‘Dario Argento’s Dracula’ bites into tradition of Stoker’s novel
Dario Argento’s Dracula follows a long line of cinematic adaptations of Bram Stoker’s classic novel. Argento’s take doesn’t add much to the horror canon, but there are certain scenes that make for oddly enjoyable entertainment. It’s not a complete misfire, but there’s certainly enough to gripe about.
Rutger Hauer brings a sly brilliance to the role of Van Helsing, and Thomas Kretschmann offers an original portrait of the title character (Dracula that is, not Dario Argento). Less effective are Asia Argento as Lucy and Marta Gastini as Mina. Unax Ugalde as Harker is equally forgettable.
Argento, a horror maestro much loved for Suspiria and other giallo classics, follows the overall structure of the Dracula myth. Harker, an Englishman, is sent to Count Dracula’s house in distant, dark Transylvania. Although Harker is there on business, Dracula wants the innocent man to become entangled in the violent, sexual mysteries of his castle.
Argento decides to film the action in annoying 3D, and this is one of the fatal flaws of the film. Dracula doesn’t need the three-dimensional treatment, especially if the story remains a period piece. When the plot starts pulsating with blood, some cheesy CGI element is thrown in, reminding the viewer of the 21st century. At no time is Dario Argento’s Dracula a transportive film where historical costumes and lush scenery allow the viewer to be taken away to another era. There’s always an understanding that Argento is behind the scenes acting as a puppeteer, pulling strings here and pulling strings there.
Of the actors, Hauer stands out. He could honestly walk through this role with ease, but instead he offers a brooding, contemplative Van Helsing. There’s much to appreciate in the actor’s dedication to the role, even when the plot and his fellow supporting characters spiral out of control. Kretschmann, as the undead count, also has the right balance of cunning and sensuality.
Asia Argento is the worst of the bunch. The director’s daughter has gratuitous nudity scenes and trouble making her English dubbed voice sound believable. Worse yet, her character of Lucy receives too much time, and we’re unable to focus on the central plot.
The fantastical elements in the movie — including a show-stopping praying mantis — will undoubtedly lead to critical disapproval. For some reason, I was willing to let the narrative take me down those strange pathways. After all, Dracula sleeps in a coffin and is able to transform into a bat. Were we expecting realism?
Dario Argento’s Dracula will be remembered (if at all) as a misstep in the Italian director’s prolific career. But those who quickly dismiss the film and all of its performances are forgetting about the obvious fun that Argento and his cast had in making the adaptation. With a few grains of salt (OK, several pounds of salt), the movie works on several levels. It’s atmospheric and methodical. It features some cringeworthy performances, but others are quite solid. Taken together, there are worse ways to spend 106 minutes. For a Halloween treat at any time of the year, Dario Argento’s Dracula is fitting entertainment.
By John Soltes / Publisher / John@HollywoodSoapbox.com
-
Dario Argento’s Dracula
-
2013
-
Directed by Dario Argento
-
Written by Argento, Enrique Cerezo, Stefano Piani and Antonio Tentori
-
Starring Thomas Kretschmann, Marta Gastini, Asia Argento, Unax Ugalde and Rutger Hauer
-
Running time: 106 minutes
-
Rating:
