Cool News
Dracula 3D makes Quint question what happened to Dario Argento. Cannes 2012!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. Watch this trailer for Dario Argento’s Dracula 3D before we get started, okay?
If you’re anything like me when you saw that trailer you asked yourself one question: “That’s playing Cannes? The Cannes? Black and white subtitled art films Cannes? Gay cowboys eating pudding Cannes? That Cannes is playing Dracula 3D?”
Sure, Dario Argento’s earned some respect, but let’s face facts here. He’s been sliding down slope for a while. I love the man, but there’s not a single film he’s done in the last decade that shows a hint of the master who delivered us those gloriously weird what-the-fuck-am-I-watching thrillers of the ‘70s and ‘80s.
It’s like he’s been hit on the head and forgot how to make movies. I get that he’s probably not getting the same budgets, but it’s not like he was working with Cecil B. DeMille budgets before. There was a flair to his filmmaking, no-budget as it was, that demanded to be recognized. That spark is nowhere to be seen in his recent endevours. I don’t know if he’s just lost the passion or the drive to do more than the bare minimum, but whatever’s happened it makes me sad.
Despite that trailer and word of mouth not being so hot, I still sat down today with a glimmer of hope that there would be some of Argento’s spirit in this film.
When the opening credits rolled I thought I might be vindicated. First there was a notice saying that this film was deemed to be culturally significant, which I’m sure was some sort of acknowledgement of a tax incentive received by the production, but still… it drew a laugh from the crowd just before the first notes of Claudio Simonetti’s score hit. Man, is it goofy. Super big, super bold and with a ridiculous amount of theremin.
The font on the credits was likewise gaudy, bright red on black and that’s when I begin to think this was going to be fun. I don’t ask that Argento make serious horror movies, just one where I can feel him invested, going for something like he’s a hungry young filmmaker again. I want to see some passion, some ingenuity… I don’t care if it’s a stupid, bloody exploitation film. It doesn’t have to be high art to impress me, I just want to see him give a shit again.
Sadly, I can’t say that I found the shit-giving I was hoping for with Dracula 3D. There are moments where you can plainly tell Argento and company were in on the joke and knew the shitty movie they were making which elevates it slightly, but only for those moments… then it just goes back to being yet another bad direct to video adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula.
You know the story, we’ve seen it a million times… although I can’t remember another adaptation that features our beloved Count Dracula turning into a giant praying mantis in order to stab a dude with a big insect leg. So, it didn’t help that every beat of this story has been told and retold a few bazillion times. When you take on something like this you have to bring your A Game. I’m a HUGE fan of Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula. He was able to balance an experimental style (capturing every visual effect in camera) with a brilliant cast (well mostly. Sorry, Keanu) to make a kind of tour de force of filmmaking ingenuity.
Argento just paints by numbers, sprinkling the bland results with a few moments of crazy gore. His actors are either bad, embarrassed or phoning it in… I swear to God I caught Rutger Hauer reading off a cue card, his eyes darting back and forth as he falls over his words in a monotone like a last minute guest on Saturday Night Live.
And then there’s the effects. Calling them direct to video quality is too much praise. We’re talking modern day Full Moon Entertainment level… that weird horror movie with a good cover you stumble upon on Netflix Instant and then realize 30 seconds in that some dude-bros made it in their back yard for $20 and a student discounted version of After Effects. That kind of bad.
In order to not be 100% negative, let me say a couple of nice things about this movie. Asia Argento is still a fox and still looks great without her clothes on… and that fantastic shift from “Wow, look at her boobs-oh-my-God-her-father-shot-that” that can only be gotten in an Argento film is still in full effect.
Thomas Kretschmann is still a good actor, but he’s not at all protected by Argento here, with some really oddly cut dialogue scenes and line-readings… if I were him I’d be furious. I have a feeling Argento cut one of the worst possible versions of his performance in the film.
