SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

lemon_magic Warning: the actual plot of the film has very little to do with Bram Stoker, Universal, or Hammer films aside from recycling the character names. That may or may not be a disappointment depending on whether you are tired of the same old tropes or want to see them done one more time with Argento's trademark visual style.Speaking of which - the photography and scene design roll over your visual inputs like melted butter. Every scene, every shot is just drenched in color and detail. Sometimes I wanted to do a screen capture of a scene and frame it on a wall of my house. So that alone made me feel as if I got my money's worth and spent my time in a worthwhile manner.On the other hand...well, on the other hand, some of the dialog is risibly bad. And some of the acting (including 70-80% of what Asia Argento does) is clunky and wooden. I'm willing to overlook some of this in a film where the lines are probably dubbed...but there are an awful lot of clunkers here that detract from the film. Casting: the actor playing Dracula was an interesting choice and had some visual appeal, but seemed too calm and sedate for the part. That might have just been an effect of the way the character was written. Gerard Butler had the same problem in a previous Dracula movie - they just didn't frame the actor in a way that best framed his strengths. This actor doesn't ruin the movie by any means, but he isn't Christopher Lee. You don't spend all the down time between his scenes holding your breath for his next appearance. As I mentioned, the plot's all over the place and doesn't really have a lot of momentum and sometimes doesn't make a lot of sense. The editor also tends to stick in short scenes and shots here and there that either stop the movie cold or else disrupt the flow. I'm not sure I got to see the best version of the movie, either - for instance, Dracula's spy/henchman Zoltan is made out to be a pretty ruthless bad ass in three different scenes, but Hauer/Van Helsing dispatches him in about 5 seconds. And did I mention that Hauer/Van Helsing only appears after more than 1/2 the film has gone by? Oh, well. It was worth seeing once in the DVD player on a Tuesday afternoon when I was under the weather and unable to go to work.

brchthethird Dario Argento takes a dump on Bram Stoker's classic story with this amateurish, cheap and dull production of Dracula. Argento has never been known for thought-provoking cinema, and more often than not his stories feature an abundance of style over substance. Here, even the style comes off as schlocky and cheesy, and not in a "so bad it's good" way either. The entire cast doesn't speak English as a first language, and it shows in their performances. With few exceptions, they all come off as stiff and wooden, with lifeless line readings. Even Rutger Hauer, who has given some terrific performances in his career, is on auto-pilot here. The only actor in the entire cast who really looks like he's enjoying himself is Thomas Kretschmann, who plays the titular Count. And at times, it looks and sounds like he's doing his best Bela Lugosi impression. Moving on, as this is a horror movie from Argento, it can be expected that there is a certain amount of blood and gore (along with some amusing female nudity). While it certainly delivers in that department, the effects still look cheap and fake. Also worth mentioning for how bad it is, the whole production has the look and feel of a made-for-TV drama, in everything from the staging and camera-work to the image quality. A lot of the sets look like sets, and the CGI background enhancements in some scenes is jarring. The visual effects are also disappointingly bad. I already mentioned the blood and gore, but there's also a poorly done effect of bodies turning to ash as well as a laughably bad (but incredibly short) scene where Dracula attacks someone in the form of a (CGI) praying mantis(!). On that note, in this movie Dracula doesn't just take the form of a bat, but also flies, roaches, wolves(?) and the aforementioned praying mantis. Finally, even though I saw this in 2D, it was actually made for (and shot in) 3D. Other than being a marketing gimmick, I can't possibly see how it would have benefited this piece of tripe. Overall, it's best just to avoid this "so bad it's horrible" movie. There are much better camp classics, and/or Dario Argento films if you're so inclined.

