Quote:
Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs  Dario Argento's Dracula. (2012).
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! |
I watched it in a state of disbelief, completely befuddled as to how filmmaker like Argento decided this was acceptable and worth releasing. Every respect of the filmmaking process, from the script to the acting, score, direction and the digital effects were truly abysmal. Even the set design and costumes looked like something from a pretty cheap Hammer film from the 1960s – easily the least disappointing part of the entire film.
I can only guess it's because you've seen so much cheap direct-to-DVD crap recently that you found
Dracula in any way tolerable!