And… um… well, there’s the meeting scene when some of the townspeople debate about breaking their pact with the Count and he shows up and murders the shit out of the room with his fingernails, fangs and some good ol’ MacGruber-style neck rippings.
That was kind of fun. There were a couple of smaller random gore moments that seemed to come out of left field, but this was the big one and, dare I say, the movie could have a few dozen more like it.
Argento seemed constrained by the source material. If he had let his freak flag fly and done this one up like the opening of John Carpenter’s Vampires, but from start to finish, then I think his Dracula would have been amazing. As it stands now, it is just ridiculous enough to be some good fodder for those folks that like “so bad it’s good” movies. I don’t subscribe to that theory. I don’t ironically like movies. I either do or I don’t and this one is way far into the latter category.
The 3D is sharp, but that’s kind of a problem. With the sharp 3D comes very heavily lit foregrounds and backgrounds, so that makes it impossible to build any real sense of atmosphere that doesn’t feel like a cheap roaming carnival house of horrors ride.
I wouldn’t call Dracula 3D the most disappointing old-master movie I’ve seen… the film that jumps immediately to mind is Burke & Hare because of all the talent John Landis had at his disposal and just how dull and flat the whole thing ended up being… and it did get some ironic applause at the end, but I think the resulting product is in some weird middle ground where Argento can’t decide whether he wanted to make a super fun exploitation film or actually do his adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Either one would have been awesome if he put his heart into it, but sadly he didn’t… and if he did, then I’ll be even sadder because if this is what he thinks is good, quality filmmaking then he truly is lost to us.
-Eric Vespe
”Quint”
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
The owl. The fangs. Kept expecting a Mega-Shark-topus to pop out of the screen.
-
Doesn't look thrilling or chilling or terrifying in the least, and those line readings are groaners.
-
Looks like the material doesn't work for everybody. And really, it doesn't need to be done again. Ever. Not in 3-D, not in 2-D, not as a motion simulator theme park ride. Can't believe its been twenty years since Coppola's version.
-
That and "Let The Right One In" are the only two great vampire films in decades.
-
Who would ever intentionally make a poor film? What a ridiculous proposition to even ponder. If the movie is shit, then it's plainly obvious that any talent Argento may have had, is gone. The man is older and he's now creatively bereft. Personally, I've always thought Argento is the most overrated director the history of film. The trailer for this looks film-school kinda bad.
-
May 21, 2012, 5:47 a.m. CST
I watched suspiria and phenomena a little while back...
by sam jacksons wig
.... and have much love for both (yup- even phenomena, which seemed like a breath of fresh air in the uncut form after the bastardisation that was Creepers), and I have to say that this looks like several kinds of filtered shit. the worst part is that regardless of the budget, it's money that could have been used by an up and coming movie maker to showcase their talents, not to rehash crap like this. what a fucking waste this looks like.....
-
May 21, 2012, 5:56 a.m. CST
The last film that Argento made which I enjoyed was Sleepless. Everything else has sadly been very bad.
by Ecto-1
-
May 21, 2012, 5:57 a.m. CST
but his earlier works will always be a source of constant inspiriation
by Ecto-1
-
It's like GORDON HAS A BEER AND CHEETS ON HIS WIFE.
-
and the film couldn't have been made if it didn't star his daughter. Sad but true. Dario Argento's talent is still there but the powers to be doens't want to invest in italian horror movies anymore.
-
Not sure if he ever will again now. Sad, but true.
-
May 21, 2012, 6:16 a.m. CST
AICN makes Dario Argento question what happened to Quint. Cannes 2012!
by John Baker
How does it feel when the tables are turned Quint?! How does IT FEEL?!!! Just kidding. Good review. Argento has definitely slipped.
-
May 21, 2012, 6:31 a.m. CST
It does look bad. The effects for the woman on fire are like a video game cut scene from over a decade ago. Very bad.
by L.H.Puttgrass
But cheer up! Look at this! It's the teaser for Skyfall! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24mTIE4D9JM And it looks GOOD!
