This Vlad guy was an absolute abomination...a loving husband and father, really?
Its a nice fantasy but his real-life story would have made a stronger story for a film.
It was to be Universal's origin story for their "Dracula". It was never meant to be historically accurate. It was mearly the beginning of a rebooted Dracula in the as of yet, rebooted "Universal Monsters" franchise.
shareYou were really expecting a historical accuracy from a film like this.
shareThe stupidity of people like you is impressive. It a bloody movie about vampires and you expected it to be historically accurate. YOU DO KNOW VAMPIRES DON'T EXIST?
shareheh heh.....he also TOOK at the local RED CROSS!!!
shareHaha man youre dumb.
shareAll that your insults of op shows is your stupidity. When Bram Stoker created the character Dracula he used Vlad III Dracul as his canvas. It was easy to do because the Church kicked Vlad out do to his grotesque method of impaling his enemies as if using them as a trophy. In Stokers book (if I remember correctly) Glad gives his soul and thus becomes Dracula. OP's problem with this movie is the same as mine. Even though it is always assumed Hollywood will ignore history it is still disappointing and frustrating everytime they do. In this case they took and actual person from history and used a cliff notes version OF a cliff notes version of his life, then to make it worse they ignored everything Bram Stoker wrote except for the name Dracula. The main thing that pissed me off though was not truly making him the first vampire, seeing how he is commonly known as such. This is all knowledge I have from when I was in my early teens. I'm now 23. So I apologize if I left something out. All that being said, great movie.
shareWhen the commercials show a man turning into a swarm of bats and mauling an army, the audience should know it's not getting a history lesson.
shareI get what you're saying but the character of Dracula has gotten pretty stale over the years. It needed new life and a new direction, I think this film did a good job of getting that started.
shareWell whilst the bases of the story of Dracula may have been gleamed from an actual character in history, the story or legend of Dracula is still not historical is it though hmmm? Unless the person you speak of needed to drink blood in order to stay alive? No, didnt think so. So creative writing is not only warranted, but expected. There are plenty of versions of Dracula and how often do people think of historical figure when hearing that name? Only you two apparently. Everyone else thinks of the mythical creature, the King of Vampires. And as others have said, it's clearly on the cover and in trailers, etc that it is the mythical Dracula to which they are referring. The fact that you watched this and were disappointed for that reason just makes you out to be the stupid one hahaha
shareThis is a fantasy movie about vampires, you idiot, not a documentary about the real life Vlad the Impaler. You seriously didn't notice all the vampires and vampire bats, etc? That was the majority of the movie. Why would the events of real history be important in a fictional monster movie? Your comments serve no purpose other than to make you look stupid and annoy other people at your level of stupidity.
shareYou mean to sit there and tell me that Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is not historic!!!?
share[deleted]