Dracula Untold (2014) User Reviews

A title no one seems to understand

[matej-trkanjec-133-920386 · 7/10 · 10 October 2014]

Leaving the cinema last night I found myself arguing with half the audience about the movie. Half of them said the movie sucked, and the other half (myself included) loved it. Now, this is a type of movie that will divide the audience so much that there will not be a middle. One will either love it or hate it (which seems to be a pattern in recent Hollywood history). By just watching the trailer it was clear as day that this will not be a masterpiece or a rebirth of Stocker's fable. So I ask a very plausible question: What did you expect?

1) The acting. This is a prototype of how a star is born. Luke Evans was by far the best choice for the lead role. His dark and passionate portrait of the prince was staggering. He was believable in every scene from start to finish. The changes of his character were so sophisticated and cool that only after the movie ends one actually realizes what a good performance that was. Evans is the only one that equals the '92 Gary Oldman performance. Cooper on the other hand used as a great counter performance showing just how bad his acting really is. That only emphasized Evans' performance. It was noticeable that the director felt the same way and gave him just a couple of scenes in the movie. Though, the end fight between the two was interesting, in my opinion it was more to the character and wardrobe than Cooper's performance. Two young actors of which one has, and will have a great career - Evans. Dance had an interesting role, but nothing worth praising. The rest of the cast I felt just filled the space and did a decent job.

2) The story. Unlike the stories so far (unfortunately there have been a lot) this one takes us far back to the very beginning, to the origins. It is innovative, and interesting to see how the story reveals itself. This is what the ones who don't like the movie don't like the most. Everyone expected a classic Dracula story and bloodsucking and London and Van Helsing etc. This is something else and accept it as it is. A good fantasy action movie with great visual effects, good acting and a decent story. The story has a nice paste, it is a great combination of slow sequences and action. But, the true problem with the movie is the length. 93 min is way to short for a movie of this type. If it were 30 min longer the characters could have been explored more, the story could have had more drama, and the ending could have been longer and bloodier. But this length shows that a nice story with enough drama, suspense, action and a bit gore, can be told in 90 min. We are, unfortunately spoiled by all the big spectacles lasting over 120 min, so 90 min can seem a bit short.

3) The visual effects. By far the most memorable part (besides Evans). They are dark, brutal and entertaining. It is a joy to watch and it always leaves one sitting and waiting to see what Dracula will come up with next. And yes, the burning on the sun is very believable and quite gruesome.

I have said a lot about this movie so far and most of it was good. This movie has its flaws - the length, the story holes, the lack of a good antagonist... One could really go on for days. But that is not the point. What matters is that Dracula untold provided exactly what it said it would - a great ride. It will not be a huge box office hit, it will not win an Acadamy award. But people will see it, they will have a good time go home and forget about it. That is exactly what Dracula is - 90 min of good entertainment. Not everything has to be The Shawshank Redemption or the Godfather. And most importantly, not every Dracula story has to be R rated and a pure horror movie. So, go see it, expect a fun ride, and you will enjoy it.

Good Enough As Long As You Don't Think Of It As A Horror Film

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 10 December 2014]

I remember the 1992 version of Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola and thinking that the best part of that version was the anti-heroic Prince Vlad defending Europe against the Ottoman invasion . I do believe there is a market for a historical epic featuring the true life story of Vlad the impaler . This version from 2014 does come close to it in some ways but let's be honest and say no one is going to watch any movie with Dracula in the title unless it features a vampire in the title role and one wonders how many people might have been disappointed by the marketing if not the title alone ?

One group of people who will be bitterly disappointed will be Turks . While the Persians are still recovering from their portrayal in 300 and its sequel the Muslim Turks might have just been lured in to a sense of false security after MIDNIGHT EXPRESS but low and behold along comes DU . The Turks aren't painted in a good light and one wonders if there might be a rather dubious subtext when the Sultan demands a thousand boys for his army ? That said at least Vlad himself isn't a noble traditional type of nationalist hero and the film does show him struggling against internal dilemmas . It's not really an actors type of character driven cinema but Luke Evans is suitably brooding while best performance is Dominic Cooper as Mehmed who doesn't appear on screen often enough here and is probably the film's trump card

DU isn't a masterpiece and again it's very important that you go in to this film with the knowledge it's more of a dark sword and sorcery type tale rather than a horror movie . It wasn't until after I saw it that I found out Universal Pictures might be using it to do a reboot of their monster franchise from the 1930s and 40s which explains the ending that jars with the rest of the movie . Do we genuinely want another reboot series ? As it stands this version of Dracula is more than adequate and maybe we should let Eastern European vampires stay dead

Chewing Gum for the eyes

[malignance · 6/10 · 9 November 2014]

While this movie pretty much ignores the history, it's still a good movie, great CGI, good acting and the ending implies a sequel.

