Dracula Untold (2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
499 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
It's not about the historical Dracula, it's about a new story
yoav-segal1016 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.*
245 out of 326 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A title no one seems to understand
matej-trkanjec-133-92038610 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
194 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Chewing Gum for the eyes
malignance9 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.
65 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Everyone will enjoy this flick except history buffs
CastorTroyOnCom12 October 2014
If your looking for a good action flick with a decent plot this is the movie for you. With a 90min runtime I was expecting this movie to feel "rushed", it felt far from that. The action was great, it did not disappoint with all the cool vampire abilities you see in the trailer, especially transforming into a group of bats. Being a Dracula movie there are things you have to expect, yes he receives his power by drinking blood, having all the vulnerabilities as every vampire (which they do very good in this movie) but the way this movie makes you root for Vlad(Dracula) you actually find yourself engulfed in the movie wanting him to overcome the darkness and win. However if you are a history buff and it irks you when movies take real life people and change their history for a movie, you will not enjoy this because it is loosely based off Vlad the Impaler. My Review 8/10 Excellent
318 out of 493 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Entertainment :)
danieleriktheodorlundin1 February 2015
This movie is supposed to be entertaining, and because it succeeded in that regard as far as I am concerned, it's a very good movie.

This is the kind of movie you should watch with a glass of beer in your hand. Enjoy the story for what it is and drink your beer. If you approach this movie with an analytic mind, you're probably not going to enjoy it. The plot's got more holes in it than a Swiss cheese and it shouldn't be treated as a deep, psychological study of the human mind.

Who the heck has the patience for that?

Just enjoy it on a basic, emotional level and I'm sure you'll have a good time.

Enjoy!
78 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Origin of Dracula
claudio_carvalho8 February 2015
In 1442, the Prince Vlad, the Impaler (Luke Evans) rules the Transylvania after serving the Turkish Sultan as a soldier since he was a child. Vlad is happily married with his beloved wife Mirena (Sarah Gadon) and their son, Ingeras (Art Parkinson), is their pride and joy. When Vlad and his soldiers find a Turkish helmet in the river, he goes with two men to a cave in the Broke Tooth Mountain expecting to find Turkish scouts. However they stumble upon a deadly creature (Charles Dance) that kills the two men, but Vlad succeeds to escape alive from the cave. He learns that the creature is a vampire.

On the next day, a Turkish group of soldiers come to the Castle Dracula to collect the taxes but the emissary tells to Vlad that the Turkish Sultan Mehmed (Dominic Cooper) is demanding one thousand boys to be trained for the Turkish army. Vlad unsuccessfully tries to negotiate with Mehmed and when the soldiers come back again to take his son, Vlad kills all of them. Then he goes to Broke Tooth Mountain and meets the vampire. He explains that he needs his power to defeat his enemies; otherwise his people will be slaughtered by the Turkish army. The vampire offers his blood to Vlad but explains what could happen. Vlad would temporarily have his power for three days and if he resists to the thirsty of blood, he would turn back to his human condition. But if he does not resist, he would turn into a vampire forever. Vlad accepts the offer and defeats the Turkish soldiers, but soon he understands the price he has to pay to acquire his power.

"Dracula Untold" is an underrated action movie with the story of the origin of Dracula. This movie has a dramatic and full of action story, disclosed through great screenplay, special effects and music score. Luke Evans is perfect in the role of a prince capable of an ultimate sacrifice to save his beloved family and people. It is funny to see the comment that a vampire action movie does not have historical accuracy. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Drácula: A História Nunca Contada" ("Dracula: The Untold Story")