-
Sounds good, I'm in.
-
May 21, 2012, 6:38 a.m. CST
Dude-Bros! Hey, I'm a dude-bro. Quint, what's your problem, brah?
by D.Vader
-
May 21, 2012, 6:40 a.m. CST
Love FFC's Dracula but have to give props to Frank Langella...
by tangcameo
His Dracula was on TV a lot in the seventies when I was five. I was scared and fascinated. I remember making a room full of girls scream just because I was changing the TV channel to watch Langella's Dracula.
-
May 21, 2012, 7:01 a.m. CST
Speaking of Asia Argento...i really liked Boarding Gate (2007) bit bumpy in some bits, but a solid interesting thriller
by quantize
-
This one looks the same. Poor Dario... his last good movie was Opera (1987).
-
But when you have a name, you can make garbage and it gets played around the world.
-
with Argento, Carpenter and Landis on. Not dead you understand, just on a desert island somewhere far away from a film camera. It genuinely saddens me to have not seen a watchable Argento since Opera in 87, hoping every time that this next one may be a return to form
-
Still Waits's best film role by far....
-
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Jenifer, Argento's Masters of Horror entry from a few years ago. This was easily as well written and creepy as some of Argento's work from the 70s and 80s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenifer_(Masters_of_Horror_episode)
-
Especially if Landis was onboard, with added buck-passing and labor-law bypassing thrown in...
-
AICN retrospective article on how it did or didn't change child safety laws coming maybe?????
-
Even the trailer looks cheap and nasty, I love Argento, but this looks shit. As for FFC''s Dracula, I didnt like it at all. As for the best Vampire movies its gotta be the Christopher Lee Dracula, Let the Right One In and of course The Lost Boys! the best vamp film ever.
-
May 21, 2012, 9:09 a.m. CST
And it would be young Oldman vs Fassbender. I would pay to see that re-release
by UltraTron
-
with Martin coming closely behind.
-
May 21, 2012, 9:28 a.m. CST
Watching you guys try to relive the glory days of giallo by watching stuff like this...
by 3774
...is like walking in on a guy trying to relive fantastic sex that he had the night before, by sniffing the wet spot on the sheets. Disturbing, sad, and gross. It's over, guys. Let it go. And seeing Argento try to ape the American brain-dead standard action style of fast cuts and needless CGI is a torture I'm not willing to endure for the sake of trying to relive moments like Phenomena. He had a good run. I accepted it was over and came to peace with it after trying to convince myself that Mother of Tears was worth the wait. If it was just another crappy movie it would be n big deal. But having them come from Argento is like agreeing to watch a porn, and then finding a close relative in it. Upsetting and just plain wrong. Which is what I think of Argento's willingness to shoot his daughter, naked, and often. Just plain wrong.
-
May 21, 2012, 9:47 a.m. CST
I'm still trying to find a porn director bold enough to replace Mighty Stuffins
by UltraTron
-
May 21, 2012, 10:44 a.m. CST
"It’s like he’s been hit on the head and forgot how to make movies"
by Rupee88
LOL. Dude he's 72 fucking years old ! You must be a young guy let me explain something to you..when you get old, you lose physical strength and brain capacity and intelligence and artistic talent and everything else.... Wake the fuck up man.
-
he used to be the fucking MASTER! I guess he got infected with the Carpenter-Romero-Craven virus.
-
Visually stunning, but plot-wise and as an adaptaion of the novel (much less one that purports to be a faithful adaptation), it's absolutely Riceified drivel
-
Ridley Scott is 74. Some guys can keep the fire.
-
I think he produced a couple of good films for other directors. The Church by Michelle Soavi comes to mind. I remember being very excited for Dario's new film, The Devil's Daughter. Although it had some classic Argento bits in it, it was mostly complete shit. Then he did a film with Tom Savini about a killer with a garate...and I didn't bother to watch it because it looked stupid and boring. Hard to believe this is the same man who did Phenomina, Suspiria, A Fly on Grey Velvet and The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, not to mention the bad-fucking-ass Two Evil Eyes with George Romero. It pains me to say that he should just follow Carpenter's lead and fucking give up.