Many have commented that Vlad was not a good guy in real life, hence the historical figures title of the "impaler". The movie does show this in a few scenes but in a interesting if somewhat brief way.

Good action scenes, battles and some gory images, but then as it's Dracula, what do you expect.

If your looking for a movie to just sit back and have fun watching, Dracula Untold is an enjoyable romp with good actors, Charles Dance is impeccable as always and Luke Evans is good as the main character.

Dracula was cool.

[ajrepairman · 7/10 · 6 July 2022]

I liked this film. Unfortunately, it seemed to be a "let's copy the visual effects, feel, and war-drum-beat of 300 to the storyline of Dracula". I really enjoyed it on the big screen, however. Totally worth it as a theater film.

Interesting origin story.

[ashleyfitches · 7/10 · 25 March 2023]

When I first saw this advertised on tv it got me intrigued however I left it nearly 10 years to watch unfortunately I lost out on the hype of this movie. I really enjoyed this movie, it had a lot of action and some decent battle scenes. I do think Luke Evans played a great lead role and really made himself powerful in the role, however I do think a lot of the side character's were pretty bland, and useless although I understand why they had to be there. I did like Charles Dance as the main vampire who gives Dracula his powers I thought he played the role Great like all of his roles. I would recommend as a stand alone movie but could've been set up to a sequel.

a story, loosely based on some history

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 20 October 2022]

Luke evans. The one who isn't chris, scott, or dale. In this version, dracula is the son of vlad the impaler. For the actual story, one should refer to wikipedia dot org. The turks have returned to take more young men and boys to be trained as soldiers, as they did a generation before. So dracula borrows the power of the master vampire. And we (I)learned a new rule of vampires: if dracula can resist killing humans for blood for three days, he can return to his mortal form, otherwise, he will remain a vampire. But all the other vampire rules still apply. Battle-field scenes, lots of cgi, which is very well done! Bats everywhere. How far will vlad go to save his people? And his son? Co-stars charles dance and dominic cooper. This one spends a little more time on the family history, rather than focusing only on the blood and guts. Directed by gary shore, in what seems to be his first full length feature. I'm a little surprised that this wasn't nominated for any oscars. Schwartzman, the d.o.p. Had been nominated for seabiscuit.

a whole mess of crap

[armelcatlott · 1/10 · 25 October 2014]

surely nothing to do with Dracula, far away from history, so what the ....! is this a movie of the war between "cross" and "crescent"? and the good is the cross and the evil is crescent (and the turks)? i went to see a fantasy action Dracula movie, yet this is just a piece of crap, waste of time!

by the way, mehmet never knew coffee, turks met coffee 100 years after he died. and he dies in istanbul, not in romania and by Dracula. this should've known if you take him as a main character in the movie, and he is not an ordinary turk, he was the conqueror of istanbul.

if you do a Dracula movie do it a Dracula movie. if you try to do it with the history, first you should learn the history.

And one last thing, bringing "cross" versus "crescent" never gives you extra bonus or support to be watched.

using islamophobia or turkophobia really sucks.

Newsflash to the haters; This is a vampire movie, not a Discovery Channel documentary!

[cochrandarin · 10/10 · 24 March 2022]

My God in Heaven, another movie getting crucified by a bunch of pseudo-historians because it somehow mangles the real story of Vlad the Impaler...insert palm to the head slap here!

Listen very carefully, anyone with an intelligence greater than a monkey; This is a vampire movie! It is a fictional story. Vlad the Impaler was NOT, I repeat, NOT a vampire! Gees, give it a break and watch the freakun movie and be entertained.

No, it is the not the greatest movie you will ever see. But the acting is good, particular Charles Dance playing the original monstrous vampire. The CGI is pretty good. The war scenes are pretty cool. The acting is pretty good...it's not Shawshank Redemption, but who the heck cares? I didn't check, but I don't think it won any Oscars, but so-what?

Put down the dadgum notepads and stop with your butchering of this movie and sit down with your fam by a roaring fire one night with a plate of chocolate chip cookies and watch a pretty cool horror/action movie. There are worse ways you could spend an evening. It's called entertainment. Someday, in a perfect cinematic world, a lot of folks on this website will figure out what that means. Thank me later....

