I should have put her name on it, yes. I agree Marta Gastini was very good, but so was Miriam Giovanelli and Asia. It's the women one remembers in the film. I quite like Dracula 3D despite the conceptual failure of the titular character and the miscasting of Thomas Kretschmann. He should have swapped roles with Rutger Hauer. The 3D is excellent. I thoroughly enjoy the stereoscopic aspect. There's no point in watching it flat. Dracula 3D took me back to the 1970s. I appreciated that as well. That's the one. I don't respond well to insects. I'm afraid fans and critics alike are going to bash Dario Argento no matter what he does or doesn't do. In a larger context there seems to be some kind of backlash against Italian filmmakers and their operatic approach. I accept Dario Argento's work and I'm okay with his films.
"Dracula" was fun on the big screen and 3D, it worked a bit less when i watched it, 2D blu ray, at home...Argento"s films are better on the big screen, they improve when you are lucky enough to catch theatrical releases of them. I agree that Kretschmann was a bit miscast, but less grating/annoying than Julian Sands in "Phantom of the opera"! I really hope that Dario will have good producers and some decent budget and casting for his next film.
The lead actresse of BLACK GLASSES/OCCHIALI NERI will be Stacy Martin and Asia Argento will be a supporting actress, and it seems that Luciano Tovoli will be the director of cinematography. according to Dario Argento. The film will be shot next autumn...if the virus leaves us!
I can't speak for critics but as an Argento fan, I just think his films became increasingly erratic after the mid to late 80s. The same thing happened to Lucio Fulci. Fulci was really prolific for the last decade of his life, but most of the films he made during that period were terrible. To be sure, both directors had flashes of brilliance here and there, but the budgets, the scripts, the acting performances, everything just went downhill, IMO. Unless Occhiali Neri is already near completion, I would be surprised if it ever gets finished due to the way of the world right now and the fact that Argento is almost 80 years old. When Argento was great, he was brilliant, IMO. But I just don't think he has it in him anymore. I'm not aware of a backlash on Italian films, but I guess it's possible. I for one would give anything to hear of the next generation Mario Bava, Dario Argento or Lucio Fulci (or Sergio Martino).
It seems that the shootings/directions of small/average budgets are going to start again this summer in Europa, so there is a chance that "Occhiali Neri" will be shot in Roma in a few weeks/months. Fingers crossed!
I suffered through his Dracula recently. That was bad. They should have just gone full on sleaze and had more scenes of Mina giving Lucy a bath. The CGI was awful, looked like something from 90's video games. Thomas Kretschman (playing Dracula) is a good actor, but you can tell there wasn't much budget to this one. Even the lighting of interior scenes seemed like it was slapdash and amateur.
I haven't seen it, and probably won't waste my time, but the reviews of it are so hilarious in the critiques of its awfulness I am tempted to watch it some day. Besides even a short scene of Asia Argento taking a bath might be enough to offset the awfulness. The quotes about it from multiple reviewers have me rolling on the floor LOL (while still sitting in my chair). I can't find the ones now that I had read that recommend the viewer be sure to consume copious amounts of alcohol if attempting to watch it but these excerpts are pretty funny nevertheless, or considering Argento's past career a bit sad: "The first ostensibly scary scene only deepens the problems. After a nudity-rich barnyard tryst with her married lover, Tania heads outside, only to be attacked by Dracula, who appears in the form of an owl, the most hideous and feared of all woodland creatures." "When insects are the best thing in your movie, it’s probably time to retire." "Dario Argento's Dracula is not a movie that's so bad it becomes massively entertaining, like The Room, or Manos: The Hands of Fate. It's more like 90% of the other movies Mystery Science Theater 3000 took on — movies of incompetency on every level, where you have to wonder how virtually everyone managed to underachieve every single task they had in creating this movie....That's not Dario Argento. Dario Argento has produced some amazing work in his career. So I have to assume the director has had some kind of head trauma that gave him professional amnesia, because Dracula looks like the work of a first-time (and not naturally talented) director. Scenes are static and shot head-on; there can't be more than a few tracking shots in the whole movie. Performances are laughable to non-existent. Scenes include so much padding and time wasting that the 1:40 movie feels like three. The CG effects are early Doctor Who revival at best, and the practical effects aren't very good either. Things aren't shown instead of told; they're shown and then told, so everything drags and takes up more time." "Bad CGI, inept direction, poor performances, over-use of Theramin music, and lack of anything resembling talent makes Argento’s Dracula hard viewing. ...beyond copious nude scenes – which border on the comical in number – there’s little to recommend this film. Not even die-hard Dracula fans or Argento apologists could find anything to defend in this movie." "The cheap sets and gaudy costume design aren't the problem (though they don't help matters much) but the absolutely abysmal CGI stands out as an issue. Want to see a man surrounded by cartoon flies? Or turn into a wolf that looks like he wandered out of a PS2 game? Maybe giant poorly rendered praying mantis' are your bag (what? Yes, you read that right)… if that's the case, you'll get a kick out of this but really, the quality of the effects work is pretty dire and the whole thing winds up feeling like a made for SyFy movie.." "You can tell from the opening credits that “Argento’s Dracula” was a movie made by a group of people who just didn’t give a ****. The credits consisted of motion-less red text in a barely legible font on a black background. The same apathy present from the start is consistent with the rest of the movie. This is truly a vampire movie that sucks on every level, but the thing that makes it unforgivable is that it’s terrible by choice. This is not an example of failing to hit the mark – that would have required an attempt to get near the mark at all. Pfffttt… “a vampire movie that sucks!” Hahahahaha. Anyway, while I was watching this movie I just had to look up who the cinematographer was. This movie looked so incredibly bland and uninspired that I swore it had to be some college student. Every shot seemed to be done with a wide angle on a tripod at whatever the height of the camera operator was just for the sake of convenience. Not the case! The director of photography was Luciano Tovoli, Argento’s right-hand man. Really? This was the same guy who shot “Suspiria?” “Suspiria” is a visual masterpiece. Then again, the same could be said about every department. The production design looked like something out of a soap opera, the visual effects were below the standards of a SyFy original movie, the performances were clearly done for the paycheck, and the color grading didn’t even look like it existed. Shots would be washed out and over-exposed and the reverse looks were filmed like they were in an entirely different location. In keeping with its laughably chintzy CG effects, shot with 3-D in mind, Dracula features atrocious performances, running the gamut from Kretschmann’s dull screaminess, to Ugalde and Gastini’s inert blankness, to Rutger Hauer’s bored-to-death lethargy as the vampire-killing Van Helsing. Amid groan-worthy cutaways to phony-looking bugs and spiders—which are accompanied by hysterical musical cues from Claudio Simonetti’s wannabe-old-school score—Argento strands his actors in a variety of crummy master shots and close-ups that accentuate their every exaggerated gesture and line-reading. That’s especially true in the case of the director’s daughter, Asia, who delivers a series of overcooked reaction shots before dropping her own clothes for the Count and adopting a parodic strut as an undead vixen of the night." "Sitting in a theater watching a fair few people walk out in protest at the poor quality of Dracula 3D, you have to wonder whether they knew anything about horror legend Dario Argento, and if so what exactly they expected from the director whose name alone guarantees an audience. Dialogue is clunky and in some cases downright garbage (enough to leave the audience laughing on more than one occasion), and there are some “interesting” story inclusions, including inexplicably a giant bug that just plain make no sense. And that’s not to mention the plot holes, and the ridiculous way everything unravels into a final thirty minutes of multiple faux-gruesome deaths and jaw-dropping silliness. But then, of course, that is the point. Somewhat expectedly, the acting is universally poor, and it says something about your production when Rutger Hauer is far and away the most accomplished of the entire thing (and he’s only on screen for about fifteen minutes in total). Everyone else acts like they’re aspiring for the poorest day-time soap operas, obviously under the impression that terrible dialogue can be given more impact by whispering furtively and adding pregnant pauses where no sane person would ever dare."
The different animal guises of Dracula seemed to confuse some. Instead of just turning into a bat, he takes the form of an owl, a swarm of flies, a wolf, a HUGE (like rhinoceros sized) preying mantis, and maybe something else. I can't remember. That would have all been fine, if each one didn't look so laughably bad. What I can't even remember is the fate of Jonathan Harkness. I remember him in the castle, and I remember him escaping (I think), but then its like he just disappears never to return. I guess I'll have to force myself to put the disc back in and FF through the second half to see if he actually shows up. I could have missed it. It was hard to sit through. The girl who plays Mina (Marta Gastini) isn't a bad actress. But her and Lucy (Asia Argento) look too similar in the movie, to where I wasn't sure which I was seeing in some scenes right off the bat. They should have made Lucy blonde or reddish haired so there was some contrast.
I haven't seen Sleepless and Stendahl Syndrome, but I have the impression Do You Like Hitchcock? was the most enjoyable of his post Phenomena films, so I gave it a vote. Now they all have a vote.
Yes the animal CGI effects are cheap but they worked better on 3D, the owl, swarm of flies and even praying mantis were kinda fun 3D effects in theater. Harker is attacked by the Dracula/wolf outside the castle if i remember well, and he is then killed by Van Helsing. Scenes are static and shot head-on; there can't be more than a few tracking shots in the whole movie Yes there is a "static" feel Argento himself said that there were less tracking shots than in his others films because of the big, heavy 3D cameras. Every shot seemed to be done with a wide angle Not especially a problem in my opinion when many movies are shot nowadays on tight close-ups, not using the depth of field and surrounding spaces/locations, not using the Scope, widescreen frame anymore...
"The Stendhal syndrome" is Argento's greatest film for his post'"Phenomena" career, but his tv movie "Do you like Hitchcock?" is enjoyable, indeed.
It is even one of his best films overall, one of his most mature works. I like some others works he has directed after "Phenomena" though: "Opera", "Trauma", "The Card Player", "Jenifer", "Do you like Hitchcock?" and some scenes and ideas of "Mother of tears".
I don't think I ever heard of that Hitchcock movie (other than this thread), will have to look for it...
"Suspiria part 2"...no more!: Luca Guadagnino: ‘Suspiria’ Sequel Plan Impossible After Film Was a Box-Office Disaster
It's just as well--I didn't particularly need all the backstory we got in the remake, much less another movie's worth.
That's too bad since I really liked what they did with the remake. The fact that they planned in the first place to have it done in 2 parts with what came out being part of a "bigger story" to be further explored in part 2 with interesting origin angles makes it doubly disappointing to me that they won't get to do that.
Agreed on Tenebre, its a bit more to the point than his other films and is all the better for it. I voted Suspiria, it's one of the best horror films of all time. No other film has an atmosphere like it. I went on a Giallo binge through October and of Argento's I liked the Four Flies on Grey Velvet the most.
exactly the same for me. this also makes me really hanker for a dedicated giallo thread. as much as I enjoy Argento's gimmickry, I always found him to be somewhat lacking in the giallo department.
Daria Nicolodi died. Daria Nicolodi passes away at age 70: Asia Argento pays tribute to her 'beloved' mother | Daily Mail Online
