Yeah, I didn't hate it either. But then I thought about how the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. And I could not have been more indifferent about this movie.
I just wonder what the hell the point was. Dracula has been made and remade umpteen times, and at least other remakes have tried something new with the (let's face it) tired Stoker tale. Hammer made Dracula imposing and threatening, the Germans (Murnau and especially Herzog) made vampirism to be more of a pestilence. Many versions have gone for the seductive and sexual theme, while Morrissey went for out and out camp. Coppola may have been truest (arguably) to Stoker's tale, but also with big budget visuals and makeup.
All Dario Argento brought to the table was extremely poor CGI, and gimmicky 3-D. Again I ask, what was the point behind it all?
Serious question, for those more in tune with current Italian cinema: Is Dario Argento just a "hired hand" now? A studio will plan a movie, and they can hire Dario to direct? He gets to bring some of his people (his daughter, Sergio Stivaletti), but he has little control over the end product? That's the impression I got from Dracula.
CINEMA PAFF - Your BB-Movie Showcase *
* - The extra B is for BYOBB