Originally Posted by shape22
I can't say I agree with this. Wood's films at least crackle with enthusiasm. That makes the ineptitude charming and funny. The lack of basic film-making skills and the laughable budgets are apparent in every frame. But you can feel the joy of the participants. Even an old pro like Bela Lugosi looks like he's there for more than a pay check.
F. ramses hit it on the head. The trailers made this film look like it would be a so-bad-it's-good-laugh-a-minute minor masterpiece along the lines of Plan 9. But Argento's Dracula isn't bad in an entertaining way. It's just stillborn. If it contained more ridiculous moments like the praying mantis scene or the town hall massacre scene it could have been fun. But it's such a perfunctory and phoned-in take on a story that's already been beaten to death. Not even a master scenery chewer like Rutger Hauer was able to bring it to life for long. I can't imagine any reason for its existence other than pure greed.
Simonetti and Argento have done sloppy work before. But I've never gotten such a half-assed vibe from any of their prior collaborations. These guys appear to have lost all interest in conjuring movie magic. Dracula 3d is pure product.
Great observations there.
"Only on Horrordvds.com could a well intentioned get well thread turn into an infomercial about the propensity for testicular perspiration".