariously inorganic motion and shine like plastic. Green-screen sequences look cartoonish and completely unreal. And then there's the Mantis. If you've seen the trailer, you know what I'm talking about. It might be the worst digital effects sequence I've ever seen. It comes out of nowhere, lacks any set-up or pay-off and looks like something out of a children's cartoon. It might be the single most unintentionally hilarious thing ever committed to the screen.
Add to that flat performances from the bulk of the cast, forgettable music that fails to thrill or enthrall, atrocious cinematography and some of the most bland screen writing I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing, and you got yourself one of the most perplexing failures in recent cinematic memory. If it weren't for one or two decent roles performed by actors far too talented to be here, the unintentional humorous moments of camp that crop up here and there and gorgeous co-star Miriam Giovanelli's penchant to be nude for much of the run- time, it'd be unwatchable. Argento... you're a talented man. And you've made some phenomenal films. But crap like this won't do.
"Dracula 3D" barely scoots by with a 2 out of 10. If you want some laughs, maybe pop it on. But even then, they're few and far in- between, and the bulk of the film is just an incoherent, incompetent, boring mess.
Get the Raid, Manti-Dracula just crawled in.
Stachehunter-857-731112 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
"Suspiria", this ain't.
Why Dario Argento attempted to make the one millionth version of "Dracula" is probably the most puzzling thing about this truly terrible version of Bram Stoker's undying novel. By this time, who cares about the Count, anyway? The poor guy has been invoked and re-imagined so many times it's nothing but sad anymore. Argento evidently wanted his shot at the venerable story, but the result is a hot mess that can't even qualify as a cult movie, despite the fact that late in the movie, Dracula turns himself into a giant deadly mantis to kill another extra who didn't know he needed to call Orkin.
The entire movie is shot under incredibly bright light, making even the night scenes looks as if everyone's going to hit the beach as soon as the director yells "cut". This is Transylvania/California. The story is a precariously balanced retread of the superior "Horror of Dracula", Hammer Films breakthrough in Technicolor vampirism that shook the world in 1958. Here, Argento wastes film in a weak copy of the Hammer visual style, reducing the original 1958 color palette of rich autumn hues to something you'd see on the Vegas strip. Hammer's heaving bosoms are now in full view, jiggling all over the place. The subtle eroticism of the 58' version is now stroke magazine fodder. Most damnably, Argento attempts to recreate the seminal scene in which Harker is attacked by Dracula's bride. Instead of the shock of Christopher Lee's red-eyed Count knocking the hell out of the bride, we get T and A and the worst pretend Dracula ever seen, the lousy Thomas Kretschmann in a Z-list sleepwalk performance of one of the world's greatest villains. Oh yeah, he's also blond. Surf's up, Drac!
And so on. We get a seriously truncated version of the original story. Dracula never goes to England. Somehow, all the characters come to him. No hunting necessary. Within ten minutes of the movie's start, we get soft-core porn involving a buff gymrat and a Hustler Honey banging in a barn. Dracula is not only a weak player, but also a very bad CGI owl, werewolf thingy, and again, a giant praying mantis. Who knew? Rutger Hauer shows up late in the game as Van Helsing, gets knocked around for his trouble and Mina shoots the Count, who turns into an ashy replica of himself before blowing up real good.
For Dracula completists only, and even then, on fast-forward. Really, it's that bad.
Why Dario Argento attempted to make the one millionth version of "Dracula" is probably the most puzzling thing about this truly terrible version of Bram Stoker's undying novel. By this time, who cares about the Count, anyway? The poor guy has been invoked and re-imagined so many times it's nothing but sad anymore. Argento evidently wanted his shot at the venerable story, but the result is a hot mess that can't even qualify as a cult movie, despite the fact that late in the movie, Dracula turns himself into a giant deadly mantis to kill another extra who didn't know he needed to call Orkin.
