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.

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.

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.

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

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!!

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.

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....

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.

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)

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.

Why was this movie ever made or released onto the worldSo So BAD

[dimericoch · 1/10 · 12 June 2016]

This not a Dracula movie. It just used the Dracula name to sell the movie. The direction is so bad that fight scenes are done fast and you hardly understand who is fighting who. Dracula became Dracula by drinking some blood from a vampire so that he can take on a whole army and kill them by himself. The Plot is very unbelievable that you just think why I am still watching it. I normally can find a thing or two good about movies, but not with this one. There is absolutely nothing good. It is also a typical movie to make one side look bad (that side being the Turkish Muslims). People just do not understand this movie. It is not a horror movie, as the name might say. It is not even a good attempt to make people understand why and how Dracula became Dracula. It is just a cheap idea made into a movie to make you watch it by, using the name of Dracula in order to make money. Do not waste your time. You will a few fighting scenes, done very badly. No horror. No history. No thriller. Cheaply directed action with no plot. Nothing more. AVOID.

Worst Dracula film ever

[runestonethorn · 5 October 2014]

This film was a collection of disjointed snapshots; with no real merit. CJI was good, but now that's nothing new; I don't fully understand how he managed to overcome an army of thousands with a mammal that weighs less than 2g even in the huge numbers he seems to summon from thin air. However that was the high point; by about half way I would have happily sent the sniveling, cringe worthy child off; beheaded the hideously grating wife and begot some real sons worthy of carrying the Impaler moniker on a decent wife with enough balls to run the kingdom in my absence. This was a hideous attempt at a chick flick disguised as one of the coolest movie figures of all time. A film that forever more will be known as Crapula; best left untold.

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!

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.

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.

ill-will scenario, but good sound effects

[borademiralan · 1/10 · 8 October 2014]

Unfortunately not a good one. Totally expected much more a better film, rather than an obsessiveness against Turks. Although the history was falsified in the movie maybe because of the making a popular movie reasons, everyone knows the difference between Ottoman Empire and Turkey today. So it was quite funny to watch the ignorance.

What has been observed, actors were pushed to act and someone really hates the Turks and mixed his/her ignorant emotions to the movie.. What a shame.

Lastly, they were in position to utilise their capability to a better story, a story which everyone was expected.. Imax experience might be preferable for the visual and sound effects.

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.*

Wasn't horrible wasn't great

[vividvoid · 6/10 · 20 April 2022]

This movie is a decent movie if you think of it as like a different version of the character vlad it's not historically accurate at all but it's a decent action flick has some cool action segments the story not bad at all for a fantasy flick I would recommend it the acting decent.

How love can pass through all of eternity.

[jgardiner-871-726729 · 9/10 · 30 January 2022]

I'm not really a horror fan but when it comes to Dracula and his Vampires. I am fascinated by it. So I'm watching this.

Woah! What an awesome beginning. I really loved this. How love can pass through all of eternity. Historical story of love for family.

Watch it I'm sure you'll love it too.

Not another re-telling of the Braums Stoker Dracula.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 24 November 2018]

A blend of history and vampire mythology, a different glance at the legendary Dracula. A young Prince (not Count) Dracula, known as Vlad Tepes, (Luke Evans), a noble hero seeks out dark powers to protect his people threatened by a mighty throng of Turks. The storyline immediately seems to be ridiculous with a highly predictable plot, but to no avail. The romantic element of willing to give up his young son and leave his beautiful wife practically unprotected to become a monster to save his believers is what matters. This foray into darkness has Vlad the impaler transforming into a swarm of bats to kick butt. Quite visual with creative action and sustainable suspense.

The cast also features: Sarah Gadon, Charles Dance, Noah Huntley, Zach McGowan, Samantha Banks and Dominic Cooper.

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?!

Thank heavens for Coppola's work

[sesht · 11 October 2014]

Not quite Twilight, but perhaps the next-worst thing.