ASouthernHorrorFan Dario Argento's "Dracula 3D" sets a tone for the next generation of Argento fans that is a mildly flat sound quizzical sadness. The film was heralded as the great horror master's return but proves to be anything more than the standard absurdity that quite frankly Dario Argento's work has always been seen as by me. That sounds really bad and may make me seem like a horrible horror fan but in all honestly Dario's films have never been top shelf cinematic gold, the films have maintained a basic over-the-top, ridiculousness that seemed more tongue-in-cheek, grandeur. Which is really what I always loved about his films. If I wanted to watch serious, grounded horror I would always turn to the more mature horror styles like Fulci or America's own John Carpenter, both of whom maintain a classic balance of dark situation with a black satirical subtext. Argento is awesome because of the simple fact that his films have always been anything but serious attempts at horror storytelling. Which is no different in his revision of "Dracula 3D". As a kid I reacted much the same way over his classic heralded films "Trauma" and "Suspiria" with the same wide-eyed, confusion that I experienced watching "Dracula 3D". Okay so "Dracula 3D" carried the absurdity a bit further but not by much more than is his normal amount of off-beat, illogical vision of theatrics. "Dracula 3D" offers a blended story that seems part classic Dracula lore mixed with Hammer's own mythos for the Prince of Darkness. There is an obvious lackadaisical approach to Dracula story that begins almost in the middle, forcing the viewer to stay focused on this particular retelling of Bram's story. There isn't much that is recognizable and I found myself having to remind myself that I was watching "Dracula" because there is almost nothing other than the names that resembles the classic tale and the film shows more of a Hammer Film's influence than Bram Stoker. It is a bit cumbersome in creating an instant connection with the film and the characters but I found myself very captivated by this story that almost made for an original counter-piece. The characters fall short of actualizing into multifaceted personas but I have always found that to be the case with Argento's characters. The emotion and interactions to the situations his characters often face have always seemed sterile and robotic. It does very little to disconnect me completely from "Dracula 3D" much as the characters in his previous material have not keep me from getting into the films. To me this is one component that makes Dario Argento's style so Dario Argento. Either you like his film and style or you don't. The fact that his style of telling a story is often so overtly bad is what I like about his films. The special effects and sound effects in "Dracula 3D" are borderline terrible. Mostly the effects, they offer more visual spectacle akin to SyFy or below B-movie quality than one would expect from Argento with this caliber of film. Plus the 3D tricks are subpar or mediocre at best. So that was a bit of a downer, even for such a liberal horror fan as I am. I personally don't get the whole 3D schtick, wasn't impressed with it as a kid and even with today's new technology I still am not impressed with it. So that instant dismissal of the 3D gimmick in "Dracula 3D" has no baring in my review of this film. The special effects though is another matter. It was far too cheap to overlook. The sound effects and musical score for the film seems pretty cool, offering an expected creepy, haunting feeling that you would expect in a Dracula or film like this. For me, "Dracuala 3D" is standard Argento level story telling, take that as good or bad. This film is plenty bad and on the cultish, bad movie level there is plenty that will make the film good, at least for those of us who have no decades built delusion that Dario Argento's work has been anything but bad, tacky awesomely fun cinema wasteland viewing. "Dracula 3D" is a film that, if you are only looking for some tongue-in-cheek, WTF film fun, you may enjoy- I did. However if you only have room for serious horror stories and films that take the Dracula material straight forward then definitely skip this film because it is more laughable than entertaining on that level-but then why would you really be watching a Dario Argento film anyway?!

needful_things1 If you like 70's type horror movies then watch this one. The acting was terrible, almost without any feelings at all. The dialog was lacking anything resembling natural conversations and left me not really believing any of it. Hard to believe anyone could read the script and decide to back it. But... I liked the movie and smiled frequently because of these poor qualities. In 3D, most of the scenes were pretty good. There were not very many eye popper scenes and panning in the woods was occasionally disorienting. The rest of the movie was really pretty good in 3D and I'd watch it again in 3d, not 2D. Almost unbelievable that it was made last year. It really reminded me of a 70's horror. All it needed was Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. There are many really trashy horror movies being made today and this is not one of them.