The entire movie is shot under incredibly bright light, making even the night scenes looks as if everyone's going to hit the beach as soon as the director yells "cut". This is Transylvania/California. The story is a precariously balanced retread of the superior "Horror of Dracula", Hammer Films breakthrough in Technicolor vampirism that shook the world in 1958. Here, Argento wastes film in a weak copy of the Hammer visual style, reducing the original 1958 color palette of rich autumn hues to something you'd see on the Vegas strip. Hammer's heaving bosoms are now in full view, jiggling all over the place. The subtle eroticism of the 58' version is now stroke magazine fodder. Most damnably, Argento attempts to recreate the seminal scene in which Harker is attacked by Dracula's bride. Instead of the shock of Christopher Lee's red-eyed Count knocking the hell out of the bride, we get T and A and the worst pretend Dracula ever seen, the lousy Thomas Kretschmann in a Z-list sleepwalk performance of one of the world's greatest villains. Oh yeah, he's also blond. Surf's up, Drac!
And so on. We get a seriously truncated version of the original story. Dracula never goes to England. Somehow, all the characters come to him. No hunting necessary. Within ten minutes of the movie's start, we get soft-core porn involving a buff gymrat and a Hustler Honey banging in a barn. Dracula is not only a weak player, but also a very bad CGI owl, werewolf thingy, and again, a giant praying mantis. Who knew? Rutger Hauer shows up late in the game as Van Helsing, gets knocked around for his trouble and Mina shoots the Count, who turns into an ashy replica of himself before blowing up real good.
For Dracula completists only, and even then, on fast-forward. Really, it's that bad.
The Worst Movie by Dario Argento
claudio_carvalho7 June 2014
Dario Argento is one of my favorite contemporary directors in the horror genre. However "Dracula 3D" is certainly his worst movie, retelling Bram Stoker's Gothic novel with poor performances in cheesy scenario, CGI and art direction. Miriam Giovanelli seems to be a porn star the way she takes her clothes so easily. Drácula's transformation into owl, flies, wolf and even mantis (?) is sort of ridiculous. But as a friend of mine uses to say about this "Dracula 3D", the worst movie by Dario Argento is still better than most of the teen horror movies. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Drácula 3D"
Title (Brazil): "Drácula 3D"
Visually luscious, uneven story and acting; worth seeing as a cheesefest
lemon_magic10 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Warning: the actual plot of the film has very little to do with Bram Stoker, Universal, or Hammer films aside from recycling the character names. That may or may not be a disappointment depending on whether you are tired of the same old tropes or want to see them done one more time with Argento's trademark visual style.
Speaking of which - the photography and scene design roll over your visual inputs like melted butter. Every scene, every shot is just drenched in color and detail. Sometimes I wanted to do a screen capture of a scene and frame it on a wall of my house. So that alone made me feel as if I got my money's worth and spent my time in a worthwhile manner.
On the other hand...well, on the other hand, some of the dialog is risibly bad. And some of the acting (including 70-80% of what Asia Argento does) is clunky and wooden. I'm willing to overlook some of this in a film where the lines are probably dubbed...but there are an awful lot of clunkers here that detract from the film.
Casting: the actor playing Dracula was an interesting choice and had some visual appeal, but seemed too calm and sedate for the part. That might have just been an effect of the way the character was written. Gerard Butler had the same problem in a previous Dracula movie - they just didn't frame the actor in a way that best framed his strengths. This actor doesn't ruin the movie by any means, but he isn't Christopher Lee. You don't spend all the down time between his scenes holding your breath for his next appearance.
As I mentioned, the plot's all over the place and doesn't really have a lot of momentum and sometimes doesn't make a lot of sense. The editor also tends to stick in short scenes and shots here and there that either stop the movie cold or else disrupt the flow. I'm not sure I got to see the best version of the movie, either - for instance, Dracula's spy/henchman Zoltan is made out to be a pretty ruthless bad ass in three different scenes, but Hauer/Van Helsing dispatches him in about 5 seconds. And did I mention that Hauer/Van Helsing only appears after more than 1/2 the film has gone by?
Oh, well. It was worth seeing once in the DVD player on a Tuesday afternoon when I was under the weather and unable to go to work.
Speaking of which - the photography and scene design roll over your visual inputs like melted butter. Every scene, every shot is just drenched in color and detail. Sometimes I wanted to do a screen capture of a scene and frame it on a wall of my house. So that alone made me feel as if I got my money's worth and spent my time in a worthwhile manner.
