User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

But let's just stop for a moment and appreciate how unbelievably beautiful Luke Evans is in the movie (as always and everywhere though, God blessed us with his beauty) 🔥

Luke Evans has just the heroic persona to draw us in to this exciting, semi-historic but mostly fanciful prologue to the Bram Stoker horror novel. His performance is the solid foundation for the tough fairy tale elements that permeate the first half hour of this movie. The relationship between Vlad and his young son is nicely depicted and gets the narrative off to an involving start. Colorful, often lavish production values are on full display. Clearly, no expense was spared in the making of this movie.

Vlad's dark deal with the demonic vampire in the mountain cave has a distinct Faustian flavor that seems appropriate here. His fantastical victory over his enemy's hordes of soldiers hints at the supernatural horror his future life as the King of the Undead will become. It's interesting to see him both shocked and excited by his newfound ability to transform himself at will into not merely one bat, but a swarm of the nasty creatures. By rooting Dracula into Transylvanian history and myth, the screenplay stresses the human core of emotions and familial bonds that gave readers and movie-goers excuses to find him to be at least a somewhat noble and seductive character.

A good movie, engaging and under-appreciated.

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)

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.*

How is it that Mehmed II, who was born in 1432, ascended the throne in 1442 and went to war? I passed him too, the man conquered Istanbul in 1453, the era opened, the era closed, you killed the great man with a stake in 1442. I'm calling out to the scripwriters from here, it's a legendary event, but it's a shame you never looked at it on google. I have never seen such clumsy mindless scenarios in my life !!!

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.

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.

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.