I always considered this a spiritual prequel to the Bram Stoker's Dracula movie. The overall storyline in congruous, and the visual style is on par (indeed better in BS's Dracula).
shareI just figured it was a prequel to the novel itself, and the endless list of movies that followed.
-------------------
Signature: What is this life after all if not one long, impractical joke?
I don't think a sequel with Dracula as a vampire would work, but I agree with you on the "best dracula movie ever" part. I wasn't bored for a second during the movie. Just loved it :).
shareTo be honest with you I love Vampire movies, so I could not miss this one out, but I was hoping all the time that the vampire turns up but it didn't through about a quater of the movie, then I realised that this story is less hypotetical then the blood sucking vampire infact this is more close to how the legend of Vlad Tepes Dracula from Romania would be .... I think this movie is the best ever it explains more in the detail then any other movie Best Movie Ever Just LOved it ; -)... Google Vlad Tepes Dracul and read
shareI don't think it's so closed to the legend. In fact, this movie seems rather flimsy. A little truth & a little fantasy. What could a sequel to this movie deal with???
"Why not hardcode the reaction parameters?" "Well, yeah, of course... It is possible."
The point to this movie was to (more or less) tell the story of the REAL person called Dracula, NOT the fictional character that was based on him.
--
Fire Box @ Synetech
where can i buy the film
sharejust curious how can they make a sequel to a true story if they told the whole story in the first movie?
_________________________________________________
I may be Damned but you have given me Immortality
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SPOILER WARNING>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It was telling the story of the real man. It did hint at him becoming somthing "unhuman" at the end but it kinda leaves it up to you as if it was real or the priests guilty conscience!
I would love to see a part 2 of this movie
shareThis movie's amazing NO DOUBT! However: they can't make a sequel where Dracula's a vampire because it would no longer be a "biographical" movie. This movie already crossed the line into fantasy at the end.
shareSee, I saw it more as a metaphor. Rather than him gaining literal "eternal life" he was thanking the priest for placing him in a spot where he would be remembered for all time..."immortal" through the thoughts of others...kind of similar to Candyman in a way.
shareBram Stoker wrote his story about the blood sucking leech and placed it in Romania and made a Romanian HERO the villain because if Bram Stoker had said openly the blood sucking leech was the British Empire, said empire would have lynched him.
Like so many Romanians, I am sick and tired of people taking a book that criticized British rule and Victorian morals and accepts it as a documentary. Want to know about vampires. Here is an excellent history
http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/staking.html
Romania is, off and on, building a DraculaLand, but like Disneyland those of us from Romania know vampires are no more real than Mickey Mouse. Most Romanians didn't even know about vampires being Romanian until 1989 when after we executed Nikolai and Elena, the tourists showed up looking for vampires.
What we don't need is people like you going around demanding sequels based on the defamation of our national hero. Maybe we should make a movie George Washington, Father of our Country; The Confessions of a Pedophile? It would be just as true.
I’m open to the possibility it’s possible.
Is your mind open to the possibility it’s impossible?
That's probably the most eloquent thing I've ever read on a message board. Especially one for movies. Nicely said, Insectboy.
shareCASTLEVANIA LEGENDS
shareMan i posted that 3 years ago and this post is still alive, I gotta agree that a sequel might ruin this movie, but at least one good vampire Dracula movie before i die.
BTW CASTLEVANIA is the best xD , SotN FTW
This movie presents itself as the TRUE story of Dracula, a biopic about the historical man, Vlad the Impaler, not the almost completely fictional character of Count Dracula. Presenting Vlad as a vampire would completely ruin that. Personally, in the end I did not think they were presenting him as a vampire. I thought the priest was imagining it. They cannot present him as a vampire and call this a true story OR present this as history.
HOWEVER. If they made a movie of The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Historian) it would portray the historical Vlad as a vampire.
HOWEVER. If they made a movie of The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Historian) it would portray the historical Vlad as a vampire.
HOWEVER. If they made a movie of The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Historian) it would portray the historical Vlad as a vampire.
Puhleeze... Not that crapfest...
If you want to see a sort of sequel to this watch Buffy the vampire slayer season 5 episode 1. Buffy vs dracula. Its got the same actor looking exactly the same bar a bit of white make up playing Dracula.
Ok not exactly what you were asking for but the best your gonna get
The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Historian)
That's probably the most eloquent thing I've ever read on a message board. Especially one for movies.
If certain things had happened differently between 1941 and 1945 the peoples of Germany would still consider Hitler a national Hero, in fact there are some who do believe it or not.
Vampires are mythical, but Vlad The Impaler was a tyrant.
"It's not about money
It's about sending a Message
Everything Burns!"