jlpicard1701E

This is the question one must ask himself while watching this... how can I put it? Infamous? Dull? Stupid? Below the waist? Anyway, tremendously trashy movie.

I don't know what went on in both Boris Szulzinger (director, also writer) or in Pierre Sterckx and Marc-Henri Wajnberg (also writers), when they decided to put this project in motion.

Probably, since this was made a few years later than "The Rocky Horror Picture Show", they must have thought that another such attempt would be worthwhile, but seeing that the former was a kind of a Musical Fantasy movie, and not indeed just yet another comedy, one must ask on what basis they started doing it.

Just four years earlier "Dracula and Son", starring the otherwise great Christopher Lee, and even six years earlier "Old Dracula", starring David Niven bombed totally at the box office and although in the meanwhile they might have joined the ranks of other so called "cult movies" (only heaven knows why), "Mama Dracula" doesn't seem to be part of them.

In fact I just found it due to my music score research, which is the only worthy thing in it, just because it was composed by none other than Roy Budd.

And since Roy Budd had been known to have composed some of the best scores for movies like "Get Carter", "The Black Windmill", "The Wild Geese I & II" and indeed for "Who Dares Wins" (Aka "The Final Option"), I assumed that even this effort was made for a worthy film.

Alas, how wrong I was.

And besides, there was already a much better depiction of the source material based on Countess Elizabeth Bathory made in 1971 by none other than Hammer Films which starred Ingrid Pitt in the main role as "Countess Dracula". Although that was indeed a horror movie.

So, again, why had they to waste money in something like this?

My answer to my preceding question on why Louise Fletcher did accept the role has only two possibilities: one, she needed the money; two. She was handed a better script to start with, only to be embroiled and trapped under contract, while the authors did shamelessly re-write it during filming.

Something that even happened to great actors such as Malcolm McDowell and Peter O'Toole while working on the infamous "Caligula" movie.

In any case, story or no story logic, this project had no real bearing nor did it have a real final goal. It was just made for the fun(?) of it.

Probably just to have the director's and writer's names written on the billboards in the hope of notoriety and fame.

And Louise Fletcher, in her usual professional way does what she was supposed to do: act in it, but one can easily see that she was only doing it by the numbers, with no real enthusiasm.

It is only for her presence in it that I gave it an uplifting three stars, because were it just for the movie alone, I wouldn't even have considered to pick one to start with, that bad of an experience (at least for yours truly) it was.

Instead of having been entertained, I was utterly embarrassed for all the performers in it, who I believe and hope, have finally found more worthy projects to work on since then.

So, what is my final judgment on "Mama Dracula"?

Simply put? Forget it, it does not exist, but should you want to be educated on how not to ever film something like this, this would probably be one of the finest examples among others.

And would I recommend it? Are you kidding me?

Why experience something so abysmally idiotic and painful?

So many people, including some critics, insist to compare this movie to "Romancing the Stone", made in 1984 and starring. Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, but in reality this is a far cry from that adventure/comedy movie.

It starts in a very predictable way, typical of recent Hollywood movies and the pace is quite slow, and then moves on trying to be comedic, but all I could see was a weak attempt at comedy which failed me completely.

It looks and sounds like it was made for absent-minded teenagers, or at least like a nostalgic movie in which either the director or the cast, or both, decided to slip back to their younger years.

And indeed, even by the dialogue in it one can clearly see how lackluster the writing must have been.

To add damage to the entire thing, there are even musical passages clearly reminiscing Star Wars (particularly the Darth Vader's March).

Sandra Bullock is uninspiring as the writer turning to adventure woman and stumbles around probably trying to recapture her earlier successes when she was much younger, such as in "Speed" and "Miss Congeniality" but without ever succeeding, which makes me ask why?

Probably middle age crisis?

And Channing Tatum is certainly not a new Michael Douglas, nor does he have the true charm necessary to play a heart breaker, or even a genuine adventurer/explorer. He appears stiff and flat, not really what makes a woman swoon for a hunk of a man.

Granted, times have changed since 1984, and women can go their own way anyway, but this rises another question: why then the need of a male counterpart?

And in reality, there is more unnecessary and useless banter than indeed real action in "The Lost City", as if the director was not really sure what he was actually directing, never making up his mind whether this should be an adventure or comedy movie, or both.

Such incompetence and inept approach can be expected by a first time director and by freshly cooked actors, just out of an acting academy, but certainly not from seasoned and already affirmed names.

I don't know if it is just me and my age, or if it is indeed the way movies go these days that make me doubt in the logic of producing, directing and acting in such shabby movies.

To me it's just money thrown out of the window, completely wasted in utterly forgettable movies, and let me be blunt: I have seen much better movies made by amateurs or independent movie makers than this, and at a very stringent and lower cost indeed.