Note: On 07 May 2018, I saw this film again on Blu-Ray.
71 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
see it as a purely entertainment film
zacktheman-175-1612082 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
many reviewers complain about the history of the movie not being accurate or truthful; in case you forget, Dracula, the vampire, is all fictitious, so why complain about history?? I don't care if the story is not along the line of the other Dracula stories we know of as long as the story is well told. such a movie shouldn't be taken so seriously; see it as purely entertainment; now back to serious review; to put it simply, I like the movie. Luke Evans is perfectly cast as Dracula. The movie is 90 minute so you wouldn't have everything 'spelled out'. It's reasonably fast paced; the movie has its flaws but minor enough that you can reasonably pass it; the only major flaw that I see and think the movie should work on explaining is how the Sultan knows about Dracula's weaknesses. Dang, Dracula almost got defeated because of the Sultan's knowledge and the director thinks it's not important to dwell on it?? that's why it's only 8 for me.
84 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Enough As Long As You Don't Think Of It As A Horror Film
Theo Robertson10 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
84 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Great CGI, no relation to history whatsoever...
e_berilaz6 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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?!
345 out of 620 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Dark and gloomy terror/adventure/drama movie about a Prince called Vlad Tepes threatened by the Turks who becomes a vampire
ma-cortes13 July 2019
Thrilling as well as frightening horror movie containing terrifying scenes , chills loads of gore and guts with a lot of C.G. effects . It is set in Transylvany , fifteenth-century , a new legend is born with a creepy Dracula to fight evil , a hero will turn to darkness .Everyone Bloodline has a beginning and an ending .It deals with a young prince called Vlad Tepes , Luke Evans , also named Vlad the Impaler. When Sultán Mehmet II , Dominic Cooper , who is executing the Vienna siege , demands one thousand children to become into Jenizaros for the Turkish Army , the prince Vlad has two choices , whether carry out this wrong order or to rebel against Turks . Vlad Tepes chooses the latter one , as he joins his officers and forms a feared army . Later on , Vlad reluctantly agrees with a monstrousing creature , Charles Dance , to vanquish the Turk enemy . As in order to achieve power to protect his wife , Sarah Gadon , child : Art Parkinson, and inhabitants his Kingdom , he turns an eerie creature of the night , becoming forever a doomed being .

Horror movie with violent fights , noisy action , impressive battles with extreme use of computer generator images and a few historical events about the Vienna siege by Sultan Mehmet II . This thrilling as well as terrifying movie packs horrifying scnes , chills , gore and breathtaking war scenes . It is not based on Bram Stoker 1897 classic novel of the same title and one of the biggest differences with original novel is that this Dracula recounting takes place entirely in a scary Transylvania , as Stoker's moves the action to England . This is a ghastly terror drama about sinister happenings with an interesting and engaging premise : Will Vlad Tepes lose his soul becoming a monster feared by his own people to save his wife , child and kingdom ¿ . It displays a shading and dark cinematography by John Schwartzman . As well as an evocative and moving musical score by Rami Djawadi of Game of Thrones . Being well and professionally made by Gary Shore, though it has some failures , gaps and excessive frames in 3D.

This one is one of the uncountable renditíon about this legendary personage , freely based on the Bram Stoker character , though here is more related to historic prince Vlad Tepes or Vlad the Impaler . Other films retelling the known legend based as originally concerned on Stoker's novel are the following ones : Dracula by Terence Fisher with Christopher Lee , Peter Cushing and its sequels . Dracula by Dan Curtis with Jack Palance , Simon Ward , Nigel Davenport . Count Dracula by Jess Frank with Chistopher Lee , Herbert Lom , Soledad Miranda , Klaus Kinski . Bram Stoker's Dracula with David Suchet as Van Helsing , Marc Warren as Count Dracula and Sophia Miles as Lucy . Dracula 3D by Dario Argento with Thomas Ktretschmann , Rutger Hauer, Unax Ugalde, Marta Gastoni . The best results to be Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula with Gary Oldman , Winona Ryder , Anthony Hopkins , Gary Elwes, Keanu Reeves .
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Enough to entertain, but fail to dramatize...
edwardanthony94 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)
88 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I am Lost for Words...
erdemozkan10 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
To Summarize, for me it is a pretty bad movie. Why? (INCLUDES SPOILERS)

1. Script: They've got it all wrong. Others might find it OK but if your bad guy is in fact one of the most important characters of the world history, you just can't go and change his story and the way he dies. Sultan II. Mehmed, unlike in the movie, died from a regular disease when he was 50 years old. He did not die in battle, especially not killed by Dracula or Vlad III. In fact, they never even directly confronted each other on a battlefield. Not to mention that the timeline was all wrong Sultan Mehmed was known as Faith (the Conquerer) and not Mehmed after his victory in Constantinople / Istanbul (1453).