AN ACTION PACKED HORROR EXPERIENCE!

[nathanfreve · 7/10 · 2 May 2021]

Is Dracula Untold the best vampire movie? No it's not. Should you watch it with the expectation of the original Dracula? No you shouldn't.

However, the movie on its own is really exciting and interesting. I liked this movie a lot and found it to be very entertaining with a good balance of action but not being overly gory. Don't expect this to be like the classic chiller or you be very disappointed. I found it to have a good story line and really awesome action sequences. I recommend watching it, but just watch it for what it is and try not to compare, it's its own new story, not a carbon copy of the old story.

awful

[didemv · 1/10 · 29 October 2014]

It is the worst movie I have ever seen. They have no idea about the Ottoman Empire. They never acted like that to women in this way. The Sultan's life and his acts also are lies. It is a shame for history. I invite these film producers to read the history in detail. Everything was awful. It is also a shame for the Dracula story. He did not live like that in the story. I don't recommend this movie. One vote is even too much for this movie. Fight scenes were not real. Dracula's wife didn't die like this. It is not also possible to kill that much men even for Dracula. The end was awful too. I want to give 0 to this disgusting thing...

6 of 10 are you people crazy?

[titansdell · 10/10 · 27 April 2022]

This was a phenomenal movie from start to finish!! The individuals who rated this movie low are CLEARLY Kens & Karens.. The storyline was fantastic! Graphics were great and the entire movie was easy to follow lol 6 out of 10??? You people are nuts.

Excellent Telling of the Dracula Legend

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 4 February 2015]

As his kingdom is being threatened by the Turks, young prince Vlad Tepes must become a monster feared by his own people in order to obtain the power needed to protect his own family, and the families of his kingdom.

Any time a Dracula film is made, it has a stigma put upon it. There have been many, probably scores, of films about Dracula, but only a small handful that have gone on to be classics. Those include Murnau's "Nosferatu", Universal's original "Dracula", Hammer's "Dracula" and Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 incarnation. Others either get a second tier (such as Dan Curtis' version) or have failed miserably (Dario Argento's mess).

This version, released from Universal, has that added burden because the company has a long history with Dracula, going back 80 years. How they handle the character is very important. Although some seem skeptical about Universal's plan to create a "Monster Universe", if this film is any indication, it might not be half bad. And as charming as the 1940s crossover films were (particularly "House of Frankenstein"), we must admit they are cheesy and there is room for improvement.

We are given the historical Vlad Tepes in this version, not the "Count Dracula" of Bram Stoker. Of course, some elements of Stoker are clearly here; the real Vlad had no vampire blood coursing through his veins. But this seems to take the middle ground, with Dracula being more timeless and superhuman, less evil or dirty. In some respect, he can even be seen as a hero.

Is the history here accurate (ignoring the vampire part)? Probably not. But it works, and sets up a rich character with a deep history, some emotions and a reason to exist. This is a well-written character, not the one-dimension bloodsucker in previous outings.

Horror fans may be disappointed that this is more action than horror, but anyone who says this is a bad film is trying to find something to dislike. Compared to the sloppy "I, Frankenstein" (not a Universal film), this one has real potential for sequels and more.

The script writers need history& geography lessons

[Arianrhod_B · 4 January 2021]

There must be something really wrong with the education system. And there's nothing wrong with creating a fictional story based on myths and legends. But when you say Beijing is in Alaska, and the Chinese character in the movie sounds French, there's no way you can sell this cringeworthy, embarassing movie to an audience, who thankfully has access to internet and can look up for the facts.

It's said that the year is 1442, but the real Vlad the Impaler was 11 years old at that time. And the geography? The location of the buildings don't match up. The costumes, Ottoman swords are completely wrong. And Mehmed II, the future conqueror of Constatinople was also 10 years old at that time, but he magically grew up I guess. When Ottoman characters speak Turkish, it sounds like my French students who've just started learning the language. How cringy is that, like, really, could they at least not find the actors proper dialect coaches so that they could be a bit more convincing while pronouncing these two sentences?

If they think they can sell trash to the audience and not respect them, long live paid streaming channels. We don't have a dime to pay for a two hour long idiocracy.

Entertaining

[emccyu · 7/10 · 22 May 2021]

Fun, entertaining popcorn movie. Why others are complaining about the historical inaccuracy is beyond me. It's just a fantasy movie about blood sucking vampires and it doesn't aim to be anything else.

