Very disappointing...

Let's be realistic.

Just perfect...

A Masterpiece!

If someone was interested in checking out the work of Dario Argento and they started with Dracula 3D, they probably would never come back to check out the rest of his filmography. I'm no Argento expert. However, I have seen Suspiria and Phenomena and think both are absolutely excellent. I especially love Phenomena. Argento is a master at making his films pop with colors and lights. His brand of horror also portrays beautiful cinematography amidst gruesome scenes. The BLOOD usually looks excellent. Naturally, I wanted to check Dracula 3D out. It just seemed like a good cheesefest; a film that looked like it would be "so bad that its actually good." I'm quite disappointed to say that I was wrong. This film is not very fun at all. I like the way the film looks. The images and scenes look crystal clear, colorful, and lively. Its all that I would expect from Argento, very indicative of his craft. From there I really struggle to find any other positives. Okay maybe one more, there are beautiful girls on display. This had the feel of a B rate film that offers a few scenes of erotic nature and this did not disappoint in that department. Okay, now I'm certain that that is where the positives of the film ends.The effects good lord, they look like something you would see in a SyFy channel movie, maybe even worse. I don't know if its from the 3d conversion but it looks like the worst type of B movie effects. Normally I wouldn't mind that, but it was distractedly bad. Just pay attention to the scenes where a vampire turns into dust, it looks ridiculous. The dialogue and general acting is the next thing here. it goes from over the top and hammy to uninterested characters just reading lines. All kinds of scenery chewing present from the actors (most of who I have not heard of apart from Asia Argento).The above negatives may sound good to someone who would think "this movie sounds like its bad but in a way where you can find cheesy enjoyment out of it." That is not true. The plot is another retelling of the story of Dracula, which is fine because Bram Stoker's Dracula is a great story and I welcome different interpretations of the tale. This variation is mind-numbing and incredibly dull. You get no enjoyment in what happens and just pray for the end of the torture. I need to see more of Argento's later work to make a full assessment but its likely the magic of his earlier films is completely gone. I don't think I'll even bother with the later work and check out the stuff from his glory days because I'm sure its exceptional.4/10

Dario Argento is one of my favorite contemporary directors in the horror genre. However "Dracula 3D" is certainly his worst movie, retelling Bram Stoker's Gothic novel with poor performances in cheesy scenario, CGI and art direction. Miriam Giovanelli seems to be a porn star the way she takes her clothes so easily. Drácula's transformation into owl, flies, wolf and even mantis (?) is sort of ridiculous. But as a friend of mine uses to say about this "Dracula 3D", the worst movie by Dario Argento is still better than most of the teen horror movies. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "Drácula 3D"

The dubbing, the casting, the acting, the effects, the goofy score. It's worse than you think, even if your expectations were low to begin with.But there is one element that's fairly interesting, that makes it a damn shame that the execution was so abysmal: A lot of the characters share more than a little history. In this version, Harker isn't a guest, but Draculas librarian. The Renfields character knows Draculas bride, Tanja, before she turns into a vampire. In turn, Tanja is set up as a real rival to Mina Harker later. Yes, Draculas bride does have a name and an agenda. And instead of unnamed gypsies, Dracula has a strongman working for him (as well as a pact with a few other citizens). Lucy is a piano teacher, and when she turns into a vampire and kidnaps a child, it's not just a child - but her own pupil. Going further, Dracula believes that Mina is his dead wife (it seems to be going into "The Mummy" territory here), and van Helsing knows Dracula from a previous encounter. Of course, most characters are killed off effortlessly in the last act. And that's where the movie disappoints the most: It sets out as a character-driven Dracula movie, and then it suddenly comes to an abrupt end.

If you like 70's type horror movies then watch this one. The acting was terrible, almost without any feelings at all. The dialog was lacking anything resembling natural conversations and left me not really believing any of it. Hard to believe anyone could read the script and decide to back it. But... I liked the movie and smiled frequently because of these poor qualities. In 3D, most of the scenes were pretty good. There were not very many eye popper scenes and panning in the woods was occasionally disorienting. The rest of the movie was really pretty good in 3D and I'd watch it again in 3d, not 2D. Almost unbelievable that it was made last year. It really reminded me of a 70's horror. All it needed was Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. There are many really trashy horror movies being made today and this is not one of them.