K2nsl3r

So, I went to see Francis Ford Coppola's "masterpiece." It cost $120 million US dollars to make. My ticket cost $20. I got my money's worth; not sure if he did.

Coppola has made one of the most baffling movies I've ever seen. I have rarely experienced so many conflicting emotions - laughter, amazement, disappointment, excitement, confusion - in the course of one movie. Did I just see a beautiful catastrophe? Or did we all get pranked by a cinema god? Or both? My jaw is on the floor. I left the theater amazed at the ludicrous, pompous spectacle of it all.

I have to say, Adam Driver gives a genuinely impressive performance. And the visuals are a treat - and you wouldn't expect anything less from a movie that cost $120 million US dollars! The plot, on the other hand, is... something else. It feels part-Fellini, part-Marvel, part-kids' cartoon. I will not spoil it for you, since I want you to see it for yourself. Yes, I recommend it. We all have a duty to turn the film into the black. :) But don't say I didn't warn you!

This movie is much better than its reputation. There are many sequences where it feels like a classic European medieval/gothic horror tale. The sets are quite good, the mood is excellent, and some of the shots look painterly. The basic storytelling has flaws, but when it works, it can be quite compelling. The acting is mostly mediocre or bad, but there ARE genuinely good performances and casting choices here: Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing, Miriam Giovanelli as the vampire seductress Tanja, Marta Gastini as the innocent out of town girl, and most notably Thomas Kretschmann as Dracula. His performance alone is worth the price of admission. Indeed, if he had been in a better film, he would be remembered as one of the great Draculas in cinema history. And I think he deserves that epithet even as things stand.

The flaws of the movie are obvious: boring and predictable plot, bad CGI, character arcs that fail to go anywhere, some wooden acting, wasted talent... I lost count of the amount of times I was expecting more to be done with a particular plotline, only to be mercilessly whisked away to another poorly developed or quickly aborted scene. So, this is far from the quality of Argento's golden years. But damned if I still did not enjoy it! The moody set design, a few performances, fun and gory death scenes, and the classic fairy tale setting make this a potentially enjoyable movie for gothic horror fans. The 3D can enhance the mood, too, although it is not utilised as well as it could have been. But overall, the movie is just fine. I am ready to say that people who can look past the bad and the ugly can enjoy the parts that are beautiful, schlocky, moody, haunting, promising, compelling, surprising, and silly. No, they do not cohere well. But the pieces are there. It is a shame that it takes a patient puzzle expert to put the film's many undeveloped pieces together!

Unlike Noe's previous films, Vortex is an understated, slow-paced, intimate character piece. Who knew that Dario Argento could give such a brilliant performance? And Francoise Lebrun... just wow. The rest of the cast are fine in their roles as well, but this is a movie about two characters, and they were cast perfectly. Where the movie really struggles, however, is in its pacing and editing. It is simply 30-40 minutes too long. Scenes drag on endlessly. There can be a hypnotic quality to some of the mundane scenes, but not enough to justify the drag. A tighter edit would have made a difference. Perhaps one of these days we will get a director's cut that re-edits the movie and makes it a bit tighter overall. However, there is a lot to appreciate in the film. It is worth seeing for the acting performances alone. It takes on an important topic and handles it gracefully. It shows that the director is a versatile craftsman who is not afraid of breaking the mold and taking risks that mostly pay off.