Enough to entertain, but fail to dramatize...

[edwardanthony9 · 6/10 · 4 October 2014]

It's always intriguing with an origin story, because it allows viewers to experience the change, in this case the man who will then become the monster we know as Dracula. This film did just enough on that part, while being sufficiently entertaining as an action flick. But it came with many minor flaws, one that culminates in a less overall dramatic experience.

On the good part, the action sequences were great, supported by some well worked visual effects. The cast is also brilliant, most notably Luke Evans and Charles Dance. Dominic Cooper portrayed a bad guy for the second time this year, and though he can perform, he never really looked the menacing villain. He never felt like a threat and neither was his men, so there was little suspense throughout the film. There was more suspense towards the very end, but it did not culminate in a fight, promptly ending the movie in it's rather short running time.

As an untold story, it's good to see the reasons and the set up as to how this man had to become the monster, yet it was not properly explored. The case was that Vlad was supposed to resist the temptation of human blood, but it was never explored in depth except for one initial moment. It could have been more dramatic if more scenes show of his struggle, and then maybe along with the repercussions that he may be hurting his own family because of this, which will ultimately be way more dramatic. Several other details like this were not properly explored, which made it a rather straightforward story, enough to make the plot move, but not to make it a dramatic experience.

VERDICT:

Good: Great action sequences, Decent visual effects, Excellent cast

Bad: Many minor flaws in the plot, Little suspense

SCORE: 6.5

(blockbusted9.blogspot.com)

Great CGI, no relation to history whatsoever...

[e_berilaz · 3/10 · 6 October 2014]

I've watched this movie with an open mind, intending not to look into the historical facts and just enjoy a good CGI-packed film, that tells the story of my country's most famous ancestor. But I couldn't, I just could. They've went on to use actual names for people and places, that some may think some things are actually true. Absolutely nothing from this movie has to do with reality!!!

So, the year is 1442, when the real Vlad the Impaler was 11 years old, having been born in 1431. He's opposed to the sultan Mehmed II, the future conqueror of Constatinople (present-day Istanbul), who, at the time, was only 10 years old. Yet their characters are a bit older than that, aren't day?

Then the need to connect Vlad "Dracula" the Impaler to Transylvania. They've made him prince. Uhmm... he wasn't the ruler of Transylvania, he was the ruler of Wallachia, which is just south of Transylvania. He merely stayed imprisoned in Transylvania for a good 12 years. He never ruled Transylvania, as the movie depicts, but I guess they had to stay with the legend, because who cares about history, right?!

Then there's the Ottoman side. Mehmed II was a child at the time described in the movie. He did try to come and personally punish the rebellious Vlad, but that happened in 1462, so 20 years later. And he did not die by Vlad's hand, although he was almost shot by an arrow of the Wallachian prince during a night attack.

One last thing. They've totally messed it up with the geography. I mean, look for yourself for the Tihuta passage and Cozia monastery and how you can get from Bran castle to the monastery using that passage. Let's just say that between the buildings and the passage there are some hundreds of kilometers.

If you're not taking in consideration the historical facts (which basically don't exist, apart from the resemblance of some names), the movie is rather thin. The story doesn't hold and some parts are kind of forced there so the action might have some coherence - which it lacks, in parts. (I mean, seriously, an army marching miles and miles blind-folded? OK, I'll buy, for the movies's sake, but gathering an entire country's people to a single monastery...?!?! What were we? The Vatican?! Or someone falling for hundreds of meters and not dying instantly when they hit the ground...)

I believe the movie would have been a lot better if they didn't use actual places and figures and they would have kept the persona drafted only from legends, with no historical ground. But it's Hollywood, so who cares about history, right?!

Movie that goes right into the action :)

[afura-78800 · 8/10 · 3 February 2023]

Finally a movie with not too much talking and not too much bla bla, the movie goes right into the action without telling an endless story that never ends and bores the spectator, I love it. That is what I was needing after watching too many movies before where nothing happened and people were just babbling the audience to death.

The special effects are good it doesn't look cheap at all. It is not a complicated story, but an interesting and appealing one in my opinion. The actors did a good job and for those that watched Games of Thrones will find Charles Dance (Tywin Lennister) again in this movie :) . I find that Luke Evans and Charles Dance were the perfect pick for this movie, they fitted so well in their role like they were made for it. The movie is not very long, it is rather short with 88 minutes, but that is not a problem and I didn't feel like it should be longer, the length was perfect for me.