2. Cast: Bad casting and performance all around. Except for Charles Dance. AND... Again, if you are doing a flick including a real life personality from world history, please DO BOTHER to go and check how he actually looked like. At least google his name and see a couple of original portraits for yourself OK?

3. Props and Looks: Ottoman janissary/soldiers never used regular (straight) swords. They used bent swords like scimitars. The final fight scene though presents Sultan Mehmed using a 2 handed sword, strictly used by European Chivalry. Ottoman soldiers never wore that kind of a heavy, full plate armor as well.

Bad research and execution on scriptwriters and directors behalf which might be ignored by many people but if you actually know the history of these events, there isn't any way to agree, sorry.
324 out of 613 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A beautifully crafted version of Dracula. Worth the watch
aimee-837-24375712 October 2014
First and foremost I know it's appalling that I am giving this a 10 but because I went to watch this movie knowing fully that I ought to disregard the true history of it and the classic Dracula novel from 1897 Gothic horror by Irish author Bram Stoker. I kept and open mind and my mind was blown away.

Luke Evans is an amazing actor that carried out such a brilliance performances. I was so moved by the internal struggle he was portraying as a good hearted prince Vlad to the demon that he was becoming Dracula. I felt for his character deeply. It may have been a short movie in comparison to most movie out there but in that short period of time, I thought it was beautifully told how much he loved his wife and his son. How much he cares for his country and the length a good prince would go through to protect what he holds dear to him heart.

The cinematography was very beautifully artsy. It is not like 300 where there is unnecessary blood and gore. It's more artistic and tastefully done. No need for all those gore. This movie isn't about horror or violence's. It's about how he became Dracula. It's about the person he was before all the evils. About a men that gave everything to save the things he love and the ultimate sacrifice he made to protect his family.

I know there are a lot of bad criticism out there for this movie because it's not gore enough or there isn't enough bloody mess and also some that say that the special effect was a joke but I think it's definitely worth the watch and I think this movie is worthy of being in the "good movie " category. The special effects may not be as good as lord of the ring or 300 but considering the budget wasn't as high as those other movies, this movie surpassed all of them.

It's worthy of a movie that is consider a better movie than most out there. Give it a chance. You will not regret it.
260 out of 492 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Dark, Exciting Dracula Story since Bram Stoker's Dracula!
skater581211 October 2014
This story gives us something new to watch and keeps you on your toes on what's going to happen next. One of the best Dracula/vampire movies of all time. I'm a huge fan of all these type of movies and I feel that they did an amazing job bringing Dracula to life and a character that actually makes you fear him. Costumes in this movie are very well made, and the actors and actresses did a great job in the movie. I hope enough people feel the same way about this movie so we get more movies like this back to the classic horror movies instead of senseless slasher movies with no plot! Don't listen to negative feedbacks, be your own critic and this is worth taking the risk to find out for yourself.
134 out of 247 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Supernatural tale of the necessity of evil with great action
subase1 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Dracula Untold is a story about the necessity of evil.

An ex-soldier Dracula was renowned for his brutality in warfare, something he justified due to the terror he inflicted in his enemies resulted in their surrender rather than death. This difficult choice, that a man must become evil and inhuman to ultimately defeat an even greater evil is the focus of the story.

An even more subversive idea is the worship of evil by men due to the power it holds. Something which ensures it will never die.

These ideas breath new life into the Dracula tale and vampire myth in general.
104 out of 196 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bloody entertaining
85122211 March 2015
Greetings from Lithuania.

"Dracula Untold" (2014) is more of an action flick starring "Dracula" than historical story, and it's damn good one. Of course, this is not the best actioneer of the year, but it's very well done one. Settings are good, special effects were really nice, acting was very solid for this material - Luke Evans is perfectly cast as our main hero, and Charles Dance is always someone to look at and to hear to. Others were OK, even Dominic Cooper didn't disappoint, who for me is an annoying actor in general, i'm not really like him as an actor, probably the only actor which i kinda dislike in general. Luckily, he's not a star in here and does a nice job in playing our main villain.

Overall, "Dracula Untold" is not a Bram Stoker's fateful adaptation of the material. It's crowd pleasing action movie based on this material, which stays close to the material as close as possible, but plays like an bloody action flick. And it's a damn fine one.
24 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Awesome
cheyraya31 December 2014
I can honestly say that my family and I really enjoyed watching this movie and that's saying a lot because we all have different interests in movies but this one we all enjoyed. It was exciting and entertaining and would enjoy it if there was another movie to come in the future.this movie caught me from the beginning. Some may hate this movie because it doesn't base off of the Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. This movie focus more on the legends and stories (that some believe to be true) about 'Vlad the Impaler' the prince of Wallachia. 'Vlad's' history is what led to the famous Bram Stoker's novel, Dracula. 'Vlad' was the original Dracula. But Its just a movie, in which i found vary enjoyable to sit down with popcorn and watch. this movie was awesome in my opinion. but some will hate it and other will love it. in which i can say i'm one of those who loves it.
27 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Love it
wkssm12312312 October 2014
I know everyone has different view ans idea about this movie But 'personally' and simply I loved it. I'm crazy about most Dracula/vampire movies. I found that a lot of them were either romance or some horrific movie or hunting (whether its Dracula with human or Dracula with hunters) which was interesting but rather easy to guess what's going to happen. Storyline and its ending was totally different from those I've watched and made it more interesting. I love whole setting with some historical background added in movie. I was also pleased with the fact that this wasn't very horrific even during certain events in movie. There was quite number of kids in theater watching it with their parents so I found it rather neat. I waited for few months for this movie since I saw the trailer. It was worth waiting for me and I was happy that it was what I expected from trailer (I've saw movie that storyline was totally different from what seemed to happen on trailer and was disappointed once). I'm definitely buying DVD when it comes out!
127 out of 249 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I loved it!
pisiata15 January 2015
1st of all i have read lots of books about Vlad the Impaler/Dracula because it always fascinated me. Even so, before to watch the movie i expected to be different and i accepted the new fantasy story. Strange thing is, why it has a bad note? Why people always want either the real truth or something only their mind can create/imagine? Luke plays FABULOUS, special effects are awesome, too bad it was only 90 min "long". And i don't really get why Turkish people make such a big deal from it. (PS: i got Turkish blood from my dad).

IT IS REAL that sultan Mehmed II asked tribute in money and young children recruits for his army. IT IS REAL that Ottoman Empire did lots of harm to Europe wanting to conquest and conquest further.

IT IS REAL that Vlad was very wise and skillful, and if he preferred to impale his enemies, he have learned that at the Ottoman court. IF he was cruel, he HAS TO BE! HE WAS STRONG,BRAVE, never surrendering. In those HARSH BARBARIC times it was needed to be "evil" so if he wouldn't be so, wouldn't live not even 10 min at the Ottoman court or after that period.
24 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
300 Meets Dracula
Proxish25 December 2014
If you are looking for action meets drama, with fantastic story telling, this is the movie for you. This is 300 meets Dracula, and the result was fantastic.

I absolutely loved this movie, I have no idea why it has such a bad reputation. If you are looking for a thriller/horror, this is not the movie for you.

Actor casting was superb, the acting was fantastic, the story didn't delve too far into fantasy to put it out of beliefs grasp. And the special effects were second to none.

There was not one moment of this movie I didn't enjoy, it was action meets story telling done absolutely right in every way. I for one eagerly await a sequel.
26 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Disappointing movie with a terrible and unreal scenario
delidolunet-268-445829 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Lets think about it.

III. Vlad (aka Dracula) is a killer who is war criminal (who is poisoning water cells, kills animals, releases leprosy patients from prisons to get sick Ottoman soldiers after he lost the war. Actually as a real mean about III. Vlad (aka Dracula) is that Murderer, Traitor, War criminal. And this movie shows that character as kind of a hero.

On the other hand think about the Turkish Ottoman Sultan, Faith Mehmet. He changed the history, he is one of the best commander, conqueror and a statesman who brings to Ottoman empire the first human rights and after his conquests he set free the people for their religional choices and their freedom! (While you have the power of domination why would you choose to be a honest and a respectful person? This means a lot!). So, the real mean is for the Ottoman Sultan is that, he is a real hero for his and other people who lives on his lands.

