Horror Digital Forum  

Go Back   Horror Digital Forum > All Things Horror > Euro Horror

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-12-2014, 06:25 PM   #121
maybrick's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Keene, NH
Posts: 9,858
I didn't make it all the way through, but it felt like it was on a modern day technical level to the old BBC production of Dracula that starred Louis Jordan. As a theatrical production it's terrible, but if you think of it as being made for television then it's passable. I guess. Sort of, if you squint a lot.
maybrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2014, 07:30 PM   #122
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,405
I have to say that it really wasn't as completely terrible as I expected it to be. Some of the acting is pretty atrocious. And the CGI is pathetic. And, the lighting and camerawork are uninspired. But, it does move along at a pretty brisk pace and it is rarely ever boring. It's just often very lazy.

I think my biggest criticism really is that the whole thing seems like no one really cared, except maybe the the costumer. It comes across as a fan film trying to remake Coppola's Dracula. Like one of the "Sweded" films from "Be Kind Rewind". They just had access to some better sets and costumes than the average kid in Spokane. Outside of some nice depth of field and a modicum of nice lighting in the cemetery, it's hard to believe that this is the work of a seasoned pro. As, someone else already commented, the whole thing looks like it crawled out of one of those FMV video games that were so popular around 20 years ago.
Anaestheus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 10:40 PM   #123
Paff's Avatar
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 7,583
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

Paff's Laserdiscs
Paff is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright 1999-2015 Horrordvds.com

No text or images from this site may be reprinted or used elsewhere without express consent from Horrordvds.com