-
Tell that to Keith Richards.
-
Just watched a movie about Jim Wynorski on Netflix about him making another one of his shitty movies, which he shot in THREE DAYS. Clearly, he knows that's not going to be worth a crap but who cares because he can sell it and make money. Quality isn't always number one with these hacks. Not to say Argento is a hack. But likea lot of directors, I think he comes out with a few firstgreat movies, and then sort of coasts, and then crashes, it happens all the time. And even in his good mov9es you can see the downfall coming...without the budget for his sets and lighting and such, those movies wouldn't be very good. Do them on a super low budget, they die. Yay for the love of Coppola's Dracula! That movie takes heat sometimes bu I love it.
-
It almost seems like TCM was some sort of fluke, like maybe the cinematographer (Daniel Pearl?) was the more creative force behind that film. Or maybe Hooper was just on some really good drugs. True he did Poltergeist after that, but rumors persist that Spielberg actually had to step in and shadow direct that film because Hooper didn't know what the fuck he was doing. Hooper went on to do total and complete garbage like Eaten Alive and Spontaneoud Compustion. The only thing he did that was worth a shit was the premiere episode of Freddy's Nightmares. It was like he temporarily awoke from his creative coma and managed to make an effective, moody TV movie. Then he slipped right back to the shit show. And while we're on the subject, I'll throw Joe Dante under the bus right fucking now. From The Howling, in my opinion the best, most frightening werewolf film of all time.....to fucking SMALL SOLDIERS! Get...THE FUCK...outta here!
-
And that's pretty fucked up. It's almost as if all these guys I thought were making art and really trying to say something....just started off making horror films because they were cheap and could get distribution deals. Joe Dante sure looked like he understood horror with Piranha and Howling...but then he went on to do comedies. And he did them well for the most part, Small Soldiers notwithstanding. Craven...man I don't EVEN know what the fuck the deal is there. Last House on the Left, as much as I despise that film, was effectively made and kind of created a genre. Sort of a domestic version of the cannibal films that were big at the time. But his genius seemed to diminish over time making less and less effective films. They just seemed out of touch, thoguh desperately grappling for the youth market. Shocker is a great example. All my friends and I went to see it, and we all left in a WTF daze. I would say the last semi-good all-out horror film Craven made was The People Under the Stairs. Red Eye was good, but that was a thriller. The Scream films, despite their popularity, are cheesy crap.
-
I dont know what the fuck they were going for with that movie and realistically, it's kind of awful. But it's amazing! The mood, the sleaze, the weirdness. A movie like that should have been the second half of the bill for Grindhouse.
