Dracula 3D (2013)

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Famed Italian horror maestro Dario Argento of "Suspiria" finally sinks his own fangs in Bram Stoker's classic novel "Dracula" with his own version of the immortal tale of terror. Dario has taken liberties like all filmmakers has done before in the past. Although obvious, third-rate CGI recurs throughout "Dracula 3-D," the Argento slant on the infamous fangster is still eminently worth watching for Stoker aficionados. The casting of Rutger Hauer as the Dutch hero Van Helsing is a triumph not only because Hauer hails from the Netherlands, but also because his interpretation of Van Helsing is probably the best thing about this Dracula. Thomas Kretschmann isn't the best Count. Indeed, neither the spirits of Christopher Lee nor Bela Lugosi need worry about Kretschmann's Dracula. Gary Oldman's Dracula also surpasses him, but Kretschmann is far from the worst. He amounts to a fair to middling Dracula. Basically, he lacks presence, and he also lacks an accent.Several differences mark this vampire take on Stoker's text. First, "Dracula 3-D" confines itself to Transylvania. Second, the residents of the town of Passborg not only know about the notorious Count, but they also are grateful to him for his economic assistance. Nevertheless, the residents know better than to linger after dusk, and this gets Tanja (Miriam Giovanelli) in trouble when she has an assignation with a married man, Milos (Christian Burruano), in a stable after her mother, Jarmila (Maria Cristina Heller) has warned her about staying out past dark. Milos refuses to escort Tanja back into town for fear that he will expose himself to charges of adultery. Tanja argues that nobody will see him because everybody is locked up safely in their homes. Nevertheless, Milos lets Tanja fend for herself, and she is attacked by a huge owl as she walks home through the woods. This scene never happened in Stoker, and Dracula never assumes the shape of an owl. In fact, Dracula takes the form of several animals and insects in "Dracula 3-D" that he never took in the novel. Of course, he appears as a wolf at one point, but he also appears as a cockroach and a mantis. The mantis scene is particularly effective despite the obvious CGI. Fourth, Jonathan Harker (Unax Ugalde) goes to work for Dracula as a librarian. Incidentally, Jonathan Harker masqueraded as a librarian in the "Horror of Dracula" so he could kill Dracula, but his plans backfired on him. Five, instead of Dracula attacking Harker after he cuts himself on a shard of glass from the picture casing of his wife, Tanja feeds on him until Dracula bursts into the room and sends her packing. Harker never recovers his Dracula's blood-sucking and later Van Helsing puts him to the stake. Repeatedly, Tanja takes advantage of Harker. Sixth, Dracula materializes out of nowhere every time that he shows up. He materializes into the room where the Passborg officials have gathered to deal with him. He kills them all except one who has abetted him. Dracula mesmerizes Lucy and bites her on the back of her knee on the left leg. She dies not long afterward. Interestingly enough, Van Helsing catches Lucy with an infant child that she has feasted on at night. Seventh, Van Helsing relies on garlic-encrusted revolver bullets to destroy Dracula and Mina shoots him to death with this exotic bullet. Eighth, Argento treats Renfield in a different manner. Renfield worships the ground that Tanja treads and he shows up with the townspeople prepare to drive a wooden stake through her heart. She escapes, but Renfield roughs up this crew before he is incarcerated. Aside from his interesting departures from Stoker, Argento includes Castle Dracula in this yarn. Generally speaking, "Dracula 3-D" sticks to the basics, with the villainous Count generating paranoia in the hearts of simple country folks. We only get a glimpse of Van Helsing's Carfax sanitarium with its horde of insane patients. Tanja bites off more than she can chew or suck when she takes on Van Helsing and he surprises her with a cross that kills her, reducing her body to powder that it blown away to leave nothing of her presence. Argento aficionados will enjoy "Dracula 3-D."

I haven't seen the 3D version, so I am not at liberty to judge that (though a friend told me that a scene with a naked lady almost at the beginning is looking good). What I can say, is that the movie in general is not looking good. I watched it on DVD but it's painfully obvious that there was almost no money to spend. While small budget movies in America make it look like they do have a big budget, Dario Argento is not able to make it look like anything.Family "issues" aside (though Asia never had a problem with her body, so let's not read anything into her being naked once again in a movie by her dad), it's the acting altogether that will have you shaking your head, if not giving you a bad feeling. It's a disaster and not in a good or funny sense. In Giallo you could have fun with how ridiculous and how bad the acting was (or the "plot"). Unfortunately there is nothing to laugh here. There is a bit of the mentioned eye candy for lovers of the female body, don't wait for any male hunk to appear though.The "special" effects are another tragic category that add to the confusion. If it were a student movie you might be able to forgive and forget, but for a former (?) maestro of the horror genre this is just pitiful. And that's me being nice. He might be forced to have his actors talk in English (which makes them look worse), but that doesn't change the fact, that the direction is bad too, the script is lacking and a general absence of anything that might be able to save this .... I do wonder if his early work might have been elevated by the people surrounding him (Goblin and other people) ...

