Oscar for "Genius" Dialogues. In a couple of minutes they will ruin the cult scene - "children of the night, what music," no words. Congratulations, I found the most disgusting Count Dracula movie. I understand that there is a huge amount of various cheap treshak (a porn version of Dracula, for example), but Argento seems to have made a serious movie. Even in Cannes for some reason drove, apparently as a cult director.
I do not dispute Argento's past achievements. Once he showed a really interesting Jallo-horror. But that was a long time ago (70s, 80s). In the 21st century, the director grew old and finally lost touch with talent. Dracula 3D confirms what I said. It hurts to watch it. Scene by scene. Hero after hero. Argento destroys everything he touches.
You scold Takeshi Kitano for allegedly losing out to early crime movies. You scold Emir Kusturica, scold Roman Polanski and others. Of course, they slow down the coolness, but Argento made a mockery of himself. Yeah, I scolded the previous movie called Jallo with Brody. Dracula 3D opens a new level of degradation of Argento. The painting deserves minimal appreciation. Col.
No laughing, that's how bad it is. Bram Stoker rattles his knuckles. Perversion over the novel, perversion over the horror genre, perversion over Count Dracula. Some computer cartoon animals. Some great green mantises (in the literal sense of the word). And you don't have to excuse Argento, like he wanted to play with 3D fashion. He shot a two-hour (!) movie, wow. Hell of a production.
Eyes hurt from acid imaging. It's a whirlwind picture. Too bright, deranged tones. The behavior of all heroes beyond the edge of insanity. Unnecessarily bloody moments (I can still - no, Dario, calm down). And as a bonus - boobs native daughter Asia (we all watch Dracula for boobs, of course) and Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing (God, why you signed up for this).
Shame on you, that's gross. I don't recommend it. Better "Phenomenon", better "Bird with plumage", better all other film adaptations of Stoker. I was raped like a moviegoer. I didn't like it. I'll give you half a ball for a praying mantis. Hysterical! Stay away from this story, please.
Frankly weak film with a lot of merits, sounds strange, but from the maestro of the “Italian branch” Dario Argento expected to see something much darker and saturated with suspense than what he saw on the screen.
The cinematic image of Dracula has been embodied more than once and not two dozen times, and we can say with certainty that over the past couple of decades he has been battered, and the count himself can be said to have experienced some kind of “rape” (taking into account the original source, of course).
The main advantage of the film is the fact that Dario approached the staging and decoration of the scenery with truly meticulous detail, and this applies to everything. Clothes of the main characters, details of the lady's dress, interiors, streets, backgrounds. Everything is simply imbued with the same Italian atmosphere, and executed to the smallest detail.
And on this, the advantages of this “product” begin to gradually dry up, because in contrast to the chic scenery, there is simply an ugly and clumsy work of visual effects directors. And also a really long storyline.
Such “whales” of the horror industry as Thomas Kretschmann and Rutger Hauer do not save the situation.
And the hope for the first, so skillfully embodied the image of the undead king in the film “Blade-2” – here looks tired and abstracted from the role.
Hauer, on the contrary, smooths the impression, filling his appearance in the frame with pleasant nostalgia, although again... Here he is the "Wedding General."
It is very sad that such a director, who embodied such dark and frightening images before, could not cope with this project.
For, this is just the case when the chic scenery and no less chic soundtrack, in no way affect a positive opinion about the picture.
Despite many negative reviews and assurances that this is Argento’s worst film, I still ventured to see it because I am familiar with many of the director’s works, and his name has always been a guarantee of quality.
I will say at once that it is difficult to call the film adaptation, only if it is very unusual, so you should immediately abstract from the immortal work of Bram Stoker and watch as an independent film. Or a movie based on it.
From the first frames surprised the style of shooting. Such a manner would be more appropriate for some TV show, even if not low-budget. Given that the brain is tuned to the film, and the eyes see a clear theatrical, there is a rather strange sensation that inevitably spoils the viewing, leaving mixed feelings after.
Heroes. Very unfortunate in my opinion, Jonathan Harker, similar in appearance to a high school student, who nevertheless remained in mental development at the level of a five-year-old, and therefore the naive-joyful expression with which he looks at the world around him does not come off his face. I do not know who the actor plays, but clearly not Harker, it is impossible to look at him without a smile, and this is horror, if my memory does not change.
Lucy makes you feel twofold. On the one hand, they tried to make her smarter and more serious than the pretty but empty faces that were usually produced in other films. But on the other hand, all these efforts were crossed out in one fell swoop, when in a split second I managed to see Dracula, catch fire, hang on him and kiss him. This would be understandable if Dracula in this film was half as it should be.
Dracula is the worst disappointment. I have nothing against Thomas Kretschmann, but the role of the Nazi Obersturmführers suits him more. In his performance, Dracula is sulfur and inconspicuous, completely devoid of the animal magnetism that would make Lucy so hang on him. There is no charisma, no charm, no at least external appeal in it, besides, let’s be honest – the performance is the most mediocre.
Mina liked more than the other characters, despite the falsity in the game and the incomprehensible calm over the long absence of her husband, perhaps because she still committed less stupid things.
Van Helsing was colorful thanks to Rutger Hauer. But it is not enough, it appears almost at the end. It would be nice to give him more screen time.