-
May 21, 2012, 12:57 p.m. CST
Carpenter is probably the most dissapointing of all because he had the boldest vision
by Jaster Mareel
There's something about a classic Carpenter film that's hard to define, but absolute magic. There's a real "charm" to his film's that's sort of elemental. His characters are mostly architypes, but with a twist. I think it may be his lifetime love of John Ford westerns that brings that unique sensibility to other genres. The sort of bigger than life characters that don't give a shit, but have a heart of gold when it counts. he's really good at the details, the bits of drama leading up to an action scene. The scene in Assault on Precinct 13 with teh girl getting the ice cream. Nobody could have thought that up besides JC. And it completely informs the rest of the film. Then he did Escape from LA, the film fans had been begging him to do for like a decade. And it was.....ok at best. Hokey at worst. He seemed to miss the point of EFNY. That film is not a comedy making fun of New York stereotypes. It's a gothic, creepy descent into unrestrained madness where there are no rules and anyone could die at a momentary whim of someone else. It is a way more fucked up Tombstone, AZ before the Earp brothers showed up. EFLA was just a joke, and frankly an insult to the fans. But we forgave him. Then he did Mouth of Madness, which wasn't bad. It certainly seemed like a step in the right direction. Then the unfortunate last film of Christopher Reeve...Village of the Damned. OUCH! It pains me to think about it. All I could do was shake my head and hope it was a one time thing. So a couple of years later when he did Ghosts of Mars, I got excited. Harry was pimping that movie HARD with lots of set visits, interviews, even a report of a recording session for the score. All of it saying it would be absolutely marvelous. And then we saw it in theaters and wow.....yeah. Not quite what I expected. First of all, it starts at the end ansd the whole film is a flashback. I've always thought that was an annoying way to do a film. For one thing, it gives away the ending! Secondly, he had JUST DONE that schtick with Mouth of Madness. Stilted dialogue, a very rehashed storyline, very unintersting villain...all starring fuckin' ICE CUBE! When I rented the DVD to give it another chance I listened to the commentary and it was very revealing. Natasha Henstridge didn't cover for Carpenter at all and aired all the dirty laundry. Apparently he spent the entire shoot admitting what a total piece of shit it was and how utterly embarrassed he was. Natashe said that really fucked up on set morale and he tried to play it off like it was just being casual. He only came back to directing to do 2 Masters of Horror episodes, both written by Moriarty and neither one being very good. Alright Cigarette Burns has a couple of interesting ideas I suppose. At least it had a spark of the previous Carpenter.
-
It might be crap but I'd still rather watch it than bloody Twilight.
-
and now it's just a square black box?
-
...the new Haneke and Vinterberg films are reportedly great, why are you wasting your time reviewing films you know are going to be crap? Won't they let you in to the respectable screenings?
-
The only scene I recognized from the original novel was Lucy greeting Mina at Whitby...
-
Out of so many of those guys, Carpenter really had a vision. I think so did Craven but a lot of times his movies were flat out awful, like Shocker or Deadly Friend. But Carpenter had a laser focus and just cranked out classics for 20 years. And even his weaker efforts like The Fog or Christine are pretty damn great.
-
...was alright, but had plenty of flaws. Oldman is a good actor, but he is NOT Dracula. That was some bad casting. Reeves and Ryder both were pretty bad, and add Dracula's Woodstock Revival tinted glasses plus the over the top "erotic" scenes to that. No, not great. Not at all. Even Hopkins's interpretation of van Helsing as a freak sociopath was off.
-
There's only so much you can do with it. I think Coppola did about as much as can be expected. I agree with the criticisms of casting Reeves. Ryder I think was passable. Probably my biggest problem with the film at the time was all the cutesy transitions. Coppola just fucking piled them on scene after scene. Having Dracula's eyes in the sky, etc. The massive amount of effects try to compensate for the fact that the main storyline is so plain. Hopefully this is the last we'll see of Dracyula for awhile cuz that shit is beyond played.
-
May 21, 2012, 3:04 p.m. CST
I can't believe no one's mentioned Demons 1 % 2 - cracking films
by AllThosePowers
-
Coppolas Dracula is horrible. The only good thing about it is the costume design. The acting, writing, directing are all lame. Wooden. Laughable. Not scary or creepy in the slightest. Terrible. BUT.... no movie ever could be worse than Mother of Tears, the conclusion to the trilogy that started with Suspiria (one of my all time faves) and continued with Inferno (not as good but still solid, entertaining, visually appealing and interesting). All those good movies he did are still around, and I still watch them on the DVDs I bought. God Help Me, I bought Mother of Tears DVD and it is really perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen.
-
May 21, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST
@allthosepowers Demons rules, but not directed by Dario.
by adeceasedfan
Co- written and produced.