On the other hand...well, on the other hand, some of the dialog is risibly bad. And some of the acting (including 70-80% of what Asia Argento does) is clunky and wooden. I'm willing to overlook some of this in a film where the lines are probably dubbed...but there are an awful lot of clunkers here that detract from the film.
Casting: the actor playing Dracula was an interesting choice and had some visual appeal, but seemed too calm and sedate for the part. That might have just been an effect of the way the character was written. Gerard Butler had the same problem in a previous Dracula movie - they just didn't frame the actor in a way that best framed his strengths. This actor doesn't ruin the movie by any means, but he isn't Christopher Lee. You don't spend all the down time between his scenes holding your breath for his next appearance.
As I mentioned, the plot's all over the place and doesn't really have a lot of momentum and sometimes doesn't make a lot of sense. The editor also tends to stick in short scenes and shots here and there that either stop the movie cold or else disrupt the flow. I'm not sure I got to see the best version of the movie, either - for instance, Dracula's spy/henchman Zoltan is made out to be a pretty ruthless bad ass in three different scenes, but Hauer/Van Helsing dispatches him in about 5 seconds. And did I mention that Hauer/Van Helsing only appears after more than 1/2 the film has gone by?
Oh, well. It was worth seeing once in the DVD player on a Tuesday afternoon when I was under the weather and unable to go to work.
Looks like porn - would be better as porn
jrd_7322 April 2014
This must have been one cheap production! Dario Argento, once my favorite horror director, has made a Dracula for those amused by the CGI giant snake films that run on the Sci-fi Channel. There is something about bad CGI that makes them hard to even laugh at. Some old school FX, like the man-in-a-cheap-monster-suit, could be charming. there is no charm to be had with bad computer effects. The ones in this Dracula film look like they were leftover from a low budget 1990's movie.
Dario Argento once had an outstanding visual style (Suspiria, Inferno). His Dracula movie is overlit and fake looking. The digital photography makes it look like porn. Add in the frequent nudity (the only visually appealing images in the film) and one starts to wonder if Dracula's bride will be sucking more than blood.
My friend and I gave up taking this film seriously after the first half-hour. The remainder of the running time was spent casting the porn version.
Dracula - Dale Dabone (in place of the only fair Thomas Kretchsmann)
Mina - Stoya (in place of Marta Gastini)
Jonathan - James Deen (in place of the lame Unax Uglade)
Lucy - Sasha Grey (in place of Asia Argento)
Tania - Lexi Belle (in place of Miriam Giovanelli)
Van Helsing - Nina Hartley (in place of tired looking Rutger Hauer)
fat priest - Ron Jeremy (of course!)
Now that I write this, I think that Argento's film would have been improved with that cast, even if it still had no sex in it. At least the players would have matched the photography.
Dario Argento once had an outstanding visual style (Suspiria, Inferno). His Dracula movie is overlit and fake looking. The digital photography makes it look like porn. Add in the frequent nudity (the only visually appealing images in the film) and one starts to wonder if Dracula's bride will be sucking more than blood.
My friend and I gave up taking this film seriously after the first half-hour. The remainder of the running time was spent casting the porn version.
Dracula - Dale Dabone (in place of the only fair Thomas Kretchsmann)
Mina - Stoya (in place of Marta Gastini)
Jonathan - James Deen (in place of the lame Unax Uglade)
Lucy - Sasha Grey (in place of Asia Argento)
Tania - Lexi Belle (in place of Miriam Giovanelli)
Van Helsing - Nina Hartley (in place of tired looking Rutger Hauer)
fat priest - Ron Jeremy (of course!)
Now that I write this, I think that Argento's film would have been improved with that cast, even if it still had no sex in it. At least the players would have matched the photography.