The musical accompaniment is very uniform. From the very beginning to the end, the same pseudo-sinister theme is now with a disturbing violin, then with a woman's bowing in the background. The standard set that occurs in every second film.
Separately, I want to focus on the special effects of the class “tear out your eyes”. I haven't seen that in a long time. In the 21st century with all its possibilities even for a small budget. In the end, it’s better to make a different scene than embarrass yourself by pretending it’s computer graphics. It recalls the era of computer games of the 2000s, and these games are precisely little-known and very cheap.
In general, you could give the film an average score if not for the name of the director. For Argento, this is very weak.
3 out of 10
Despite the fact that many considered this film unsuccessful and one of the worst in Argento, I still do not share their opinion.
Yes, if we consider this picture specifically as the adaptation of the immortal novel by Stoker, then it is certainly not the best, and noticeably inferior not only to the legendary film Coppola 1992, but also to many others.
And first of all, this is due to the main character himself - the local Dracula is not that ugly or unafraid - he is simply unexpressive. Yes, exactly so, a completely indistinguishable and expressionless character, more like an average vampire, who is assigned only a pale episodic role. It lacks that charm and charm, that magical fascination that must always be present in the Lord of the Night. Therefore, even the scenes of his seduction Mina look too implausible and played - it is obvious that the choice of Thomas Kretschmann for this role was unsuccessful, he was never able to show his hero to the fullest.
It is quite another matter - beautiful Asia Argento, as usual present in the film of his father. If we compare Dracula and The Phantom of the Opera in 1998, where this actress again played not the last role, it is impossible to say that she aged for fourteen years - so beautiful her face and figure. And only in the performance of Argento, Lucy seemed to me not just a trifling beauty-lover of glamour, but also a faithful friend of Mina, ready for her to do much, in other adaptations she invariably turns out to be an ordinary capricious egoist.
What about Marta Gustiny? Her Mina at first looks as plain as Jonathan, which makes them very faint characters, however, unlike her unhappy husband, closer to the end she turns into a beautiful and sensual girl, bewitched by the dark passion of Dracula and completely at the mercy of his charms. In my opinion, this is what Bram Stoker wrote in his novel: Mina did not really feel a true love for Dracula, it was only an influence on her mind on his part, which would eventually disappear. And Martha showed exactly this in her game: her heroine did not want to remain a weak-willed doll for the rest of her days, and she destroyed the dark charms of Nosferatu once and for all.
Also could not but please Rutger Hauer, however, he has long been recognized as an excellent actor, and his Van Helsing could not turn out bad.
As for the special effects of the film, they clearly did not cost the creators too much, especially the transformation of Dracula into a giant mantis turned out disgusting - if the flies, wolf and owl were still more or less, then this could cause only laughter, but not horror. But the music was beautiful, except for repeated howls, like those in children's cartoons about ghosts.
In conclusion, we can say that Dario Argento’s Dracula, although not a masterpiece of cinema, is not the worst of the films about the love of an immortal vampire and an innocent girl, it looks more like someone’s fantasy, a terrible fairy tale, not too clearly translated on the screen. However, true fans of Dracula will prefer the more classic versions.
Master of classic Italian horror films (the so-called "Gallo" films) Dario Argento has been increasingly making extremely weak and unremarkable films lately. This time he decided to turn to the story of the most famous vampire of all time – Dracula, about whom countless film adaptations have been filmed.
Unfortunately, Argento has adapted Dracula’s story very poorly. Computer special effects in the film look very primitive, and very spoil the impression of viewing. The plot itself, already weak, is seasoned with scenes of erotic content.
The only thing that pleases in the film is the presence of Argento’s beautiful daughter, Asia, who plays the role of Lucy. She came very close to her role. Asia is simply delightful, she has a very beautiful appearance and a beautiful figure. Only the beautiful appearance of Asia brings at least some color to such an unfortunate film.
Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing also enjoyed his acting. Although his character appears shortly before the final.
As for Dracula himself, he turned out to be somehow faded, and unremarkable. Thomas Kretschmann is a good actor, but in this film he played quite poorly.
The result: a very weak film made by a master of horror.
Contrary to concerns about the quality of Dario Argento’s latest film, it should be admitted that his fantasy on the theme of Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula turned out to be an interesting and partly perfect digital horror in 3D. Realizing that as before to shoot will not work, Dario Argento created not so much horror in the usual sense, as a digital performance. His film is distinguished by conditional scenery, theatrical manner of play and pure external effects. If Argento has night, then it is not a terrible night, and the forest is not like a real forest, but like the scenery of the forest in the studio.
And you expect, like Dogville, that now there will be a studio fan in the frame, creating the appearance of the wind. But Argento doesn't go all the way, like von Trier. Yes, 9 years after Dogville, it would look clearly secondary. Also, the film should not be taken as a film adaptation of Bram Stoker. The work of Argento only in general terms borrows the canvas of the novel. Everything else is a fantasy on the subject, and clearly more successful than his Phantom of the Opera. Perhaps, for an even greater distraction, Dracula 3D lacks elements of the musical, but such a bold step would definitely scare away most of the horror artists, for whose audience Argento of course counted.
7 out of 10