But what does the movie tells us with the scenario? The III. Vlad is a hero and the Ottoman Sultan Faith is a villainous person.

This is totally lie. You can't just say this is a movie. If you want to use real historical names in your movie you have to respect the real history. The movie says Faith is killed by III. Vlad in 1422, But Faith is conquered Istanbul (Constantinapolis) in 1453 and he changed the age with this action.

So, you can't just say this is a movie. A lot of person who is have no idea about the history is going to choose to believe this which is doesn't contains real historical things.

Make sure yourself you've read this Wiki page to get some real information. Search on Wikipedia: Vlad the Impaler
184 out of 377 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A horror action film that doesn't live up to its expectations
YJLcool2 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
There's nothing new about Dracula Untold. Unfortunately, it's just another film that favours spectacle and style over substance. With a film clocked in at a mere 85 minutes (excluding credits), the story is just not compelling enough for the audience to invest emotionally in what happens next. There's simply not enough time and everything felt rushed without proper character development.

In the beginning of the film, we're swiftly introduced to our main character, Vlad the Impaler with a series of montage about his background, what he did for the Turkish empire and why he was renowned for his brutality in warfare. Basically, he's a 15-century Transylvanian prince infamous for his practice of impaling his enemies to induce fear and ensure the safety of his people and kingdom. Unfortunately, the Sultan of the Turkish Empire demands 1000 of the young boys in his kingdom to join his army to conquer Europe. Unable to comply, outnumbered and face an imminent threat from the Turkish army, he decides to make a deal with an arch vampire demon, Caligula, at a price, to grant him power to destroy his enemies.

The action scenes are stylish, cool and surprisingly not too violent, scary or gory, which fits the intention of establishing Dracula as an anti-hero instead of a frightening monster villain. The best action scene is where we get to see Vlad summons a colony of bats to defeat the 10,000-strong Turkish army during the climactic battle. It is truly a sight to behold but ultimately it fails to impress as everything just happens too fast.

There are some fine performances from its actors, especially Luke Evans. He did the best he could in a film with a bad script. Many of the supporting characters are severely underdeveloped and completely forgettable. We don't know much about them aside from watching them appear on screen talking a few lines here and there before getting killed. None of them have enough screen time for their characters to make a memorable, lasting impression on screen, including the main antagonist, Sultan Mehmed II. We've being told that the Sultan and Vlad were close like brothers and yet we never get to see this relationship on screen at all. We don't know much about him at all. Not to mention, even the origins of Caligula, the vampire demon who sired Vlad is quickly briefed through without slowing down.

The film never bothered to fully explore its premise...the ultimate price Vlad had to 'pay' (his humanity) for becoming a vampire to save his people, family and kingdom. It doesn't truly show what a 'monster' he had become in order to win the war against the Turks. Furthermore, the film doesn't take time to establish the characters well. Because of that, the film has lost its potential. Overall, Dracula Untold is just not worth the price of admission. A forgettable film.

Rating: 5/10
98 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst movie I've ever seen
lorettabrannelly3 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I wish I was joking but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. I've been trying to think of anything that comes close but I just can't. This movie may have given me a terminal illness, I'm not sure, I will need to check with a medical professional and update once I know. The movie is filled with plot holes and completely ridiculous scenes. I never thought a vampire movie would disappoint me. I won't spoil it with spoilers because it's so ridiculous, you'll just think I'm joking anyway. The whole movie is a continuity issue, which is why there's no section for mistakes here on IMDb because the main issue was the script and terrible acting. I wish I hadn't paid money to see this, although if it were free, I'd still think it cost too much. I feel like I've aged since seeing this like my life was dragged out for the 92 minutes this trash lasted. I can't believe it got a 6.6 out of 10. Honestly, 6.6 out of 100 would be pushing it. It deserves a minus score. I once saw a homeless man defecate himself while begging. That was far more entertaining than this movie. I would not recommend it, not even to my worst enemy. Hitler would be watching this movie in hell as punishment.
76 out of 147 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Transylvania again...
bogdan31412 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I know Transylvania is a cool name and sounds very interesting, but really people, when are you going to get the simplest of facts straight?

