Not so bad as expected this Dracula 3d. For sure the acting was rather wooden, the effects (specially the digital ones) looked cheap sometimes and the story was not mind blowing, but I very much liked the retro-look of this film. I had the opportunity to see this film on big screen, in 3D and I was kind of touched by its Hammerish-look. The photography, the use of colors, the set designs... it all reminded me of films that were made decades ago. Sweet memories. Might be a bit out of time for modern viewers, but if you can look through the bad acting and some cheesy effects, you actually find a film with a charming, nostalgically look.
Reviews
3 Reviews
A fascinating psychological horror film, very strong but with a rather disappointing ending
4 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First of all I must say that I didn't see the Harlin version of the film so I can't compare. Somewhere I can understand that the producers were not really happy with the work Scharder delivered. They probably expected a pure horror film with lots of physical horror, thrills and FX.
Finally what they got was a typical Scharder film (isn'that a bit normal when you hire the man as director?) about a priest having to cope with guilt and his lost in faith. Sure Scharder inserts 'supernatural' elements in it such as possession and exorcism but the horror remains psychological and becomes very rarely physical.
The describing of the psychological hell father Merit has to undergo (when he find himself in the dessert right after the second world-war which was very traumatic for him, as we see in the overwhelming first scenes) was really very strong. It gets under your skin.
Slowly the element of possession comes in (a young local boy) but Schrader remains focused on the internal Battle of father Merit. He struggles with himself, with his faith, searching for redemption: will he be strong enough to face 'the demon'? The film is very strong in depicting all of this and when inserting subtle but very convincing horror elements in to the story we know we're in for a (hopfully) strong climax.
SPOILER - But the climax is rather disappointing. At this point Scharder switches from psychological horror to physical horror (the final exorcism scene). Apparently aware that he's making a horror-film after all. I've not really a problem with the modification of psychological horror into (more mainstream) physical horror: the original Excorcist uses the same 'formula' very convincingly.
But the final exorcism scenes here aren't convincing at all, the special effects aren't believable at all, they rather look cheap and therefor this scenes really are a rupture with the rest of the film which actually looks great.
So Scharder delivers a very strong, captivating, strange and fascinating 'horror-film', cleverly building up to a climax. And there the film goes wrong. Really a pity because the film could have been a masterpiece.
Finally what they got was a typical Scharder film (isn'that a bit normal when you hire the man as director?) about a priest having to cope with guilt and his lost in faith. Sure Scharder inserts 'supernatural' elements in it such as possession and exorcism but the horror remains psychological and becomes very rarely physical.
The describing of the psychological hell father Merit has to undergo (when he find himself in the dessert right after the second world-war which was very traumatic for him, as we see in the overwhelming first scenes) was really very strong. It gets under your skin.
Slowly the element of possession comes in (a young local boy) but Schrader remains focused on the internal Battle of father Merit. He struggles with himself, with his faith, searching for redemption: will he be strong enough to face 'the demon'? The film is very strong in depicting all of this and when inserting subtle but very convincing horror elements in to the story we know we're in for a (hopfully) strong climax.
SPOILER - But the climax is rather disappointing. At this point Scharder switches from psychological horror to physical horror (the final exorcism scene). Apparently aware that he's making a horror-film after all. I've not really a problem with the modification of psychological horror into (more mainstream) physical horror: the original Excorcist uses the same 'formula' very convincingly.
But the final exorcism scenes here aren't convincing at all, the special effects aren't believable at all, they rather look cheap and therefor this scenes really are a rupture with the rest of the film which actually looks great.
So Scharder delivers a very strong, captivating, strange and fascinating 'horror-film', cleverly building up to a climax. And there the film goes wrong. Really a pity because the film could have been a masterpiece.
Do You Like Hitchcock?
(2005 TV Movie)
The story is a rather clever and playfully mix of Rear window and Strangers in a Train.
31 March 2005
With this film, made for television and shot with DV camera, Argento delivers a very enjoyable and stylish little thriller. There are lots of references to several Hitchcock-films, but Ti Piace Hitchcock also reminds us a lot of the thrillers of Brian De Palma (such as Sisters, Dressed to Kill, Obssesion...).
Its not the greatest film of the Italian master of suspense but with this film Argento re-found his former style. A style that goes back to his films he made during the 70 or 80 period (Suspiria, Deep Red, Inferno...).
Of course being made for television the production values are not as high as in the films I quoted above. Sometimes the colors are (too) saturated and there is more emphasis on the story then there is on the visual style of the film. On the other hand the photography and the overall style of the film really look fine: certainly a lot more then the average TV-film. That also counts for the scenes involving nudity and violence. There is at least one scene of violence (a typical Argento-style murder) and several scenes of nudity which won't be pleasing several TV-censors. Hopfully this film will soon be available, uncut, on DVD. Catch it if you can.
Its not the greatest film of the Italian master of suspense but with this film Argento re-found his former style. A style that goes back to his films he made during the 70 or 80 period (Suspiria, Deep Red, Inferno...).
Of course being made for television the production values are not as high as in the films I quoted above. Sometimes the colors are (too) saturated and there is more emphasis on the story then there is on the visual style of the film. On the other hand the photography and the overall style of the film really look fine: certainly a lot more then the average TV-film. That also counts for the scenes involving nudity and violence. There is at least one scene of violence (a typical Argento-style murder) and several scenes of nudity which won't be pleasing several TV-censors. Hopfully this film will soon be available, uncut, on DVD. Catch it if you can.
Tell Your Friends