Movie Review: Dario Argento's Dracula 3D
LegendsofHorror24 February 2015
Since we have been discussing famed Italian Director Dario Argento in the group I decided to post this review about Dario Argento's newest incarnation from IFC which has many mixed reviews, it has some throwing their hands up in submission that he's truly lost in celluloid hell. Others think this film is typical "newer Argento" which is what most have come to terms with since his release of "Mother of Tears". I know I'm gonna get a lot of heat, but I enjoyed Dracula 3D. I thought the sets were a reminiscence of the Hammer era, esp the "Curse of the werewolf" & Dracula films. The sets and costumes were so beautiful to look at, so Gothic and elegant. I also loved listening to Claudio Simonetti's score. For those who own the blu-ray there is a special feature of the video "Kiss Me Dracula" - Performed by Simonetti Project, where you can watch Claudio play a mean theremin. As we all know, he has a strange fascination with filming his daughter in the nude which is another reason to watch this as get to enjoy Asia's body on celluloid once again. Thomas Kretschmann and Rutger Hauer both pull off great performances with what they have to work with. I'd also like to say that newcomer Marta Gastini, who has a few titles under her belt (ie. Borgia & The Rite) did an amazing job as well more so in fact that she should have been top billed next to the two main actors instead of Asia herself.
Now, on to my complaints: Asia's performance seemed quite wooden at times. The Nintendo 64 CGI Graphics are quite painful to look at especially the god awful Praying Mantis scene which I've heard about since the release, he would've pulled it off in a much scarier way if he would've kept that "creature" in the shadows instead of showing the beast off. I can honestly say that I enjoyed this film more than "Giallo" and "Do you like Hitchcock" combined. This is a fun movie, as I mentioned this is far from Argento's best work but you can see that Dario pulled from the Bram Stoker & Hammer lore of Dracula and made something that ONLY Argento could do.
This IS Dario Argento's Dracula...a TRUE 3D bella morte experience.
Now, on to my complaints: Asia's performance seemed quite wooden at times. The Nintendo 64 CGI Graphics are quite painful to look at especially the god awful Praying Mantis scene which I've heard about since the release, he would've pulled it off in a much scarier way if he would've kept that "creature" in the shadows instead of showing the beast off. I can honestly say that I enjoyed this film more than "Giallo" and "Do you like Hitchcock" combined. This is a fun movie, as I mentioned this is far from Argento's best work but you can see that Dario pulled from the Bram Stoker & Hammer lore of Dracula and made something that ONLY Argento could do.
This IS Dario Argento's Dracula...a TRUE 3D bella morte experience.
Argento's cheesiest feature film
Viva_Chiba1 July 2012
The Italian master of horror, Dario Argento, delivers his cheesiest movie...in 3D.
Looking at the trailers, i already knew that Dracula 3D would have been a fun and trashy cheesefest (and i gotta be honest, i have seen better CGI effects in movies made by The Asylum).
Sure, the film is a fun and trashy cheesefest, but it manages to get pretty boring in many moments, plus, Rutger Hauer only appears after a big chunk of the first half of the feature.
The CGI effects are cringe-worthy, they remind me of old computer games, i wouldn't be surprised if the (already) hilarious mantis scene will become an internet meme.
If it wasn't for the gore scenes (which they are good enough to keep the gorehounds entertained), the sexy Miriam Giovanelli, Rutger Hauer and the soundtrack (provided by Claudio Simonetti), the film would be just forgettable, but Dracula 3D is actually a forgettable cheesefest, if it was made in the 70's or 80's, it would have been considered as a cult classic.
I actually like Argento's most modern films (such as: Sleepless, Il Cartaio and Mother of tears), but if you thought that his last three films were bad, then you should take a look at Dracula 3D.
Looking at the trailers, i already knew that Dracula 3D would have been a fun and trashy cheesefest (and i gotta be honest, i have seen better CGI effects in movies made by The Asylum).
Sure, the film is a fun and trashy cheesefest, but it manages to get pretty boring in many moments, plus, Rutger Hauer only appears after a big chunk of the first half of the feature.
The CGI effects are cringe-worthy, they remind me of old computer games, i wouldn't be surprised if the (already) hilarious mantis scene will become an internet meme.
