Continue with Google
>
Argento's Dracula Reviews
Pretty bad, but I didn’t turn it off…
Very bad performance by the master of horror. Amateurish script and ridiculous mise-en-scène. Argento did worse only later, with "Dark glasses".
Horror on the cheap. I can only guess it was to save money on location shooting that Italian filmmaker Dari Argento decided to take Jonathon Harker out of the real estate business and instead send him to the Borga Pass to be Dracula's librarian. His wife, Mina, is set to join him, and conveniently, her friend Mina happens to live an hour's walk from the castle in Passburg where her father is mayor. It's possible the film is more entertaining in its 3D version, but I doubt it. The script could've been written by a child, and the direction is incompetent. There are occasional moments that are unintentionally comical, but this is not the kind of film that is so bad that it's camp.
Oh yawn. What a shocker - shockingly bad and boring, that is. Had a little bit of "Hammer Horror" vibe going on but that was the only good thing about the movie. A few laugh-out-loud moments including Dracula as a giant praying mantis.
The 3D gives a really odd look to the colour. Flat, but shiny. Sex scene to start to set up that first attack… Cleavage, tits, goblets of blood, crap sfx. I have moments, but is this really Argento? Because if I hadn't seen the credits, I just would know - apart from the bullet bit. Even Rutger can't lift it. The grasshopper? The last step too far.
It's obvious nobody liked this movie. And I can't blame them. But there's something that I noticed about this version of Dracula. It seems to resemble those old Hammer horror films starring Christopher Lee. Was this Argento's intention? Or maybe this was done with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Either way, it's time these old washed up film directors put themselves out to pasture!
A dracula movie that sort of goes all over the place, bringing us characters that we see only briefly before they're killed off, shoddy special effects, and yes, Rutger Hauer apparently there for the paycheck. I really can't decide which is worse.
All around a horrible effort. Effects are awful. Slow 1 hr and 50 mins. Poor dialog. Not much of a story. Only interesting thing is the sets, and always daytime lighting even at night...
Bad acting, cheap looking sets, bad lighting, late 90s level CG. Dario Argento does just about all he can to sully his legacy with a film that wouldn't make the cut as Saturday afternoon filler. The Simonetti Project's "Kiss Me Dracula" features over the credits was pretty good and is the reason for the extra half star.
Plot: Average (another rehash of Bram Stocker's story) Acting: Good SFX: Good gore, sets, costumes, Below Average CGI usage Soundtrack: Below Average
When one is watching Dario Argento's latest picture, most of his followers will undeniably wonder what the hell happened to the man who so brilliantly entered the film scene with the timeless classic: The Bird with the Crystal Plumage in 1970 but who seems to have gone awol since the 90's. Let's try to keep an open mind and focus on what makes this film interesting rather than immediately depreciating it. First of all it's entirely shot in natural set, which gives the film a certain visual quality that I personally really enjoyed. The camera work is still quite interesting and one can see the old director still holds a few good tricks up his sleeves when it comes to cinematography and the elaboration of his scenes. What surprised me the most here; is the lighting. Very bright and almost holy in it's intensity, it gives the film a special look that you will either like or hate. A horror film so bright is almost unthinkable so I will salute the initiative to make something different but somehow it's disturbing. Maybe the visual style is due to the type of camera used by the director which gives the film a cheap 온라인카지노추천 look. The acting is also quite different from the more realistic approach we are used to in western cinema. Here it's almost like watching a play with some elements of the Greek tragedies... the body language of the actors is more stiff than usual and they deliver their lines in a very theatrical fashion which will probably not attract many fans. Some actors shine in the film such as Kretschman (Dracula) who's very comfortable delivering a more baroque performance than Gary Oldman did for example in 1991 for Coppola. Asia Argento, his daughter and muse is doing fine, she's never been an outstanding actress but she's fearless and always willing to experiment, explore and try new things which make her an interesting character/actor. Rutger Hauer is impeccable as Van Helsing, obviously enjoying to venture into more underground and low budget material than usual. In the end, this is a film that has a lot of interesting ideas and drastic technical choices that will either rebuke you or make you feel like you are actually watching something artistic verging on experimental in some ways (special mention he giant mantis appearing in the film, a complete surrealist and utterly funny scene in the film). One thing for sure, this picture is quite different from the load of films produced by Hollywood, almost refusing to conform in any ways to the standards of Western modern cinema. If you are a die hard Argento fan you may recognize here and there the touch of the master who's reinterpretation of the Vampire story is obviously done following some Giallo codes and rules. If you are looking for something realistic or more mainstream, pass your way, you will be disappointed purely and simply. One last thing I need to mention, regardless of the quality of the product itself, I must say, i wasn't bored a single moment and although this film has many flows and an obvious lack of budget, it was entertaining and well paced. Dario Argento might not be on top of his game but the man knows how to shoot a picture and entertain his audience.... something that many directors today fail to achieve.
only seems to have this 3-D version listed I saw the non 3-D version.
Seriously? I didn't want to give it any star(s) as it's such a terribly remake of any Dracula-related movies. I fell ASLEEP when watching it! Those bloody scenes are just as horrible as this films itself. I thought it was the latest Dracula (Untold) and I was VERY disappointed. Luckily, it wasn't so at least I still have something to look forward to.
Pretty much bad in every way possible. It's amateur hour from one of the masters of the genre.
Creative adaption but horrible special effects and extremely cheesy, and not in a good way.
This is an odd movie. Apparently Argento was trying to make a movie so bad that its good, a wink and a nob type affair, but I don't think it works. One good thing I can say is that he did an excellent job of capturing the feel of those old Hammer horror movies of the 70s. The movie was made in 2012 but looks like it was made in the 70s. Also I liked Kretschmann's performance as Dracula. Ive read a few comments where people said they hated his performance but I thought he made a pretty good Dracula. A few times I noticed the actors pausing in their dialog, as if trying to remember their lines. It felt like everything was shot in one take. Was that intentional? Considering it was made in 2012, the CGI is atrocious. Was that intentional? This is one of the problems with this film, you cant tell things are meant to be humorous or not. Either way its not really funny. Also its kind of slow. It just doesn't work.
Passable to fans of Dracula or Italian cinema (who can appreciate the good from the bad and ugly) Argento's Dracula suffers from laughably-weak CG work and shoddy acting. Still, at its blood-thirsty heart - there are enjoyable moments and elements, including a strong titular character (and performance); a variety of animal-cum-vampire transformations; surreal, dreamlike settings and score; Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing - and - plenty of screen time for a beautiful, busty blonde vampiress.