the new Dario Argento film "DRACULA" in 3D?!

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Expiring from NetFlix streaming one week from now.

I still haven't gotten around to watching it. I'm not even sure if I want to.

 

Don't bother. One of the worst Argentos I saw. It could've been a good one. Some of the imagery is fine actually. But the overall movie is just meh. That's it: meh!

 

I could only stand 10 minutes of it. Some nice boobage aside I just couldn't finish it.

 

Pile of amateur shit.

 

If I remember correctly from my viewing... the only scene remotely worth watching is with Asia Argento. The rest of the film is just pure crap. I've probably seen a dozen Dracula films based on the original book, and there are definitely some bad ones, but this probably ranks the worst.

I still find it hard to believe Argento even directed this turd.

 

Really? Have you seen Do you Like Hitchcock, Mother of Tears and Giallo? Argento directing this film isn't all that surprising. Dude's best days are LOOOOOONG behind him.

 

I liked Mother of Tears. But yeah, I hear you.

 

I really liked Do you like Hitchcock and am Coming around to Mother of Tears. I find a certain amount of enjoyment in all his films, so maybe it's just the fan boy in me talkin.

 

I've seen them all, but even any one of those seems like a masterpiece in comparison to Dracula.

 

A shit sandwich is still a sandwich with shit in it though.