It's been awhile since i've written a review for a film, but I felt the need to say something about about Dracula Untold.
I'm a vampire fan. I have been ever since I watched Interview with Vampire (1994) and Dracula (1992) in 1997. And having seen those wonderful movies, I knew this revision of the legendary vampire was going to get bashed. I know most people said, when the trailer for this film came out, "aw crap, another vampire flick," and you know what, I get it; Twilight ruined vamps for some people.
The 2 biggest problems most moviegoers are going to have with this film is that 1. Vlad (Dracula) the main character of the film, is based on Vlad Tepes, know simply as Vlad the Impaler, the legendary warrior who killed his victims and impaled them on spears to strike fear into his enemies. In this film, Vlad is completely revamped (ha ha pun) into a kind, loving, family man who is trying to protect his family and people from war against the Turks.
Aside from the difference in character, other historical figures and locations are used in the film and they are far from being historically correct. But, most moviegoers don't have the slightest inclination of the history of the Ottoman empire, let alone of Vlad the impaler, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
And 2. Everyone (well most everyone) knows how this story plays out, it's been done numerous times before, so it's hard to be surprised or expect anything new from this version.
So if you remove those aspects (the historical ones) and the fact that you know what happens away form the film, what you are left with is a another vampire story that is a fun, action packed, popcorn flick that is decent.
So, on to some personal pros and cons! :)
Pros:
1.The costumes and sets are great. They help set the mood and tone of the story and add to the authenticity of the films time period.
2.The acting is good, not Oscar worthy by any means, but good enough to where you don't question the character/actors believability.
3.Like some vampire stories, there is a bit of romance and it is wonderful. The chemistry between Luke and Sarah is one of the best aspects of the film, their love is tender, true, and makes the story what it is.
4. For true Dracula fan, the last 5 minutes of the film is brilliant, I was truly fan girling. #sequel.
The Con:
Yes con, the only problem I had with the film is that there was a lot going on in the film, and when this happens plot holes are created. From Vlad trying to keep his son and people safe, to negotiating with the Sultan, to finding the "strength" (vampiric powers) to defeat the Turks and to fight his urge to drink blood, it was a bit much. It wasn't cohesive, with so much going on, of course plot holes are bound to happen. 2 scenes in particular made me pause and question the film. The first was that the Master Vampire is cursed and confined to the cave he is first discovered in, that is literally written in the legend and the book from where the legend is first told, so why is it that when Vlad finally succumbs to the curse that he is able to exist outside of the cave? That is never explained and is a major plot hole.
The second was towards the end of the film and is when the Priest of Vlad's castle reveals what he has become to his people by revealing him in the sunlight and he starts to burn. His people turn on him and try to destroy him. This scene was completely unnecessary and a waste of time. Why would his people, who fear him at this point try to kill him and then still choose to fight for him? Totally pointless and didn't make any sense. Instead the director should've scrapped these scenes and elaborated on the key points of the story to make it better and stronger.
With that i'll say this. Enjoy the film for what it is, a revamped (ha ha, a pun) vampire story with a wonderful love story and great action made to be an enjoyable popcorn movie experience that is made to take your mind away from your everyday lives. Don't read into it, just let your fangs hand free. :)
I'm a vampire fan. I have been ever since I watched Interview with Vampire (1994) and Dracula (1992) in 1997. And having seen those wonderful movies, I knew this revision of the legendary vampire was going to get bashed. I know most people said, when the trailer for this film came out, "aw crap, another vampire flick," and you know what, I get it; Twilight ruined vamps for some people.
The 2 biggest problems most moviegoers are going to have with this film is that 1. Vlad (Dracula) the main character of the film, is based on Vlad Tepes, know simply as Vlad the Impaler, the legendary warrior who killed his victims and impaled them on spears to strike fear into his enemies. In this film, Vlad is completely revamped (ha ha pun) into a kind, loving, family man who is trying to protect his family and people from war against the Turks.
Aside from the difference in character, other historical figures and locations are used in the film and they are far from being historically correct. But, most moviegoers don't have the slightest inclination of the history of the Ottoman empire, let alone of Vlad the impaler, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
And 2. Everyone (well most everyone) knows how this story plays out, it's been done numerous times before, so it's hard to be surprised or expect anything new from this version.
So if you remove those aspects (the historical ones) and the fact that you know what happens away form the film, what you are left with is a another vampire story that is a fun, action packed, popcorn flick that is decent.
So, on to some personal pros and cons! :)
Pros:
1.The costumes and sets are great. They help set the mood and tone of the story and add to the authenticity of the films time period.
2.The acting is good, not Oscar worthy by any means, but good enough to where you don't question the character/actors believability.
3.Like some vampire stories, there is a bit of romance and it is wonderful. The chemistry between Luke and Sarah is one of the best aspects of the film, their love is tender, true, and makes the story what it is.
4. For true Dracula fan, the last 5 minutes of the film is brilliant, I was truly fan girling. #sequel.
The Con:
Yes con, the only problem I had with the film is that there was a lot going on in the film, and when this happens plot holes are created. From Vlad trying to keep his son and people safe, to negotiating with the Sultan, to finding the "strength" (vampiric powers) to defeat the Turks and to fight his urge to drink blood, it was a bit much. It wasn't cohesive, with so much going on, of course plot holes are bound to happen. 2 scenes in particular made me pause and question the film. The first was that the Master Vampire is cursed and confined to the cave he is first discovered in, that is literally written in the legend and the book from where the legend is first told, so why is it that when Vlad finally succumbs to the curse that he is able to exist outside of the cave? That is never explained and is a major plot hole.
The second was towards the end of the film and is when the Priest of Vlad's castle reveals what he has become to his people by revealing him in the sunlight and he starts to burn. His people turn on him and try to destroy him. This scene was completely unnecessary and a waste of time. Why would his people, who fear him at this point try to kill him and then still choose to fight for him? Totally pointless and didn't make any sense. Instead the director should've scrapped these scenes and elaborated on the key points of the story to make it better and stronger.
With that i'll say this. Enjoy the film for what it is, a revamped (ha ha, a pun) vampire story with a wonderful love story and great action made to be an enjoyable popcorn movie experience that is made to take your mind away from your everyday lives. Don't read into it, just let your fangs hand free. :)
Tell Your Friends