If it wasn't for the gore scenes (which they are good enough to keep the gorehounds entertained), the sexy Miriam Giovanelli, Rutger Hauer and the soundtrack (provided by Claudio Simonetti), the film would be just forgettable, but Dracula 3D is actually a forgettable cheesefest, if it was made in the 70's or 80's, it would have been considered as a cult classic.
I actually like Argento's most modern films (such as: Sleepless, Il Cartaio and Mother of tears), but if you thought that his last three films were bad, then you should take a look at Dracula 3D.
Not the abomination that I was warned about, but...
Stevieboy66621 December 2020
Think of Italian film director Dario Argento and such masterpieces as Deep Red and Suspiria instantly spring to mind. However, like many other great horror directors his later movies are sadly more mediocre at best. I watched this on DVD in 2D, so I don't know if that makes it Dracula 2D, Argento's Dracula (as the sleeve states), or just Dracula.
It takes the first 21 minutes for Harker to arrive at Castle Dracula, but during that time we see Dracula in owl form, are treated to a sex scene (Miriam Giovanelli as Tania is stunningly gorgeous), one man gets his head split open with a shovel, another has an ear torn off, plus some character development. Quite a promising start. But then we see an appalling cheap looking spider "special" effect, and this is the first of several effects that would not look out of place in a Sci Fi/Asylum movie. I have no idea what they were thinking with Dracula taking the form of a giant green mantis, very memorable but for all the wrong reasons! Dracula is able to move at lightning speed, accompanied by a silly "whoosh" sound. The good points for me about this movie are the excellent sets, good cinematography, a fine musical score by Claudio (Goblin) Simonetti, plenty of gore and some very nice nudity (Asia Argento once again). Unax Ugalde as Harker was enjoyable, he reminded me a little of Johnny Depp, and always good to see genre favourite Rutger Hauer, though he looked to me like he was there just for the pay cheque. No disrespect to Thomas Krestschamn but he just didn't do it for me as Dracula. Throughout I was reminded of the far superior Hammer Gothic horror movies, the film did drag a little at times (105 minutes) and the ending was poor. However, I felt overall that I got my monies worth and I will probably watch it again in the future, it may even grow on me.
A Smear to his name
georgeuriah24 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This time the verdict should be unanimous: Dario Argento has definitely lost it. Yes, that certain touch that made him stand apart among his contemporaries and even earned him comparisons with A.Hitchcock, is nowhere present and it makes you wonder even if it really existed at all. If I haven't read his name at the credits, I would have thought that is a third rate made-for-home-video production that teeters on the end of absurdity before actually falling. From the very start, one has to bear the terrible cgi effects, the indifference of the actors ("I know this movie is crap, but hey, I could use the dough"), the lack of rhythm and the lethargic direction, if there is one. Let alone the fact, that we're still have to bear another unsuccessful acting venture of his daughter and an awful dubbing. Why on earth should Argento retell the Dracula story in a very limited budget (as it shows), while he could use the money into an entirely original idea? The answer is anyone's guess, I can only say from my part, that maybe he wanted to surprise us with the use of a praying mantis, probably a leftover from a 1950s sci-fi movie, which, as you can expect, made every spectator burst into uncontrollable laughter. I know that all you Argento's followers will see this one, despite all the condemning reviews, just don't pay any money and of course be prepared for a total waste of your time. As for Dario, he should really consider putting an end to his directorial career, because "movies"like this dismal failure only further damage the reputation of a director that has "Profondo Rosso"and "Suspiria" in his back catalogue. He really hit the bottom of the barrel this time...
Bad and certainly NOT old-school
comeonfeel6 October 2013
I've read reviews that compared this movies visual style to that of the old Hammer-Horror classics. Maybe my memory doesn't serve me well but I could have sworn those were Technicolor dreams where everything from the set design to the lighting showed a tremendous amount of care and craftsmanship. What I don't remember is them looking as if they were shot on a bad HD-cam with all the charm and finesse of a private holiday- or maybe a wedding-video. It is probably no overstatement that there's porn out there whose production values easily rival those of this sad,pathetic attempt at adapting a horror classic. Of course direction and acting are all sub par too, but whoever wants to give this "movie" a try because he hopes for exciting visuals has a big surprise coming to him (and not in a good way). It's good for an alcohol fueled "let's watch the biggest trash we can get our hands on" evening, though.
