n
n
n
n
nTitle: Dario Argento’s Dracula 3-D (2012)
n
n
n
nDirector: Dario Argento
n
n
n
nCast: Rutger Hauer, Asia Argento, Thomas Kretschmann, MartanGastini, Unax Agalde, Giovanni Franzoni
n
n
n
nThere’s this idea amongst film buffs that directors tend to makenworse films the older they get; and I think it’s true, with very few exceptions, as directors get older,nthey lose that magic that made their first films great. Case in point: Dario Argentonwho had his golden age back in the 70’s and 80’s when he made films likenSuspiria (1977), Deep Red (1975) and Opera (1987). I remember those moviesnbeing awesome because of their atmosphere, the over the top violence and thosenspecial camera angles that Argento was so fond of. But somewhere around thenlate 80’s and early 90’s Argento was showing signs of fatigue, his films justnweren’t the same. I guess when I started to notice something was off with Argentonwas around the time he made his version of Phantom of the Opera (1998) whichnwas just a goofy, goofy film. Trying to be all serious and romantic, yetnfailing horribly at it. After that one, he’s never really ever given usnanything as remotely good as his early stuff. Seeing Argento’s Dracula cements the idea that Argento is totally done for as a director. Sadly.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nI get what Argento was trying to do with his take on Stoker’snDracula; simply put Argento was going for a tribute to Hammer’s Dracula films,nyou know the ones that starred Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Specifically,nArgento’s Dracula plays out a lot like Terrence Fisher’s Horror of Dracula (1958),nthe very first Hammer Dracula film, it even uses that idea that Terrence Fishernused in Horror of Dracula were Jonathan Harker travels to Dracula’s castle tonfunction as a librarian. The film feels like it’s trying to be purposely oldnschool, right down to this silly sounding Halloween soundtrack that it has. Thenfilm looks and feels pretty much like a Hammer film, the difference lies in thengraphic gore which was something that Hammer films never dabbled too deeplyninto. I mean, Hammer films had their blood, but they were never too graphic,nnot like Argento’s Dracula which goes over the top at some points. That’s rightnmy friends, on this one Argento amps up the levels of gore, which is always funnin my book. There’s this moment where Dracula goes nuts and starts slicing offnheads like there’s no tomorrow, I have to admit, those were some cool scenes. Butngore alone does not make a good horror film; we gotta have other things thrownnin there, like for example some common sense, which Argento has always loved tonthrow out the window. Did you ever think you’d end up seeing Dracula transformninto a giant Praying Mantis? No? Well, after you see Argento’s Dracula you cannscratch that one off your bucket list!
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nSo this film has enough gore and nonsensical elements to getnthe fan boys talking on the net, what else do we need to make this one standnout? Oh yeah, how about some good old fashion nudity? Well, there’s tons of itnas well. I mean, five minutes into the film two young lovers are making out inna barn and there’s flesh everywhere! If you ever wanted to get a good look atnAsia Argento’s nakedness, this is your chance! Don’t worry about it, her dad isnokay with it, he’s the film’s director! So yeah, this one has all the shockingnelements necessary to get fan boys attention. Problem is that along with allnthese ‘goodies’ we get some really terrible elements to this film, which sadlynbrings it really down or makes it cheesier, which some folks don’t mind. Fornexample, the computer animation is just freaking terrible. God! How can andirector like Argento look at this footage and say “were good to go”? I mean,nthe digital stunt doubles on this one? So laughable! But then again, even thenreal actors are terrible! There’s this actress that plays Mina Harker (MartanGastini), she has these scenes where Dracula and her are all emotional aboutntheir love for one another and all that…you should see that scene, it’s thenmost shameless rip off! She’s imitating Wynona Ryder in Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)!nShe uses the same facial gestures, the same everything, her performance was Xeroxed,nit made me want to puke because it was such a shameless copy/paste! AsianArgento herself turns in a terrible performance, but she was never much of annactress if you ask me. Not even Rutger Hauer can save this one, sorry.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nOverall, even though this movie isn’t what I’d call a goodnArgento film, I’d say that it retains a certain cheesy watchability to it whichnreminded me of another one of Argento’s goofy yet enjoyable films: The Phantomnof the Opera (1998). Argento’s Dracula is a train wreck of a film, but it’s anfun train wreck. It has all the things you’d expect in a Dracula film, the fullnmoon, the spooky woods, the mist, the castles, the big breasted vampire ladies,ncrosses, stakes, coffins and lots of blood! It really is trying to be an oldnfashioned horror movie, and I have to give it props for that. It’s kind of likena modern day Hammer film, but cheesy to the max, with bad dialog and acting, andnArgento’s unique brand of weirdness. For example, Argento’s obsession with insects returns! I’venalready mentioned the giant Praying Mantis, but he also plays with some imagesnhe’d played with before in Phenomena (1985), namely, a horde of insectsnswarming outside of a house. Yup, on this one Dracula can also turn into anbunch of flies! In many ways, this is a fun movie, because hearing this dialognis a trip, but also because it’s trying so hard to be spooky and old schoolnthat it’s kind of endearing in that way. I’d say this one would make a funnwatch come Halloween night, but that’s all its good for because no matter hownhard it might try, Dracula 3-D won’t be reminding you of Argento’s glory days; those days are long, long gone.
n
n
n
n
nRating: 2 out of 5
n
n
n
n
n
n