I sat throughout the movie expecting some originality, or at least a "Romancing the Stone" moment but without seeing or hearing one. Probably because it also lacked yet another component: an actor a la Danny DeVito.

Oh yes, have we already forgotten that part of "Romancing the Stone" success was also due to this great actor and comedian? Indeed, if at least they could have come up with a similar character, this could probably have saved the day, but they forgot all about it.

And again, granted, it is not very easy to find someone like Danny DeVito, capable to scramble situations into really tense, but very funny moments in time.

Be it as it may, I didn't laugh during the entire movie and calling it entertaining, is a big word. Too big if one also compares it to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "The Last Crusade".

Just trying to compare those three movies to "The Lost City" would be a great offense to those other movie makers and actors, who actually knew what they were doing and did it so very well. So much so, that even to this day "RtS", "RotLA" and "TLC" are considered some of the best adventure movies ever made.

And so, just one more question remains to be answered: why do it?

At the stage in which Sandra Bullock now stands she could indeed choose better projects for herself, instead of such stupid efforts.

Is it the need for money? I doubt it. Is it fear of aging and not being able to shine as a young woman anymore? Quite frankly, seeing how intelligent Sandra otherwise is, I would discount it.

So then, why, oh why, does she do it?

Only she can answer such a question, but indeed, she must admit that she could do so much more with her own career than appearing in such demented projects.

To conclude, I am really disappointed by this entire movie, which as said, has been so often compared to "Romancing the Stone", that I fell into the trap.

I must admit though, that on a purely advertising aspect of it all, it was rather a good gimmick to drag an unaware person back to watch this poorly executed product.

A great bravo goes to all those who concocted such a stunt, which indeed works wonders, but only to educate people not to trust them a second time.

A reason more to choose your flicks more carefully and not trust in all the hear say of both critics and audiences in the future.

I know, it is not fair to criticize a great movie director like Franco Zeffirelli after his passing, but aside of his film mastery, nostalgia of good bygone centuries, and impeccable taste for costume and set designs, he was nevertheless a controversial personality.

The man and the artist were two different entities and this also shows in some of his movies and shorts, as well as in some of his staged operas, which were quite distant from his political views and life.

This "Homage to Rome", which was actually financed by official sources for advertising purposes to make Rome more palatable to tourists visiting the "Eternal City" (or so they insist in calling it), clearly shows a hint of kitsch mixed with an unbridled admiration for a romanticized past, but has nothing to do with the real city or the real people living in it.

Zeffirelli seems absent minded when it comes to some social and economic realities there and all he can do is to film beautiful images of what was instead of what is.

Besides being indeed able to attract a certain kind of audience, all the rest is stale, stifled and tastes like a too sugary laden pastry which might poison every diabetic person.

I don't want to detract from his taste for beauty, but the man has completely forgotten that there is a real world out there, and no, it is not made of romantic arias, nor stylish costumes and fashionable buildings.

What a difference from his previously filmed short, back in 1966 called "Per Firenze" (For Florence), in which he documented the tragic flooding of that city, showing compassion for the people living there.

It is said that with age a man changes, and indeed, Zeffirelli did change quite a lot, and not always for the best, and not everything seemed to fit within what he had previously created.

Oh, he still had a keen eye for details and style, but apparently not anymore for the human spirit he tried to lure into his own realm.

I therefore gave it just five stars out of ten, just because he could have done a much better portrait of Rome as a whole, if he also had some consideration for his fellow citizen.

This shows that with wealth people lose a part of their own genuine humanity, and probably, also part of their souls. So detached they are from everything that is real and that really counts in life that they simply don't seem to even notice the simplest of things around them.

This should not be considered an epitaph for an otherwise great artist, who nevertheless gave us masterpieces such as "Romeo and Juliet" and "Jesus of Nazareth", but in all fairness, where did his true soul remain in the end?

This is also probably why he decided to dedicate all his latter career to Operas, instead of continuing his career as a gifted movie director. Nice and cozy hiding place for someone who doesn't want to see reality under the sun and only dreams of fantastic worlds which only ever existed in human imagination.

Some might want to correct me here, and state that he nevertheless continued as a movie director, and indeed he did, but in a very noticeable lower key than when he started and none of his subsequent works actually pulled audiences back into cinemas as before.

Quite a sad ending for an otherwise bright mind and gentle being not to have continued in the path he had started with. The reason why will never completely be known, but perhaps a disillusion with politics or other great causes may have distanced the genius from his true intent and convinced him otherwise.

But still, if one seeks a well directed movie of long bygone days or an Opera that was well staged with great lyric names and conductors, then go no further and seek the name Zeffirelli. It will be worth it.