Nigel P This sweeping take on the vampire story has some stunning scenery, some impressive direction, lukewarm acting and a plethora of astonishingly bad CGI effects. To be honest, that is the review in a nutshell, but to expand …Actors range from German, Italian, Spanish, and the Netherlands giving the production an expansive, truly European flavour. Rutger Hauer is probably the best known name here, playing Van Helsing in a typically under-written part – there is no question of engaging with any of the perfunctorily written characters. Vampire Tanja (Miriam Giovanelli) is perhaps the most striking character; her sensuality and smouldering looks bringing a real presence to the character.The problem here is that for the most part, the long film is extremely dull, Dracula has a cunning way of disguising the bite marks on his victims by biting them on the back of the knee, at least in the case of the ravishing Lucy (Aria Argento – the director's daughter).There is an impressive effect sequence where Dracula (played with quiet menace by Thomas Kretschmann – sometimes too quiet, as his whispering is sometimes inaudible) forms into physical being from swarming flies, followed by a slow motion close-up of a man blowing his brains out, under the Count's spell.The castle, the village and locations are all extremely well shot, but as soon as a CGI effect is added, the whole spell is squashed, which has the curious effect of rendering the production a very expensive look that also appears to be incredibly cheap, all in the space of one scene. Quite an achievement.A positive is the haunting musical score by Claudio Simonetti, a moody, heavily synthesised soundtrack augmenting a string section that provides a truly wistful feel to the various set-pieces.About 45 minutes from the end, the campiness of Dario Argento's directorial colours and camera swirls begins to become enjoyable (a campiness exemplified by a European power ballad used as the closing theme). Once the fact that the film is a colourful, cheesy extravaganza has been established, it draws you in. By the time Dracula has transformed into a billowing mass of ashes that suddenly looks like a wolf, the production has taken a hold – just in time for the end credits to roll.

Wizard-8 As I said in my past user comment for Dario Argento's MOTHER OF TEARS, I am not an expert on Argento's movies, though I have seen some of them. However, I am fairly confident that Dracula 3D ranks as one of the worst efforts of his. Where to begin with this? Well, I'll start with the first aspect of the movie that struck me, that being that the movie is really cheap. It often has the look and feel of a daytime soap opera instead of a feature film. The cheapness also extends to the special effects, with some really rotten-looking CGI effects. I could go on for some time pointing out other flaws, like the bad acting. But the real problem with the movie is that it is not only as slow as molasses, it is not the least bit scary or even creepy. I simply couldn't wait for the movie to get to the end, because I was so bored, even with the nudity and sexual situations.Some advice for Argento, if he's reading this: If you are stuck with limited funds like you've apparently have for your recent movies, stick with a story that can be executed with the limited funds. Don't do a period piece that requires complex special effects!

karmaswimswami "Argento's Dracula" is at the arch extreme of the kinds of Dracula movies out there. One can have the exquisite Werner Herzog version with Klaus Kinski and partially filmed at Romania's Castle Bran that wrings extraordinary meaning from Stoker's story. Or Coppola's sumptuous, chromatic, limpid, lushly-told account with fine acting and HIV metaphors. Argento's auteur version is the badly-lit community theater rendition where the script often makes little sense, the acting is ham-fisted, the lighting garish (what's with the yellow gels?), and where when the storyline lags as it often does, the director tries to salvage it by having an actress bare breasts or calling for something quite hemorrhagic to happen. One keeps hoping this film might rise/fall to the level of being appealingly appalling, but it remains merely risible and dismal and hackneyed. With a performance from the otherwise capable Rutger Hauer that should be struck from his resume. Two stars from me merely because there are transient moments of actual beauty to which Argento is not oblivious.

ManBehindTheMask63 Dario Argento's recent work may not be as solid as his 70's and 80's stuff but he throws enough boobs and blood at the screen in "Dracula 3D" to keep you entertained. The film feels like a throwback to some of his 70's/early 80's output due to the dubbing and bad acting. The opening sex scene set in a barn feels like it was ripped from a classic 70's giallo. The CGI effects are pretty lame and seem cheap (like Playstation 1 cheap). But the practical effects (slashed throats,heads getting ripped off) all look solid.Asia Argento gets nude and Miriam Giovanelli is sexy as the voluptuous Tanja. Seriously, Giovanelli has the best breasts I've seen in a horror film since the 80's. Rutger Hauer shows up an hour in and he does a solid job, albeit looking very haggard and bored. The film's biggest flaw is that it's too long. At an hour and fifty minutes, "Dracula 3D" could have used some editing to trim it down.Overall, I'd say it's worth checking out if you're a fan of Argento or want to see a semi-fresh take on the Dracula lore.