At first viewing of the Gary Oldman classic (my intro to the actor as well as the helmer), I thought they were trying to cram way too much into the plot, while also keeping the love story alive across generations. Seeing this (while not a travesty, still a very lesser work) banished that thought instantly.

Gone is the love, gone is the obsession, though make no mistake, Vlad does it all for love here as well, but more as a sacrifice, being the last refuge of a coward (kinda). They could've dug into the vampire myth a little more than what the previous version did - but that is one missed opportunity, among a long list of others. Dominic Cooper is wasted, though he surprisingly proves to be a stronger opponent to the lead character than his 2 scenes overall make us suspect.

Speaking of wasted characters, it's not just Cooper, but also Dance (Lord Tywin himself) who's utterly wasted, making a sequel-grab of sorts, without much explanation as to the origins and the eventual destination for that so-called important character. Glad t see him in his 2 scenes though.

A lot of side-characters get appropriately sidelined, and that's a pity, since this may have been a more substantial work if they had been given more room to breathe.

The shock of having quite the worst voice-over, that was not fixed even in post-production, is a huge mystery to me, rivaling the one that did not get fixed in '300', and ultimately found its own cult following as well. I don't think there's the danger of that happening over here, but who knows?

Given the recent news that this is going be something like the Avengers of Universal Studios' monsters assembly makes everything apparent, in terms of why this was rushed into production, and why everything else at Universal is as well, considering Marvel and DC/Warners have theirs, and this is all that Universal can mine. Box office wise, it's never gonna see the haul become the equivalent of what Marvel's got in its kitty already, and they had better remember that heroes sell more than baddies.

Luke Evans though, is the only reason to watch this flick, and I was thankful that there was no converted 3D cash-grab done for this as it has been done to a host of lesser works in the genre. The PG-13 too, nullifies/softens what could have perhaps been a gritty re- telling of an epic classic, but let's face it, as long as it's a studio hack running the show, PG-13 is all everyone's gonna get.

And speaking of hacks - In Gary Shore, Universal's found a perfect studio hack, and he won't make the studio a huge loss, but they can stop expecting him to perform miracles with the material they handed to him this time around.

Technically, I guess the CGI's alright, but the production design could've used more work, even close to the likes of the lesser- budgeted 'Centurion', or even the Purefoy-led vehicles like 'Ironclad' or 'Solomon Kane'.

A missed opportunity - and I am NOT lookin' fwd to all of those Spin-offs, assemblies with other Universal monsters and sequels, of which we're gonna be treated to a few, come each October.

For Those Comparing to History go Watch the Dark Prince and move on

[levykaren-ek · 7/10 · 12 October 2014]

I don't write many reviews but I am tired of seeing stupid reviews on this movie.

I'm going to state this right now before going on. Dracula, at least the vampire part, is a legend and therefore fiction and the real Dracula, the real person in history, is not really illustrated in this movie and was not meant to be. This movie was new twist on the Dracula stories, deferring to all previous movies and creating its own story line. Not a classic horror or historical movie of the life of Vlad the Impaler so if you wanted to see a movie like the rest of Dracula movies or for it to be close to the historical value of the real person, then stop now and don't watch it. I've seen so many reviews saying it's nothing like the history books...well duh it's FICTON! HE'S A DANM VAMPIRE!!

Now on to the movie. Like I said it is a new twist to Dracula. He is a powerful warlord that has earned a great reputation and in this movie he seeks to become a vampire to protect his people and his family from the Turkish armies. So if you wanna see a bad ass Dracula single handily destroy an army, this is for you. This movie, in my opinion, was more of an action movie with cool CG effects. There is a little romance and drama thrown in with the scenes with his family and his people and such but for the most part it has a good pace and has a good balance of all three. The acting was pretty good and the main character in my opinion did a good job. Anyways Dracula in this movie was a bad ass, you get to see him use some of cool vampire powers to kill hundreds of soldiers and you get to see him become a hero for once. I don't want to give away any real spoilers to the movie for those who want to see it but go in with an open mind and just enjoy this movie.