Looks like porn - would be better as porn

jrd_73

This must have been one cheap production! Dario Argento, once my favorite horror director, has made a Dracula for those amused by the CGI giant snake films that run on the Sci-fi Channel. There is something about bad CGI that makes them hard to even laugh at. Some old school FX, like the man-in-a-cheap-monster-suit, could be charming. there is no charm to be had with bad computer effects. The ones in this Dracula film look like they were leftover from a low budget 1990's movie.

Dario Argento once had an outstanding visual style (Suspiria, Inferno). His Dracula movie is overlit and fake looking. The digital photography makes it look like porn. Add in the frequent nudity (the only visually appealing images in the film) and one starts to wonder if Dracula's bride will be sucking more than blood.

My friend and I gave up taking this film seriously after the first half-hour. The remainder of the running time was spent casting the porn version.

Dracula - Dale Dabone (in place of the only fair Thomas Kretchsmann)

Mina - Stoya (in place of Marta Gastini)

Jonathan - James Deen (in place of the lame Unax Uglade)

Lucy - Sasha Grey (in place of Asia Argento)

Tania - Lexi Belle (in place of Miriam Giovanelli)

Van Helsing - Nina Hartley (in place of tired looking Rutger Hauer)

fat priest - Ron Jeremy (of course!)

Now that I write this, I think that Argento's film would have been improved with that cast, even if it still had no sex in it. At least the players would have matched the photography.

score /10

jrd_73 22 April 2014

Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw3002979/