-
...it jumped out at me and caught me by surprise at Hastings. I had no idea it was out, squee'd with glee, bought it, and then had to try and explain to my boyfriend (who *doesn't* like horror movies) why it was a big deal. He checked out somewhere in the middle. I sat there while the end credits rolled, deeply immersed in what I now call 'Phantom Menace Syndrome' - flat-out lying to myself that I just had a great time, and trying to convince myself the movie I just saw was awesome, and worth the wait. Contrary to the pit in your stomach.
-
Argento makes John Carpenter's last two decades look like John Ford's. He hasn't made a good film since Tenebrae. Opera and Phenomena were cool, but both were a mess structurally. Trauma was stupid. Stendahl Syndrome was illogical to the core. Sleepless... Oh God, that was terrible. And those films are gold compared to everything since.
-
It might not be totally faithful to Stokers story but what the fuck other Dracula film is?
-
The only problem I had with Oldman was his stature. He's not very tall but he still made the part his own.
-
If he happens to see Quints review on here maybe they should go back and give the film an overhaul? Maybe there's a good film in there?
-
May 21, 2012, 6:48 p.m. CST
This just popped in my head. You know who else has faded? Stuart Gordon.
by adeceasedfan
-
May 21, 2012, 7:08 p.m. CST
Stuart Gordon has waned somewhat, but he can still spin a yarn
by Jaster Mareel
Dagon was awesome and Dreams in the Witch House was one of the best episodes of Masters of Horror.
-
I refuse to believe that man can put in a poor performance! No way! And having him as Van Helsing is inspired casting! Whether or not the film is bad, that's one thing they got right.
-
May 22, 2012, 1:08 a.m. CST
I liked Gordon's Poe episode with Jeffrey Combs even better.
by Mr. Giant
-
The fact of the matter is the name became gigantic because an unknown actor called Bela Lugosi decided to play the part and was great in it. And hundreds of films later, that name and monster had become legend. It's almost pathetic the way Copolla tried to put a great artistic slant to it. Did he try to squeeze all the juice of that novel or what, but there wasn't much there. "Dracula" was just a nice little mystery novel that Universal honchos made successful because they needed horror stories to feed their machine and they needed it fast. So all we had for the Copolla flick was great sets and costumes because it could not fit with that average story(Hell they even added stuff to the original story like the reincarnation of Mina as Dracula's great love). If only FFC would have had a great script and greater story from a great book to put all these talents to use like Moby Dick or something more imaginative like anything HP Lovecraft came up with.
-
Calm down.
-
So Bram Stoker's Dracula wasn't famous until Bela Lugosi played the part? That's not even the first film adaptation of the story! Stoker solidified what people consider to be a vampire. He took many legends and a real life man and created a story that you apparently do not fully appreciate, but everyone else can see why it is great.
Top Talkbacks
- Harry dives into STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS' spoilers to reveal the truth behind the blockbuster we're seeing! -- 1061 total posts 288 posts
- Has STAR WARS EPISODE VII Landed Its First Non-OT Cast Member? -- 214 total posts 214 posts
- John Ary's Video Review Of The New CAPTAIN AMERICA (1990) Blu-ray!! -- 163 total posts 163 posts
- Nordling Reviews STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS! Spoilers Abound! You Are Warned! -- 1298 total posts 157 posts
- STAR WARS REBELS Coming To Disney XD Fall 2014!! Chock Full-O-McQuarrie!?!? -- 151 total posts 151 posts
- Steven Seagal might be joining THE EXPENDABLES 3!! -- 117 total posts 117 posts
- ‘Darkness Will Devour Them All!!’ Sunday Brings Antepenultimate GAME OF THRONES For HBO!! -- 299 total posts 81 posts
- Kurt Russell and Timothy Olyphant sign up to throw a BONE TOMAHAWK!!! -- 80 total posts 80 posts
- Capone gets Extremis talking to actor James Badge Dale about IRON MAN 3, THE LONE RANGER and WORLD WAR Z!!! -- 48 total posts 48 posts
- Capone reviews STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS and considers the art of messing with canon and why it doesn't bother him!!! -- 587 total posts 48 posts