 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 19, 2013 - 3:51 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
Ok, finally saw "Dracula 3D" and it's a stinker. To start off I'm not a fan of the digital look which as a result shows everything too bright and makes it look as if I'm watching a sunday morning kids show. Argento adds nothing new to the Dracula mythos and as the familiar scenes pass by I was thinking about how they looked so much better in the Coppola version. Dracula changes into animals and insects and these are 3D animated and look so low budget and out of place. In one scene, they even had to put in a cgi model of a train for when Harker arrives... Makes you wonder why not use a real train or cut the scene altogether. The CGI is terrible and adds little to the story; Dracula turning into a huge praying mantis that looks ridiculous, I fail to see the point.
The acting is tolerable now and again and Asia Argento is noteworthy, I'll even go as far as say the movie does seem to get some momentum once Rutger Hauer is introduced, but it doesn't last long. There is one effective sequence where Dracula (Thomas Kretschman) takes on a mutiny inside a bar, and the first girl to fall victim to Dracula is smoking hot (lots of nudity), but overall this whole movie is one bad idea. Why Argento choses to shoot everything medium or long shot and uses no close ups, I figure it's due to the 3D but there is little cinematography to marvel at in this movie (I really loath digital shooting).
I hope he will return to film with his next project (given there even will be one as his last two movies were bombs).
Argento will be present next month at the bifff festival in belgium to showcase it, I do think it will have some camp value with the bifff audience as they holler and comment during the screenings 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
