is it that bad?
Adding the Dario Argento flicks I don't have to my collection. Is this one as bad as I hear it is?
shareIt's bad but in a fun thrashy way. It's entertaining enough to watch all the way through. If you're a fan, pick it up :)
share
MovieChat Forums > Dracula 3D (2013) Discussion > is it that bad?
It's pretty good in 3D especially!
Alex said its best. It's very watchable and pretty to look at. I've seen far, far worse films.
On another note, I wish they hadn't changed the title sequence for the American blu Ray though. Oh well, now I have a reason to hold onto the Italian DVD I imported.
It is really bad. (Mainly due to the poor direction, visuals, some hammy acting and the obvious micro-budget they were dealing with) But I would say it's borderline "so bad, it's good", and if you watch it with friends knowing what you're getting into, it can make for a fun evening of riffing and laughing at the general incompetence.
I keep seeing people referencing it being "pretty" or "good looking" or "well-shot"... What are these people smoking? The image throughout is exceptionally dull, flat, poorly lit and the visual direction and sense of composition is quite amateurish. And the effects in many scenes are just laughably bad.
(A very early green-screen scene at a train station was probably the highlight of the laughs the bad effects gave us. It literally looks like the effects artist grabbed a few free images off of the website CGTextures, layered them in Adobe After Effects and called it a day. The elements weren't even properly blended or color-timed to match eachother. It literally looked like something they got an intern to do on a laptop in about 15 or 20 minutes... and I should know, I've done lame effects like that back when I was self-teaching myself After Effects and they really don't take more than 20 minutes.)
And FURTHERMORE, this is my signature! SERIOUSLY! Did you think I was still talking about my point?
It turns into an Oscar winner after a 12 pack.y
share