Too bad that they don't wanna make a part two of this movie, I find the story very interesting and has for sure potential for one or two more sequels.

A Bite of Hollywood Swoops Over History!!

[mjpiro · 7/10 · 12 February 2023]

Dracula Untold is the fictional tale of real life ruler Vlad the Impaler or Vlad Dracula, ruler of then Transylvania which is now modern day Romania!! Vlad was such a sadistic ruler that when enemies came to his territory & were defeated he & his army would impale them on high spikes as a warning to other kingdoms to think twice before they attacked the Transylvanians and it was talked about that he would even drink their blood!! Where this movie dips from reality & an actual re-telling of historical Vlad's life is when screenplay writers Matt Sazama & Burk Sharpless immediately merge the real life man with writer Bram Stoker's fictional character Dracula that he invented based on the terrifying historical figure for his book Dracula centuries later that came about in the film after Vlad visited the dark Vampire in the mountain during the movie!! Nevertheless Dracula Untold is a very good story. Starring Luke Evans as Vlad & Sarah Gadon as his wife Mirena, Dracula Untold tells the story of how Vlad both saved his people from the invading Turks but killed them minus his son by taking the Dark Powers to become Dracula. Very well written with great action sequences, Dracula Untold has good period costuming, a good flow to it, & it flies by in time with a running time of only one hour & thirty-two minutes!! 7 out of 10 stars!!

bad story

[ismailkatip · 1/10 · 18 October 2014]

A terrible scenario, shoddy effects, bad acting and no gripping on non fictional events that distorts history beyond ridiculous movie. Complete waste of time.

Well, in most content which include antic or middle ages style in it always has a thing against the "easterner" figure, but in this movie it seems finally they decided to put it in a shape. As Turks.

Personally I think this closely related to the position of the Ottoman empire in world stage in those days. During its 700 years of rule, Ottoman empire managed to grow big enough to be a superpower of the day and kept that place for 200 years. Yes Ottoman empire was not formed by saints. But it barely deserve this. I bet nobody thought Vatican's demonization of Turks would be this effective back then. There are even some commenters putting some known terrorist organizations in sentences like equals with Turks. Its like Nazis demonizing Jews to legitimate their killings. Aren't we better than this?

Anyone with some skills with google can find who really count Vlad was and the practices at Ottoman empire (although this part might be a little controversial because of propaganda efforts) So I will not go trough them and bore you with realities. But I will say that there are many errors. If the producers decided to go fantastic about Vlad why put real figures against such made up character and humiliate people?

That would be really ironic if people of the future mention USA the way producers did to Ottomans in this movie. Not impossible considering the last 50 years of USA.

It's not about the historical Dracula, it's about a new story

[yoav-segal10 · 8/10 · 16 December 2014]

For all who says that this movie is bad because it doesn't follow the Dracula story we all know from the past I say, it's not suppose to. When I sit down to watch a movie there's one thing that matter in the end: Did I or Did I not enjoy the movie? And this movie was definitely enjoyable and fun.

Manny reviewers say that this is a bad movie because it doesn't follow the historical time-line and details of the characters in it. Ultimately I really don't care, it's a fiction movie, not a documentary about the history of...

I even read, in a 3/10 star review, a reviewer that says the movie is bad because of historical falsies. That reviewer wrote in his comment : "The film might captivate some audiences who are looking for a fun time, but there is nothing memorable or legendary about it." isn't that all a movie should be about? Having a fun time is what I came for...

Dracula Untold isn't related in any aspect to the old Dracula story. It is a story of its' own and a very good one to. I think that the directors and the script writers did an excellent job writing a different side to the Dracula story.

So, for those who care about the chronicles of Dracula and close their mind to a different story don't watch this movie. But, if you're looking for a fun fiction story this is a fantastic movie.

I gave it 8/10 stars because it could have been better.

Overall this movie is seriously underrated.

*Sorry for bad English. May contain grammar mistakes.*

Dracula I'm Bored!

[loco_73 · 6/10 · 12 October 2014]

"Dracula Untold" must be one of those movies conceived in some studio's board room by a collection of pea-size brained executives, who one morning decided to just google the name Dracula and then proceeded to say "Uhhhh I like this...and I like that...oh and look at this...and look at that...". Then they went ahead and just threw all those facts and figures together creating the hodge-podge non-sensical concoction that is this movie. One that more resembles an extended pilot episode from one of those really crummy series that currently air on SyFy...

Honestly sometimes I think that a bunch of baboons throwing feces at one another could come up with a better movie than this!