Oh dear, oh dear...
paul_haakonsen26 April 2013
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.
Dracula 3D (2012)
rockman1829 January 2017
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
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
Rubbish
ian-j-williams751 February 2014
There hasn't been a proper adaptation of Dracula and this is no exception. This is an extremely loose adaptation of the story and is done in a Hammer-sequence fashion but with none of the menace or style of those classic films. If there's one element of redemption, it's Rutger Hauer, who puts his all into a spirited Van Helsing. Unfortunately he arrives far too late in the production to rescue it.
For goodness sake - can someone - anyone - do a proper version of Dracula that avoids 'reimagining' the story. It's one of the most enduring horror stories of all time and deserves a proper adaptation.
This film is one of the feebler attempts to bring this story to life and should be watched only by the curious with nothing better to do for a couple of hours.
For goodness sake - can someone - anyone - do a proper version of Dracula that avoids 'reimagining' the story. It's one of the most enduring horror stories of all time and deserves a proper adaptation.
This film is one of the feebler attempts to bring this story to life and should be watched only by the curious with nothing better to do for a couple of hours.
Cheez-Whiz Dreck-ula
karmaswimswami16 April 2014
"Argento's Dracula" is at the arch extreme of the kinds of Dracula movies out there. One can have the exquisite Werner Herzog version with Klaus Kinski and partially filmed at Romania's Castle Bran that wrings extraordinary meaning from Stoker's story. Or Coppola's sumptuous, chromatic, limpid, lushly-told account with fine acting and HIV metaphors. Argento's auteur version is the badly-lit community theater rendition where the script often makes little sense, the acting is ham-fisted, the lighting garish (what's with the yellow gels?), and where when the storyline lags as it often does, the director tries to salvage it by having an actress bare breasts or calling for something quite hemorrhagic to happen. One keeps hoping this film might rise/fall to the level of being appealingly appalling, but it remains merely risible and dismal and hackneyed. With a performance from the otherwise capable Rutger Hauer that should be struck from his resume. Two stars from me merely because there are transient moments of actual beauty to which Argento is not oblivious.
Bargain basement Bram Stoker adaptation has Argento reaching a new low
brchthethird14 November 2014
Dario Argento takes a dump on Bram Stoker's classic story with this amateurish, cheap and dull production of Dracula. Argento has never been known for thought-provoking cinema, and more often than not his stories feature an abundance of style over substance. Here, even the style comes off as schlocky and cheesy, and not in a "so bad it's good" way either. The entire cast doesn't speak English as a first language, and it shows in their performances. With few exceptions, they all come off as stiff and wooden, with lifeless line readings. Even Rutger Hauer, who has given some terrific performances in his career, is on auto-pilot here. The only actor in the entire cast who really looks like he's enjoying himself is Thomas Kretschmann, who plays the titular Count. And at times, it looks and sounds like he's doing his best Bela Lugosi impression. Moving on, as this is a horror movie from Argento, it can be expected that there is a certain amount of blood and gore (along with some amusing female nudity). While it certainly delivers in that department, the effects still look cheap and fake. Also worth mentioning for how bad it is, the whole production has the look and feel of a made-for-TV drama, in everything from the staging and camera-work to the image quality. A lot of the sets look like sets, and the CGI background enhancements in some scenes is jarring. The visual effects are also disappointingly bad. I already mentioned the blood and gore, but there's also a poorly done effect of bodies turning to ash as well as a laughably bad (but incredibly short) scene where Dracula attacks someone in the form of a (CGI) praying mantis(!). On that note, in this movie Dracula doesn't just take the form of a bat, but also flies, roaches, wolves(?) and the aforementioned praying mantis. Finally, even though I saw this in 2D, it was actually made for (and shot in) 3D. Other than being a marketing gimmick, I can't possibly see how it would have benefited this piece of tripe. Overall, it's best just to avoid this "so bad it's horrible" movie. There are much better camp classics, and/or Dario Argento films if you're so inclined.
