Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

lemon_magic Warning: the actual plot of the film has very little to do with Bram Stoker, Universal, or Hammer films aside from recycling the character names. That may or may not be a disappointment depending on whether you are tired of the same old tropes or want to see them done one more time with Argento's trademark visual style.Speaking of which - the photography and scene design roll over your visual inputs like melted butter. Every scene, every shot is just drenched in color and detail. Sometimes I wanted to do a screen capture of a scene and frame it on a wall of my house. So that alone made me feel as if I got my money's worth and spent my time in a worthwhile manner.On the other hand...well, on the other hand, some of the dialog is risibly bad. And some of the acting (including 70-80% of what Asia Argento does) is clunky and wooden. I'm willing to overlook some of this in a film where the lines are probably dubbed...but there are an awful lot of clunkers here that detract from the film. Casting: the actor playing Dracula was an interesting choice and had some visual appeal, but seemed too calm and sedate for the part. That might have just been an effect of the way the character was written. Gerard Butler had the same problem in a previous Dracula movie - they just didn't frame the actor in a way that best framed his strengths. This actor doesn't ruin the movie by any means, but he isn't Christopher Lee. You don't spend all the down time between his scenes holding your breath for his next appearance. As I mentioned, the plot's all over the place and doesn't really have a lot of momentum and sometimes doesn't make a lot of sense. The editor also tends to stick in short scenes and shots here and there that either stop the movie cold or else disrupt the flow. I'm not sure I got to see the best version of the movie, either - for instance, Dracula's spy/henchman Zoltan is made out to be a pretty ruthless bad ass in three different scenes, but Hauer/Van Helsing dispatches him in about 5 seconds. And did I mention that Hauer/Van Helsing only appears after more than 1/2 the film has gone by? Oh, well. It was worth seeing once in the DVD player on a Tuesday afternoon when I was under the weather and unable to go to work.

brchthethird Dario Argento takes a dump on Bram Stoker's classic story with this amateurish, cheap and dull production of Dracula. Argento has never been known for thought-provoking cinema, and more often than not his stories feature an abundance of style over substance. Here, even the style comes off as schlocky and cheesy, and not in a "so bad it's good" way either. The entire cast doesn't speak English as a first language, and it shows in their performances. With few exceptions, they all come off as stiff and wooden, with lifeless line readings. Even Rutger Hauer, who has given some terrific performances in his career, is on auto-pilot here. The only actor in the entire cast who really looks like he's enjoying himself is Thomas Kretschmann, who plays the titular Count. And at times, it looks and sounds like he's doing his best Bela Lugosi impression. Moving on, as this is a horror movie from Argento, it can be expected that there is a certain amount of blood and gore (along with some amusing female nudity). While it certainly delivers in that department, the effects still look cheap and fake. Also worth mentioning for how bad it is, the whole production has the look and feel of a made-for-TV drama, in everything from the staging and camera-work to the image quality. A lot of the sets look like sets, and the CGI background enhancements in some scenes is jarring. The visual effects are also disappointingly bad. I already mentioned the blood and gore, but there's also a poorly done effect of bodies turning to ash as well as a laughably bad (but incredibly short) scene where Dracula attacks someone in the form of a (CGI) praying mantis(!). On that note, in this movie Dracula doesn't just take the form of a bat, but also flies, roaches, wolves(?) and the aforementioned praying mantis. Finally, even though I saw this in 2D, it was actually made for (and shot in) 3D. Other than being a marketing gimmick, I can't possibly see how it would have benefited this piece of tripe. Overall, it's best just to avoid this "so bad it's horrible" movie. There are much better camp classics, and/or Dario Argento films if you're so inclined.

Claudio Carvalho Dario Argento is one of my favorite contemporary directors in the horror genre. However "Dracula 3D" is certainly his worst movie, retelling Bram Stoker's Gothic novel with poor performances in cheesy scenario, CGI and art direction. Miriam Giovanelli seems to be a porn star the way she takes her clothes so easily. Drácula's transformation into owl, flies, wolf and even mantis (?) is sort of ridiculous. But as a friend of mine uses to say about this "Dracula 3D", the worst movie by Dario Argento is still better than most of the teen horror movies. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "Drácula 3D"

needful_things1 If you like 70's type horror movies then watch this one. The acting was terrible, almost without any feelings at all. The dialog was lacking anything resembling natural conversations and left me not really believing any of it. Hard to believe anyone could read the script and decide to back it. But... I liked the movie and smiled frequently because of these poor qualities. In 3D, most of the scenes were pretty good. There were not very many eye popper scenes and panning in the woods was occasionally disorienting. The rest of the movie was really pretty good in 3D and I'd watch it again in 3d, not 2D. Almost unbelievable that it was made last year. It really reminded me of a 70's horror. All it needed was Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. There are many really trashy horror movies being made today and this is not one of them.