If you hoped that this movie will bring about some fresh perspective on the myth of Prince Vlad The Impaler, aka Vlad Tepes aka Vlad Draculea..aka Dracula, you can forget that...and best be prepared for a cheesy B-movie with A-list aspirations! Luke Evans surely has charisma and talent enough to imbue the movie with at least a spark of interest, thus the 6 out of 10. There is clearly potential to be had here. But a PG-13 rating, a crummy script, shoddy direction and poor editing...pretty much render this movie spayed and neutered!

The movie tries to tell a "different" story about Dracula, his origins and his beginnings, but it fails in its attempt, drowned in a sea of mediocrity!

Add to that, the concluding scenes of this movie, which come out of the blue and really make little to no sense within the context of what you've just seen...other than clearly serve as the set-up for a sequel...

Even the presence of 3 "Game Of Thrones" cast members cannot alter that fact, Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister), Art Parkinson (Rickon Stark) and Paul Kaye (Thoros Of Myr). Besides there is also Dominic Cooper, perhaps best known as Howard Stark, Tony Stark's father, and he cannot add much to the movie! Too bad, because Luke Evans is clearly a star waiting to step forth...perhaps the upcoming "The Hobbit: The Battle Of Five Armies" will be a better opportunity for him to shine!

Dark but entertaining

[Gordon-11 · 7 February 2016]

This film tells a re-imagined version of how a Transylvanian prince saves his land by becoming a feared, blood thirsty creature called Dracula.

The graphics is understandably dark, in order to suit this classic horror tale. Prince Vlad is very charming despite his dark side, which is essential to make viewers like him and sympathise with him. He does what he has to do to protect his land and people, and he makes a big and selfless sacrifice in order to do that. The unsettling atmosphere lingers on in the film, yet the story drives me to want Vlad to succeed. I think the enemy king, played by Dominic Cooper, has too little screen time. The presence of the Turk king in more scenes would have intensified the film even more, as illustrated by the final fight in the film.

"Dracula Untold" is dark but entertaining. I enjoyed it.

Fun watch! Not a 10 but not a 5...

[joeferraro-71683 · 7/10 · 11 December 2022]

This movie was great and kept me entertained throughout. The acting was on point 90% of the time with a few scenes that seemed like they were written by stand-ins. A little bit over the top in some spots and underwhelming in others.

I feel it would have done better as graphic novel style, a little more fear of the vampire curse, the "true love" could have worked better and cave dude was corny af. I liked most of the fight/battle scenes but some left me wanting more.

Regardless of the shorts, I really did enjoy the film. It was innovative, creative, imaginative and best of all, fun!

I would recommend it. I wouldn't watch it again but I would watch a sequel.

Smashing World Building

[makiefer-87128 · 7/10 · 2 June 2024]

Did Dracula just peak ? Dracula isn't the greatest franchise, but this movie just maxes out every aspect about Dracula that could possibly get interesting. The tale of seafaring Odysseus who strands on a mysterious island, fights a one-eyed giant, and withstands the singing sirens tied to a mast, has been out for 2000 years. And someone goes: we need another movie about an Undead Bloodsucker. And absolutely smashes it. I love the theme of self-sacrifice (only second to Star Wars: Rogue One), the main actor, the stunning visuals with swarms of bats. When I watched the movie for the first time, I wasn't actually surprised how good it was. I was more surprised that I seemed to have missed a whole franchise. The producers made this movie like naturals. 'Of course, this would be a Dracula. Of course, this is what his existence would feel like. It just hasn't been shown, yet.' So that's the REAL Dracula. Awesome.

Vlad puts the Vamp into Dracula

[lbowdls · 7/10 · 2 December 2023]

I am still in the middle of watching this, but had to do a review as I don't think I like or relate to any of the reviews. As they either give it a high 10 or everyone picking on the history aspects.

Firstly, I want to say I usually hate these medieval violent and dark fantasy tales. But what I love about this story is the combination of putting together the historic Vlad the impaler story with the Dracula fantasy legend. Too me it's a great, clever imagining and works well. I unfortunately missed the first 20 minutes or so. But again the fact I could get into this style of film after the beginning also says a lot about how good the story telling is. Also very good acting and not amateur like some say on here at all.

Now I'm getting towards the ending and I'll see if I leave all my positive comments before I publish.... Yes! Tragic but moving endings well 4 of them, maybe 2nd last one unnecessary but all explain the legend of Vlad/Dracula awesomely.