Gothic
temrok929 April 2013
A pleasant surprise, this movie goes back to the golden years of horror cinema to create an atmospheric, mesmerizing Dracula that stands out as one of the best adaptations of Bram Stoker's book.Argento reveals a capacity for the classic that matches his abilities in modern horror( where he has delivered some of the greatest films of the genre, such as Suspiria and Inferno).Dracula is one of his most accomplished films, in my opinion, and you can immerse yourself in the cold poetry of his vision.I' ve watched the film in 2D and I'm not so sure it would work as good in 3D, as I tend to imagine that the 3D feeling could potentially destroy the tone of the film.Pessimistic in spirit, it seems to bring elements from various adaptations, from Tod Browning's version to Hertzog's Nosferatou, and from Hammer's Dracula to Coppola's one, but in the end the feeling the movie creates is unique, and certainly European.The impressive thing is that Argento holds back his tendency for impressing and prefers to avoid pointless jumps in the script in favor of a certain pace that makes the film a contemporary classic.Bravo!
Colorful though uneven version about the immortal personage by the great Dario Argento
ma-cortes25 October 2013
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 .
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 .
A Weak Dracula
bhsfacebook1 January 2020
I like Dario Argento as a rule, but this movie is weak both as compared to the rest of his work and as compared to the many adaptations of Stoker's novel. Thomas Kretschmann is woefully miscast in the title role, a bland vampire who never conveys much foreboding. Some of the CG goes far off the mark, the worst of which is a giant praying mantis that's so garishly fake that it's hard to believe the director could have approved it.
That said, most of the cast is good. They don't have a lot to work with, though. Disappointingly mediocre overall, especially coming from Argento.
That said, most of the cast is good. They don't have a lot to work with, though. Disappointingly mediocre overall, especially coming from Argento.
Argento Hits Rock Bottom?
gavin69429 September 2013
This film is Dario Argento's take on the Dracula story, with more than a few detours from the traditional telling. Detours, sadly, that are never in a positive direction.
I was first able to sit in for an advance screening of the film, but then everything went haywire about thirty minutes in. Even from that much, the evidence was clear that this was a disaster.
We can safely say this is the low point of Argento's career. Although he has been declining since "Sleepless", if not earlier, this is the new low and I find it hard to believe such a low mark will ever be beaten. Not even Rutger Hauer and music from Claudio Simonetti can save this stinker.
The dubbing is poor, the acting is weak and the film opens with a terrible special effects shot. I would describe what I saw as one notch up from the films that The Asylum makes -- and a very small notch at that! This does not instill confidence and I wish Argento would retire if he no longer has it in him, as his legacy is being tarnished.
Since first writing this, I have seen the film in its entirety, and if anything, it gets worse. More terrible effects, a plot that plods along at a slow, tiresome pace... and what is the deal with the praying mantis?
Again, while I appreciate having a score from Claudio Simonetti (and not a bad score, either), this cannot cover for such a terrible film. What Argento might consider "sexy" strikes me as simply gratuitous and without style. The reputation of Argento will be forever tarnished.
I was first able to sit in for an advance screening of the film, but then everything went haywire about thirty minutes in. Even from that much, the evidence was clear that this was a disaster.
We can safely say this is the low point of Argento's career. Although he has been declining since "Sleepless", if not earlier, this is the new low and I find it hard to believe such a low mark will ever be beaten. Not even Rutger Hauer and music from Claudio Simonetti can save this stinker.
The dubbing is poor, the acting is weak and the film opens with a terrible special effects shot. I would describe what I saw as one notch up from the films that The Asylum makes -- and a very small notch at that! This does not instill confidence and I wish Argento would retire if he no longer has it in him, as his legacy is being tarnished.
Since first writing this, I have seen the film in its entirety, and if anything, it gets worse. More terrible effects, a plot that plods along at a slow, tiresome pace... and what is the deal with the praying mantis?
Again, while I appreciate having a score from Claudio Simonetti (and not a bad score, either), this cannot cover for such a terrible film. What Argento might consider "sexy" strikes me as simply gratuitous and without style. The reputation of Argento will be forever tarnished.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
