Dario Argento's Dracula. (2012)
Dario Argento's take on Bram Stoker's classic novel Dracula is a mixed bag to say the least.
At no stage did this ever register as an Argento film. It lacked all the technical flourishes and creativity that set his films apart during the seventies and eighties. Perhaps he's lost the impetus or more likely he chooses not to bother anymore.
Much of the CGI is horribly inept and for the most part unnecessary. Take the mist at the railway station as a prime example, the CGI actually distracts from the conversation taking place. CGI also plays a part in the gore scenes but thankfully regular make up maestro Sergio Stivaletti and his crew also mix in practical effects making the close up gore nice and messy.
Long time Argento collaborator Claudio Simonetti's score borders on an Ed Wood parody at times with it's swirly 'woo, woos'. Unfortunately the rest of it is completely unmemorable and pales into insignificance when compared to the masterpieces created for past Dracula films by James Bernard, Wojciech Kilar and Philip Glass.
Visually Argento's film is what it is. A cheap European production, originally shot in 3D. Lacking the technicolour majesty of the Hammer productions or the black and white atmospherics of the Universal films. Looking distinctly modern and clean, the film stock used comes across as too clinical for suitability as a Gothic film making medium.
As with his last film Giallo, and star Adrien Brody, Argento doesn't seem to have the right personnel for his lead roles. Thomas Kretschmann, like Brody, is a fine actor but he just isn't Dracula. He doesn't have the onscreen presence of a Christopher Lee for example to fully convince and it was only in the quieter moments with Mina that he seemed comfortable in the role. Argento's daughter and regular collaborator Asia fayres a little better in the role of Lucy Kisslinger (Why Dario would change her name from Westenra makes no sense). I'm not Asia's biggest fan but felt she did well and was suited to the vampish role, whereas it would have been less successful had her father cast her as Mina the wispish heroine of the story. The film's other name actor is Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing who was wasted in his role only showing up during the final twenty minutes
As for the story line. At times it follows the source novel with it's recreation of scenes and dialogue yet at others it veers away so much to be a little embarrassing - Say hello praying mantis, another ropey CGI effect.
Dracula isn't a patch on earlier efforts such as Deep Red, Suspiria, Inferno or even the more recent Mother of Tears. It's definitely on the bottom rung of his work but i found it more entertaining than The Card Player, Trauma and Cat o' Nine Tails, a 'classic' i personally find really quite boring.
Having said all this i didn't hate the film, in fact i quite enjoyed it. Argento's mix and match of ineptitude and fun seemingly struck a chord, and Bram Stoker's novel is one of my favourite books which i read numerous times when i was in my teens, although i haven't been anywhere near it in twenty five years. So Argento would really have had to screw it up completely story wise for me not to take something out of it.
Either that or the seemingly endless stream of low budget direct to dvd dross i wade through has addled my brain completely.... You decide!
|