"Suspiria", this ain't.Why Dario Argento attempted to make the one millionth version of "Dracula" is probably the most puzzling thing about this truly terrible version of Bram Stoker's undying novel. By this time, who cares about the Count, anyway? The poor guy has been invoked and re-imagined so many times it's nothing but sad anymore. Argento evidently wanted his shot at the venerable story, but the result is a hot mess that can't even qualify as a cult movie, despite the fact that late in the movie, Dracula turns himself into a giant deadly mantis to kill another extra who didn't know he needed to call Orkin.The entire movie is shot under incredibly bright light, making even the night scenes looks as if everyone's going to hit the beach as soon as the director yells "cut". This is Transylvania/California. The story is a precariously balanced retread of the superior "Horror of Dracula", Hammer Films breakthrough in Technicolor vampirism that shook the world in 1958. Here, Argento wastes film in a weak copy of the Hammer visual style, reducing the original 1958 color palette of rich autumn hues to something you'd see on the Vegas strip. Hammer's heaving bosoms are now in full view, jiggling all over the place. The subtle eroticism of the 58' version is now stroke magazine fodder. Most damnably, Argento attempts to recreate the seminal scene in which Harker is attacked by Dracula's bride. Instead of the shock of Christopher Lee's red-eyed Count knocking the hell out of the bride, we get T and A and the worst pretend Dracula ever seen, the lousy Thomas Kretschmann in a Z-list sleepwalk performance of one of the world's greatest villains. Oh yeah, he's also blond. Surf's up, Drac!And so on. We get a seriously truncated version of the original story. Dracula never goes to England. Somehow, all the characters come to him. No hunting necessary. Within ten minutes of the movie's start, we get soft-core porn involving a buff gymrat and a Hustler Honey banging in a barn. Dracula is not only a weak player, but also a very bad CGI owl, werewolf thingy, and again, a giant praying mantis. Who knew? Rutger Hauer shows up late in the game as Van Helsing, gets knocked around for his trouble and Mina shoots the Count, who turns into an ashy replica of himself before blowing up real good.For Dracula completists only, and even then, on fast-forward. Really, it's that bad.

Dario Argento's "Dracula 3D" sets a tone for the next generation of Argento fans that is a mildly flat sound quizzical sadness. The film was heralded as the great horror master's return but proves to be anything more than the standard absurdity that quite frankly Dario Argento's work has always been seen as by me. That sounds really bad and may make me seem like a horrible horror fan but in all honestly Dario's films have never been top shelf cinematic gold, the films have maintained a basic over-the-top, ridiculousness that seemed more tongue-in-cheek, grandeur. Which is really what I always loved about his films. If I wanted to watch serious, grounded horror I would always turn to the more mature horror styles like Fulci or America's own John Carpenter, both of whom maintain a classic balance of dark situation with a black satirical subtext. Argento is awesome because of the simple fact that his films have always been anything but serious attempts at horror storytelling. Which is no different in his revision of "Dracula 3D". As a kid I reacted much the same way over his classic heralded films "Trauma" and "Suspiria" with the same wide-eyed, confusion that I experienced watching "Dracula 3D". Okay so "Dracula 3D" carried the absurdity a bit further but not by much more than is his normal amount of off-beat, illogical vision of theatrics. "Dracula 3D" offers a blended story that seems part classic Dracula lore mixed with Hammer's own mythos for the Prince of Darkness. There is an obvious lackadaisical approach to Dracula story that begins almost in the middle, forcing the viewer to stay focused on this particular retelling of Bram's story. There isn't much that is recognizable and I found myself having to remind myself that I was watching "Dracula" because there is almost nothing other than the names that resembles the classic tale and the film shows more of a Hammer Film's influence than Bram Stoker. It is a bit cumbersome in creating an instant connection with the film and the characters but I found myself very captivated by this story that almost made for an original counter-piece. The characters fall short of actualizing into multifaceted personas but I have always found that to be the case with Argento's characters. The emotion and interactions to the situations his characters often face have always seemed sterile and robotic. It does very little to disconnect me completely from "Dracula 3D" much as the characters in his previous material have not keep me from getting into the films. To me this is one component that makes Dario Argento's style so Dario Argento. Either you like his film and style or you don't. The fact that his style of telling a story is often so overtly bad is what I like about his films. The special effects and sound effects in "Dracula 3D" are borderline terrible. Mostly the effects, they offer more visual spectacle akin to SyFy or below B-movie quality than one would expect from Argento with this caliber of film. Plus the 3D tricks are subpar or mediocre at best. So that was a bit of a downer, even for such a liberal horror fan as I am. I personally don't get the whole 3D schtick, wasn't impressed with it as a kid and even with today's new technology I still am not impressed with it. So that instant dismissal of the 3D gimmick in "Dracula 3D" has no baring in my review of this film. The special effects though is another matter. It was far too cheap to overlook. The sound effects and musical score for the film seems pretty cool, offering an expected creepy, haunting feeling that you would expect in a Dracula or film like this. For me, "Dracuala 3D" is standard Argento level story telling, take that as good or bad. This film is plenty bad and on the cultish, bad movie level there is plenty that will make the film good, at least for those of us who have no decades built delusion that Dario Argento's work has been anything but bad, tacky awesomely fun cinema wasteland viewing. "Dracula 3D" is a film that, if you are only looking for some tongue-in-cheek, WTF film fun, you may enjoy- I did. However if you only have room for serious horror stories and films that take the Dracula material straight forward then definitely skip this film because it is more laughable than entertaining on that level-but then why would you really be watching a Dario Argento film anyway?!