Movie Review: Dracula: Untold

For my first movie review for the re-started blog, and coincidentally for my Halloween film entry this year, I'm jumping ahead of the entire que of movies seen over the past couple years and going straight to something still in theaters right now.

Dracula: Untold (2014)


As his kingdom is being threatened by the Turks, young prince Vlad Tepes must become a monster feared by his own kingdom in order to obtain the power needed to protect his own family, and the families of his kingdom. Short synopsis of Dracula: Untold taken from IMDb.com

Ok, I’m a Dracula nerd.  I admit it.  So if I say that I didn’t hate this movie, would you also forgive me for saying I didn’t love it either? 

What was good about Dracula: Untold?  Well, I liked the idea.  I’ve long toyed with the notion of how the historical Vlad and the Bram Stoker character Dracula could be the same person, and so when I saw the trailer for Dracula: Untold, it was a foregone conclusion that I’d be seeing this film.  The question was only: “will it be worth my movie-going dime?”

I did like how some of the historical touches were held to, in a manner.  For instance, it is a matter of fact that Dracula’s wife threw herself from the walls of a castle/fortress when she received false news that Vlad had been killed in battle.  In the film, this is changed around to a very Hollywood moment.  I appreciated the scene for its inclusion, but rolled my eyes for the blatant way they mangled it into something that fit the plot they had going on.


A review of the Spanish version of the 1931 classic Dracula.  That '31 film with Lugosi is a masterpiece - dated, yes, but still a masterpiece.  The Spanish version, which I have also seen... well it is better.

And Dracula: Untold is certainly not boring.  There is a lot going on.  The plot hinges upon two sometimes highly conflicting camps – i.e.: the historical Vlad Dracula III, sometimes known as Vlad the Impaler for his habit of staking enemies through their abdominal cavities and leaving the bodies to decay (and oft-times first to die; many victims were staked alive); and Count Dracula, the vampire from Bram Stoker’s novel who spawned so many vampire tropes as to be considered almost the progenitor of the modern day vampire myth.  Both elements factor in Dracula: Untold, but the alliance is uneasy at best.

Luke Evans played Vlad, and did a fair job of it for what he was given, I think.  The role itself was the problem.  Making Dracula into a superhero is a mistake, albeit an easy one to make.  Dracula is not a hero.  He’s not even an antihero.  The movie would have been much better served had Untold been capable of being a fall-from-grace story.  But Vlad, as the filmmakers semi-correctly show us, was not in grace to begin with.  The character is turned sympathetic in the film by the use of the Turks, who are portrayed as the real villains here.  Had they (the makers) made Dracula manage to truly fall from being admittedly bad, but still relatable as a human being (we do relate to villains, after all), to becoming a true undead monster, I would have awarded the transformation more merit, personally.

Also, a small quibble.  Vlad had a mustache.  And I don't mean that dirty spot on Evans's upper lip.  Even Bram Stoker's novel got this right, though no film I can think does. / Source: hollywoodobsessed.com/wikipedia.org

The actors who portrayed Vlad’s family were ok, and his wife Mirena’s performance (played by Sarah Gadon) harked to some of the female roles in classic vampire fiction; i.e.: desirable, vulnerable, but with enough strength to keep the character from being just a wilting waif.  The performance of the vampire that turns Dracula into a vampire (Charles Dance) was quite good, for what little it was.  Sadly, this sequence seemed to lose some of its potency due to the fact that we have to squash the time period that Dracula will be safe from the curse of eternal darkness into just three days.  It spoke to the film’s frantic pace, which seemed not to be able to stop and breathe.  Unless, that is, we’re pausing for another sword slashing slo-mo scene.

The movies flaws… well right off the bat (an unintended pun, that), Vlad Dracula III was NOT Transylvanian.  I can’t see why we can’t work around this.  In fact, the plot of this film suffered this problem repeatedly.  Issues that conflict between the historical Vlad and the vampire legend get called in favor of the vampire legend.  Yes, I realize Bram Stoker’s version is the more widely known than the historical Vlad.  And yes, I have read online that Universal is using this film as a launch point to do a monster version of what Marvel does with their superhero films.  But what about we purists who know the real story, and were excited to see the filmmakers try and shoehorn the two together successfully?  You don’t give the public enough credit, I think, Universal Studios. 

Another thing: Vlad didn’t get along with his regional nobility (boyars, they were called).  It was his men’s loyalty (and by this I mean his soldiers) to him that kept Vlad Dracula in power, as well as his sheer ruthlessness.  In point of fact, the historical Vlad force-marched a large quantity of his boyars, with their families in tow, to a fortress building project, and basically worked them to death.  But Untold’s lead is more the tortured leader type, feeling the pains of his subjects and trying hard to save them from slavery and injustice.  At one point, having been discovered to be a vampire due to his avoidance of sunlight by the film’s resident priest character, Vlad shouts to the assembled throng: “Do you think you are alive because you can fight?!  You are alive because of me!  Because of what I did to save you!”  This sounds a little like something the real Vlad might say, but the heroic implications… they ring false.

Vampire bats live in South America, folks.  Bats the world over will bite, yes, but the main fear from them is rabies, not losing enough blood to gain a pallor, let alone death. / Source: scmp.com

And let’s face it, for those who know the story of Vlad, he truly was a monster.  He didn’t need to become a vampire to do that.  It’s implied in the film, but then avoided.  Partly to keep the character sympathetic, partly to keep the running time down I guess, and I imagine partly so as to avoid breaking the PG-13 barrier.  Personally I’d have liked to see them have the guts to make this a full-out R-rated feature.  Because Vlad’s sobriquet of “Impaler” was well earned.  The historical figure was as brutal as the time he lived in.  Untold seems to follow the convenient view that is, as far as I know, held by many Romanians even today.  Vlad is a national hero to them.  This was a figure who would do what it took to maintain order in his lands, and fight off outsiders.  This is why he failed to thrive as Prince of Wallachia.  He made too many enemies, including his own brother Radu, whom history says led Vlad into an ambush that resulted in his death.  In the film, Radu is changed into Sultan Mehmed II in many respects.

Another quibble: the appearance of the “Igor” figure in Dracula: Untold was annoying.  I suppose this guy is supposed to be a gypsy, from what I have read online.  Yes, we need Dracula to have his familiar, for when he goes off the rails and becomes “Count Dracula.”  But the initial appearance of the gypsy guy was so tacked on.  Frankly, it felt out of place.

Plus this Igor-like guy provided the deus ex machina moment at the film’s conclusion.  Other than that hitch in the storyline, the character played no useful role.  It was simply a bone thrown to some of the aspects of the vampire legend side of the story, rather than anything relevant.  There are many ways in which Dracula could have been “revived” by the end of the film that could have side-stepped the use of this disjointed minor character cameo.  Heck, my personal recommendation would have been to use the whole “loyal Dracula minion recognizes his master has become a thing of evil and uses an evil sacrifice to bring the Vlad back” –type of thing, but that is just me.  That isn’t too far removed from what the filmmakers did, but nix the “loyal servant” scene early on, please.  To me, it was confusing.

Mehmed II, sultan during much of Vlad’s lifetime, was no great warrior, but he was a masterful strategist.  And he didn’t die by vampire bite.  In fact, Vlad - had he become a vampire - would have had plenty of reason to hate the Turks, since he was in fact a royal hostage in his youth, and eventually killed by Turks and their allies, traitors in Vlad’s own court. / Source: Wikipedia.org

You know, having said what I have so far, I will say that, no, I’m not going to ruin the whole story for you.  Yes, that means I give the movie enough respect that I would recommend it.  With caveats, of course.  Dracula: Untold has some nice moments that all but begged for a better touch at the helm, and a stronger storyline behind it.  But the filmmakers just didn’t pull it off.  I have read that this is the first film by the director.  And if I understood correctly, it is also the first major work for the script writers.  If so, the crew as a whole - actors included - did a pretty good job for a first outing.  In fact, if this film had come out twenty years ago, it probably would have been considered to be better than it is today.

On the whole, Dracula: Untold had so much potential.  And at a run-time of just over 90 minutes, I get the impression that there were things trimmed from the theatrical release that might have helped. Or better yet, they could have added in scenes that would have done a lot to rectify my gripes (but what film couldn’t do that, you ask?).  When the home video release comes out (un-rated, I’m sure), we’ll see if they partially fix the plot, or if they just add some elements of “un-rated” gore that won’t help the story at all.

Truly, gentle reader, I know it is silly to have expected Untold to be better than it was.  And like I said, I didn’t hate the movie.  I just find it annoying how they tried to force such a compelling and even distantly plausible idea into a quasi-action superhero movie.  We could have done with a few less scenes of CGI bats swooping in for the kill and semi-slo-mo fight scenes and had some more meat on the plot.

Why does everyone in movies about “foreign” places have to have a semi-British accent?  Oh, as an aside, Luke Evans mentions the possibility of a sequel (shudder) here at ScreenRant.com.  / Source: joblo.com

Oh, and the very ending?  We give the barest nod to Stoker’s story with the name of someone Dracula meets as he is strolling about in some unknown city.  But the time period is way off, if we’re referring to Stoker’s novel.  And the appearance of a certain bad guy from earlier in the film is… well in my way of thinking, a bit baffling.  Were they genuinely setting this up for a sequel?  Oh man, I hope not.  Please don’t do that, Universal.  You already screwed up.  Walk away.  Go abuse Frankenstein or the Mummy or the Wolfman.  Leave Vlad to rest in some form of undead peace.

Final word: Dracula: Untold is recommended if you like Dracula/vampire movies, and especially if you have ever wondered how the story of Bram Stoker’s novel and the historical figure could be massaged together.  But be sure you realize that you are going into a movie that feels rushed, tamed down in places to keep a rating that is more “universal” (I’d call it pandering for movie-goer dollars, myself), suffers from current trends instead of being what it is and what it could be, and is generally not definitive nor satisfying.  Vampire movie lovers will be disappointed that they saw a wanna-be history movie, and history lovers will be mad that they got so much wrong in favor of pleasing the mainstream. 

 For myself, I’d say Dracula: Untold was worth my regular movie-going dollars, rather than a cheap seats or even Redbox rental rate.  But I say that only because I wanted to see Untold so badly that waiting wouldn’t have changed my opinion on the movie.  Like I said when I started this review, I am a Dracula nerd.  Take that into account before going to see this one on the big screen.

If you want to spoil the whole movie and see all the tropes it uses, I recommend this article at TVTropes.org


The parting comment:

Source: vampyrefan.blogspot.com

Yeah brother, I hear you.

A two-for-one today on parting comments.  Here below is what Dracula movies should be about, quite simply.  The Hammer movie maker films knew it.  Even 1931's Bela Lugosi version,  rather tame by today's standards though it may be, knew it.  But the modern vampire is all about "feelings" and "drama."  Oh brother.

Source: wallpapershd1080p.com

Heartless Count Dracula, damsel in distress, night and fog, gothic background to put it all against...  That's a vampire movie, folks.