I know this is a movie, and perhaps I could get past all the wrong years and characters' age inconsistencies. But when are you American film-makers going to grab a history book and read that Vlad Tepes had nothing to do with Transylvania?

Basic historical facts: - Vlad Tepes, son of Vlad Dracul, was a ruler in Wallachia (NOT Transylvania) - his castle is named Bran (not Castle Dracula, wtf!) and is in the mountains indeed, but still belongs to Wallachia, not Transylvania

+1 for mentioning that "Dracul" meant "The Dragon" in old Romanian language, referring to the Order of Dragon that Vlad's father was part of. Only in the recent history has "Dracul" become a synonym for "The Devil".

Anyway, I was ready to accept all historically wrong facts and enjoy the movie. But I could not.

The plot was so bad with so many inconsistencies and underdeveloped characters that I don't know what to begin with.

I don't want to spoil so I will not bring exact details, but here's what happens in this movie: - there are characters who appear out of nowhere in 1 or 2 scenes, who apparently have an important part in the story, but we get to know absolutely NOTHING about them - nobody in the Turkish army seems to have any fear whatsoever after witnessing an extremely powerful, supernatural force; they see Dracula killing soldiers like crushing ant with a boot, yet the Turkish generals remain cocky and eager to fight him with... well... a sword. - the dumbest idea I have ever seen of how to prevent soldiers fear Dracula before going to fight him... watch and amaze

Overall, a very bad movie. I can't remember the last time I've seen such an awful piece of cinema... makes you wonder what was going on in filmmakers' heads.
64 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Using Dracula to trigger racism against Turks in Europe
Ul_Ko9 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The movie starts with a brief and appropriate background of the Dracula. Dracula's meeting with the ghost vampire was also simple and pinpointing to whole features of being a vampire, its powers and weaknesses. Until that point the clash between Transylvanians and Turks looks like normal historical event. Moreover, the story telling and events create a mystery and curiosity. However, following the number of absurd things, it becomes almost impossible to concentrate to movie and one start to feel sad for its producers.

Some of the things I remember are:

*** Spoiler below ***

  • First of all, although I hate that cliché, I understand that there is a good side and bad side in the movie. The good side is transfixing Dracula and let the Turks be a bad side. If you choose the characters from history or the real world sticking on some realities is a responsibility. Otherwise you can mislead people.


  • Dracula who transfix people are actually a nice father and a good husband. Are you just kidding me, what kind of promotion of criminality is this?


  • In the Ottoman sultan's message there was a stamp that says 'Allah' in Arabic. It is simply like a European king signs a letter with the stamp saying 'Jesus'. Can you imagine that? This is just nitwit.


  • In the same scene the sultan signs it with his own blood. What kind of outrages idea is this? The producers of this movie are definitely from outside of Turkey.


  • The movie portrays Dracula almost like an Italian macho. It was completely disappointing for me who was expecting a mysterious aristocrat, gentle psycho.


  • 'Let the game begin' speech sounded to me like stolen from the movie serial 'Saw'. And it was said for twice in the movie. I consider that as a bad attempt of plagiarism.


  • There has been too many bad speech against Turks in the movie. I think that will not make people wonder about the history or the original book. Instead, it will mislead them about the characteristic of Turks and the Ottoman history. Here I want to give an anecdote: Turks and other nations in Balkans lived in peace for hundreds of years before nationalism was born. Otherwise, it would not be possible to live together for that long.


  • Last but not least, the representation of women in the movie is (as usual) terrible. I think I saw only four women character in the whole 2 hours movie; three of them were bit players and the other is Dracula's wife. Dracula's wife's role during the whole movie was to cry, scream and to let her husband bite her. Such representations of women in the Hollywood movies started to be very disturbing.


I do not even mention that the Dracula's wife who could speak after falling down from hundred meters high tower, the silly kidnap scene of the kid and the ending of the movie that was not promising at all (all I expect from the possible second movie is that, Dracula attacks on immigrants in Europe, so please do not continue to this 'untold' crap).

All in all, Hollywood, one more time shows us how to make a cheap propaganda movie out of a good story, high budget and talented actors. Seriously, I think Hollywood producers should consider employing at least one Turkish person to review such movies. Otherwise they will keep revealing their illiteracy.
97 out of 194 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed