Reviews (32) 
The Romanian Braveheart
The Bram Stoker artifact and historical truth are at serious odds with each other in Dracula: The Dark Prince. As a result, this movie may disappoint many a Dracula fan. That said, though, the biographical details seem somewhat forced to conform to the Dracula legend; therefore, it may disappoint viewers who appreciate good dramatic history too! In fact, its lower-budget melodramatic gothic penchant for romance, marital hysteria, dramatic dialogues, and over-usage of dark, closed-in, night scenes may disappoint many a movie-goer, at first viewing at least.
The rather interesting closing screen comments, however, are what most help the viewer to assess whether or not the movie was a success or failure. For example, "In 1931, explorers dug up the tomb of Vlad Dracula, the Impaler; and they found only animal bones. In Romania, Vlad Dracula is still remembered as a savior to his country. Many pray for his return!" In my opinion, it merits judging as a success, but, perhaps not successful enough! After all, here is a man believed to be a new messiah (not only an antichrist), yet the movie does little to define the messianic fervor of his life-long fight against the Turkish Sultan Mohammed! Here is a man who was loved (and is still loved today, more than 600 years after his death) by the subjects and citizens of his land, yet the movie again fails to illuminate this aspect of his reign! Etc.
In brief, the biographical facts suggest that a very different movie could/should have been made. It should not have been a movie that pays respectful homage to coffin odors and Bram Stokers' gothic imagination but a movie that lets the viewers breath the same exhilaratingly fresh air as that breathed by a person whose true passion is for freedom and victory against incredible, overwhelming odds! That said, this Romanian Prince merits a movie similar to Braveheart; he was the Romanian Braveheart!
The best Dracula film I've seen
Except for one small movie made under communist rule in Romania years ago, I've found nothing in the entire Dracula movie franchise that really addresses the truth behind the typical vampire folklore. I saw this movie when it premiered on TV three years ago and from the beginning, I was hooked. I confess I didn't know too much about the real Vlad the Impaler before, so naturally this perspective fascinated me. More than getting into the historical facts behind the popular Dracula (even if some are distorted for the sake of drama), this is rather authentic movie in the way it is shot, on location in Romania. (Note: Look closely and you can actually see the house where Vlad Tepes was born in one scene). Even more so, the acting was surprisingly superb for a TV movie. Rudolf Martin (besides being the sexiest guy I've ever seen) takes on the role with an appropriate balance of humanity and ruthless brutality. His portrayal manages to elicit some understanding of a man who once impaled an entire army on a hillside. Other than this movie, I've seen him only in smaller supporting roles, but it's not hard to see that he is an extremely talented actor. As Vlad's fragile young wife, Jane March is convincing, but it's hard to figure out at first what her feeling for Vlad are. Once she starts losing her mind, that becomes quite obvious though. Overall, I can easily say that this is a fascinating, beautifully shot and acted movie that is, shall I say (in regard to Rudolf Martin) aesthetically pleasing. This is the kind of Dracula movie people should see. Capes and fangs have nothing on this guy.
The real story of Dracula...
Or so they would have us believe. This film is strongly influenced by the Bram Stoker novel in mood and menace, but it is still highly entertaining and quite well done. Meant to be a historical drama about the real life of Vlad the Impaler, Dracula: The Dark Prince takes us to Romania in the 1400's, to see what made the man the legend he is today. The story is told from Vlad's point of view, as he recounts the story of his life before an Orthodox Ecclesiastical Court in defense of his crown. We first see Vlad as a child, training for battle with his father and younger brother, Radu. But soon after, Vlad's father is killed by the noblemen of his own country, who are constantly looking after their own interests above anything else. His brother kidnapped and brainwashed by a perverted Turkish Sultan, and himself believed to be long dead, Vlad eventually raises an army to help him take back the throne that rightfully belongs to him from the noblemen and their hand picked NEW prince. Once back in power, Vlad and his beautiful, new, young wife commence to having a son. Simultaneously, Vlad takes his revenge on the noblemen of his country who were responsible for the death of his father and so many others. With that matter taken care of, Vlad focuses on his main interest, dealing with the accursed Turks that have plagued him all his life. This brings up the problem of his younger brother, who is now one of them, and matters are not helped by the failing mental state of Vlad's wife, who is disturbed more and more as she discovers the brutality of her husband's style of government.
While the film does mention and even depict Vlad's more legendary and gruesome exploits, those that were less likely to be true were presented only as rumors amongst the people and noblemen of Romania that the Prince himself always denied. The film doesn't really take much of a fantasy angle, it simply drops hints here and there to remind you that this is the man known as Dracula. True, in the end the possibility that Vlad did become one of the undead is left open, but even the act that many have claimed ruined the reality of the film could easily be interpreted as the hallucination of a dying man. Overall, this is a pretty good film for what it is, and I recommend it to all fans of Dracula, real or imaginary.
The Real Story of Dracula..
I saw this movie about 4 years back on HBO, at first, looking at its title, it seems like a typical Dracula movie but when I started, I explored that it's much more than that or can say less than that. This is the actual story of Vlad Impaler - the Prince of Romania who ruled Romania in the 14th century. I was totally mesmerised by its aura and its picturesque locations, originally of Romania. The actor, Rudolf martin plays the Vlad like no one before. this was 4 years back but its memories still haunts me and then I saw this DVD on Amazon and I immediately ordered it to India, the DVD came in 2 weeks and the Quality of the DVD is truly remarkable. Overally, an execellent movie with excellent transfer.
Bad DVD cover, Great Film.
I hate that DVD cover, it makes it look like this film is some sort of cheesy B movie. But it isn't, this movie is well filmed, well acted, a complex well written script, beautiful scenery (shot totally in Romania, you can even see the castle where the real Vlad was born, in the background), great music, and just a great film period. I personally feel that this film should have been given a bigger budget and released in the theatres. It most certainly would have done a great job at the box office. Everything was prefect, all it would have needed was extra funds for larger and bloodier battle scenes and that's it. Even though I liked the music, with a bigger budget they maybe could have hired someone like Elliot Goldenthal (interview with the Vampire)Or Danny Elfman (Sleepy Hollow)to give it a darker sound. But oh well, even with the low budget the movie is still very good and although it may not be completely historically accurate it's much better than most of the Dracula films out there that is based soley on the Bram Stoker created character and not Vlad himself. And to be honest the guy who plays Vlad in this movie is creepy as *** and he isn't even a vampire! When I first saw this movie on the USA network, I didn't know the name of it cause I only saw it near the end but I thought it was pretty good and couldn't wait for them to air it again, but that didn't happen and I figured I missed my chance. Then when I went to the video store I saw that DVD cover and was in the mood for a campy Vampire flick (misleading cover) and figured why not, esp. since I love vampire movies anyway. I was shocked when I started to watch and discovered that it was the movie I saw a long time ago and thought I would never see again. (unless USA network decided to ever show it again) Bottom line this movie is completely different than I expected it be. Rudolf Martin was perfect for this role. He's the best Dracula I've ever seen on film. He also appeared in a Buffy the Vampire slayer episode as Dracula but they didn't do him justice. Rudolf Martin oozes dark sex appeal as Vlad the Impaler, a ruthless tyrant to some but a national hero to most, who tries desperately to free his country from Turk oppression. Even though it's a made for TV movie it certainly pulls no punches with Vlad's brutal acts. Rudolf Martin adds a level of complexity to the character that is easy to just play evil. In one scene you see him brutally murdering people and impaling their bodies and in the next you see a man who is a loving husband and father to his wife and son. Jane March even shows that she can act in a movie AND keep her clothes on *gasp*! I loved watching her slowly go mad as she sees the acts her husband has committed. I know some people who saw this movie got thrown off by the Bram Stoker like ending, but I say it adds to the film,I see it as a small tribute to all the Dracula films we know and love and the man that actually inspired it all...Vlad Tepes himself. And compared to the other films who only want to show the capes and fangs while chasing after some big breasted teenager this is near perfect, showing the life and times of Vlad Dracula. Just rent the movie and see for yourself.
... Read more |
