Not a lot of love out there for Dario Argento's latest foray into exploitation excess in DRACULA 3D, but that's certainly not the first time a Dracula flick has been met with tepid reviews. Which Dracula flick, for your money, sucks hardest? Or if you want a different pun, has the least bite?
BLOOD OF DRACULA'S CASTLE (1969) gets my vote as the all-time worst. Although it does feature breathtaking cinematography by the great László Kovács. Seriously, I have never seen such a beautiful-looking piece of shit in all my life.
Thankfully, I haven't seen most of these. And hey, I like Dracula AD1972. Caroline Munro gives any movie at least a 1 and a half star head start merely by having her name in the credits. Dracula's Dog, AKA Zoltan Hound of Dracula....well, just see my review: http://horrordigital.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=434
How could anyone not like Dracula AD 1972? Wasn't Dracula 3000 supposed to be awful? I thought that would make the list.
Argento's is the worst for me because it has nothing to add and no redeeming qualities. He must really need money. I can't imagine any other reason for phoning in such a half-assed take of a story that's been beaten to death. C'mon Dario. When you're making a cash grab at least feign interest like Michael Caine did for The Swarm. Although a technically superior film, I'd throw Coppola's mess into this discussion. The art direction, cinematography, and old school effects are sensational. But the atrocious casting of Reeves and Ryder, the manic over-acting of Hopkins, and the outrageously misguided decision to turn Stoker's book into a tawdry romance make it all-but-unwatchable for me. Yeah, it includes more of Stoker's plot points than most (but not all) other adaptations. But it turns Dracula himself into something far less interesting. The stink of Anne Rice is all over it. Or is it the stench of the Lifetime channel? I could easily imagine the screenplay being written by the same guy who produced the endless string of Lifetime originals that saw Crystal Bernhard battle bulimia, spousal battery, cancer, etc.
Agreed. That one was just truly atrocious... it had absolutely nothing positive going for it. Dracula 3D is really, really BAD... but at least it's still "watchable" in comparison to that.
I know it has its fans, but Jess Franco's Count Dracula was the worst for me simply because it has the most wasted potential. Herbert Lom as Van Helsing? Soledad Miranda as Lucy? Klaus Kinski as Renfield? KINSKI! AS RENFIELD! Christopher Lee as Dracula even? But this has to be the most coma inducing adaptation I've seen. Even Argento's had a better Dracula and Van Helsing. Even Satanic Rites of Dracula is better simply because Peter Cushing actually tried in that (he's good in everything). Plus boobies.
Wait, are you saying that Jess Franco's Count Dracula doesn't have boobies? (I've never seen it, so this is not a sarcastic question). From the movies I've seen, Franco can't get through the opening credits without showing at least some boobage.
That is correct sir, this doesn't even have nudity. That doesn't really go against it, but it certainly doesn't earn it any points either. Except for a few camera zooms you wouldn't think this was Franco at all. Even for a Franco fan there's nothing really here. So everyone walks away disappointed. With something like Dracula 3000 or even Dracula 3D we all knew what we were getting into. Franco's Dracula was done during his prime, with an assembled cast all in their primes, and it's almost entirely forgettable. That's the real crime.
Okay Dracula 2000 was the Dracula movie for the Scream-generation and succeeded in being just that. Dracula 3000 was awful yes, BUT at least it had a "fresh" angle with it being in space. Dario Argento's Dracula 3D barely even had angle. But I dare you to find something as awful as;
An idea is only fresh if it has never been done before, and putting a famous monster "in space" had been done with Hellraiser, Leprechaun, and Jason beforehand. As far as taking the Dracula story and putting it in space, the old 80s Buck Rogers series starring Gil Gerard and Erin Grey did it better in one of their eps.
Funny this came up-I actually just watched Dracula 3000 on Netflix last week. Yes, it was terrible..and the Dracula character was one of the worst portrayals I have seen....BUUUTT I did have some fun with the atrocious overacting from Coolio and Tiny Lister. Therefore, my vote went to Dracula Dead and Loving it- just complete crap. I haven't seen the Argento one yet, but will hesitantly dip in sometime soon. At least Asia is nude again in it, right?
Of course! It's a family tradition. And what loving father passes up the opportunity to see his daughter naked and photograph her so all the world can appreciate her charms? Something tells me Argento's analyst could get a lot of mileage out of his relationship with Asia. Can anyone think of a similar father/daughter situation in the film industry? Directing your daughter in a nude scene once probably qualifies as unusual. But repeatedly like this?
I could shoot a YouTube movie where Dracula was a free-floating turd in a space toilet, making him a uretic vampire and call the angle "refreshing" — and it would almost surely be fresher than Dracula 3000.
Eh, I never got the hate for that. It isn't much different from the beloved Young Frankenstein. I thought the casting all around was excellent. I'm not saying it's Mel Brook's finest hour but you could do a lot worse in the horror/comedy section; a LOT worse.
I'm surprised this list has Dracula AD 1972 and Satanic Rites of Dracula, which are at least kitschy good fun, but not the very worst Hammer Dracula movie, Scars of Dracula. It opens with Drac being revived by a rubber bat drooling blood into his coffin, and only gets worse from there.
