Fifteen minutes into the film...
...oh dear. This is absolutely terrible. The dubbing, the acting, the CGI. Aaaaargh!
I'll report back later and see if it gets any better! :(
I must emphasise just how bad the dubbing is!
share
MovieChat Forums > Dracula 3D (2013) Discussion > Fifteen minutes into the film...
It's really sad. It's very amateurish and as people have mentioned, you almost feel like it's done as a bit of a joke. They mantis scene was funny but the CGI was bad; especially the wolf and the train station. Rutger Hauer did a little for the film and Kretschman did the best he could with such poor lines, but otherwise, the acting was inexplicably bad.
I honestly don't know how anyone can compare it to Hammer's films. It's nothing like them.
Abysmal.
2/10
Perfectly dreadful!
I would've been OK with the film being a fun, trashy z-movie (which is kind of what I expected from the abysmal trailers). But it is so much worse... it is guilty of the worst sin any film can commit: it bores you to death!
Really, if this was done as a joke, why is it so goddamn boring?
The actresses were nice to look at, so at least it has that going for it...
Haha, the actresses are one of the only things going for it - they are pretty, not because of their acting skills.
It was boring, I agree. It was far too long, too.
I can't believe how bad it was.
It couldn't have been serious right?! It must have all been deliberately cheesy but instead of being funny was just outright painful to watch. Actually fell asleep. And have disproved my own theory that I could watch Kretschmann in anything.
It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!
bella: SO true! I used to think I could watch any movie with Kretschmann in it also. He stole the show in the Pianist and Stalingrad, but even he couldn't save this one. You could see he was trying in this one, but it was an impossible task.
share[deleted]
Yeah I felt like it was supposed to be kind of a take on the old 30s-50s horror movies. There's no way in hell things like the goofy spooky sound effect soundtrack or blatantly terrible scenes like the pack of happy looking dogs with the mismatched angry wolf sounds dubbed over them were serious. and I agree, even looking at it that way it just didn't work at all. Terribly disappointing movie.
share"I honestly don't know how anyone can compare it to Hammer's films. It's nothing like them."
It has a similar aesthetic, as well as the sets. That is how people compare this to Hammer films.
You're Welcome.
It has a similar aesthetic, as well as the sets. That is how people compare this to Hammer films.
The musical composition style is very similar too.
share
"...oh dear. This is absolutely terrible. The dubbing, the acting, the CGI. Aaaaargh!"
Well... have you Ever watched an Argento film before? Even his golden days had examples of terrible dubbing and acting. True Argento fans watch his flicks for more than just the actors, script and the 'effects'. It sounds like you're in the wrong place. Welcome to Argentoville. I don't imagine it will be a long stay.
You're Welcome.
You must be a costumes and sets kinda person. That sounds like a really boring world to live in. Maybe it's just a terrible film and your a brown nosed fanboy
shareNo, it won't be a long stay. I thought this sort of production was reserved for amateur film-makers, bumbling their way through their first film project. I am a fan of Hammer films, hence why my interest was roused when I heard comparisons between the two.
I don't really think they have a similiar aesthetic at all. Hammer's cinematography was far more dynamic and their sets were much more lush and the lighting was much more well-placed. The musical score in Hammer films adds much to the tension, whereas the score in Argento's film sounds like a bad X-Files pastiche. There's no charisma in any of the characters. Kretschman is usually a fine actor and even he looks limp and embarrassed.
I won't be looking through Argento's back-catalogue. I've heard little more than a handful of people praising him, which now appears to be little more than a spurious nostalgia for his past works.
I really wouldn't generalize...watch Suspiria, Deep Red, Santa Sangre or Opera and I'm sure you'll change your mind. As much as I love Argento, he has made some terrible fims such as Inferno, Do You Like Hitchcock, and Phenomenon. However odd it may sound, I enjoyed this film. Yea, the acting was pretty bad as a whole,the CGI was laughable, and the ending was anticlimactic, but I kept feeling like I was watching Nosforatu or the Todd Browing Dracula with the set, music, and the pacing. So, that was enough to keep me watching. However, it still was nowhere near the caliber of his early film. To prove this just look through the horror lists and see how many metion Suspiria an Deep Red; I guarantee it's more than a handful.
The first 15 minutes is enough to tell you that this is a take the piss comedy.
First of all, I don't disagree with you.
But, as someone else has mentioned, the dubbing has always been an integral part of Argento's work. It's simply how he chooses to make his films. Since that is the case, I don't think it is a valid criticism. His best work was carried by the lush visuals and some of the best set-pieces ever to grace a horror movie. Unfortunately, Dracula 3D has none of that.
You should delve into his 70s works. He is one of horror's greatest directors, which is what makes his continuous fall with works like Dracula 3D so disheartening. But that doesn't lessen classic films like Suspiria, Deep Red, Tenebre or Opera.
Dracula 3D as your first Argento outing? Damn, no wonder you're not impressed. Do yourself a favour and go watch Deep Red or Suspiria just for starters.
Blu-ray collection: http://www.blu-ray.com/community/collection.php?u=78799
Yeah, you should definitely check out Suspiria, Deep Red, Tenebre and also The Bird with the Crystal Plumage.
shareI agree, it's bloody awful. The special effects are crap, I mean I've seen better CGI in some YouTube videos. And what the heck is going on with the bad wigs/weaves in this film?!? The acting is treacherous and the plot is boring. I don't know about you guys, but they don't really seem to be in the time period they are pretending to be in. They just aren't faking it well enough. I keep wondering if they made it this badly on purpose, you know to sort of spoof all the bad movies of the past. Check out Bram Stokers Dracula, the one with Gary Oldman in it. WAAAAAAY better than this. It pretty much has better EVERYTHING, compared to this crap fest.
shareEasily the worst "horror" I've seen so far this year. I was tempted to turn it off after the first 10 minutes but stuck it out and it just kept getting worse and worse! Horrible acting, inept direction and such a boring plot and awful dialog! And don't get me started on the fx that were worse than the syfy channel movie fx.
Whoever gave the director 7 million dollars to make this should have divvied it up 7 ways and given it to 7 other directors and I guarantee whatever whoever made would have been better than this. Argento has HAD IT!
this sucked!
rutger must have been really broke to agree to be in this crap. at first i thought it was from the 70s....thats how bad it was. unfortunatly i paid $$$ to rent this!!! GGrrrrrrr