Dracula Untold

Dracula Untold
01:32:00
Dracula Untold.2014.hd.1080p
HD
Download NowWatch Now
Every bloodline has a beginning
Dracula Untold Poster
6.1/10 by 2019 users
Watch Trailer

Vlad Tepes is a great hero, but when he learns the Sultan is preparing for battle and needs to form an army of 1,000 boys, including Vlad's son, he vows to find a way to protect his family. Vlad turns to dark forces in order to get the power to destroy his enemies and agrees to go from hero to monster as he's turned into the mythological vampire Dracula.

Title:Dracula Untold
Release Date:October 1, 2014
Runtime:
MPAA Rating:PG-13
Genres:Horror, Action, Drama, Fantasy, War
Production Co.:Universal Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Fuji Television Network, Dentsu, Michael De Luca Productions
Production Countries:United States of America
Director:Gary Shore, Kathleen Weir
Writers:, ,
Casts:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plot Keywords:vampire, dracula, bite, battle, 15th century, ottoman empire, vlad, fang vamp, tepes
Alternative Titles:
  • Dracula Year Zero - [US]
  • 德古拉:永咒传奇 - [CN]
  • Drakula. Pradžia - [LT]
  • 德古拉伯爵:血魔降生 - [HK]
  • Dracula Inédit - [CA]
  • Drácula - La leyenda jamás contada - [ES]
  • Drácula: la historia jamás contada - [AR]
  • 德古拉:永咒傳奇 - [TW]

Dracula Untold Reviews

  • Everyone will enjoy this flick except history buffs
    by David Nieto on 12 October 2014

    285 out of 443 people found the following review useful:

    If your looking for a good action flick with a decent plot this is the movie for you. With a 90min runtime I was expecting this movie to feel "rushed", it felt far from that. The action was great, it did not disappoint with all the cool vampire abilities you see in the trailer, especially transforming into a group of bats. Being a Dracula movie there are things you have to expect, yes he receives his power by drinking blood, having all the vulnerabilities as every vampire (which they do very good in this movie) but the way this movie makes you root for Vlad(Dracula) you actually find yourself engulfed in the movie wanting him to overcome the darkness and win. However if you are a history buff and it irks you when movies take real life people and change their history for a movie, you will not enjoy this because it is loosely based off Vlad the Impaler. My Review 8/10 Excellent

  • It's not about the historical Dracula, it's about a new story
    by John Doe on 16 December 2014

    154 out of 207 people found the following review useful:

    For all who says that this movie is bad because it doesn't follow the Dracula story we all know from the past I say, it's not suppose to. When I sit down to watch a movie there's one thing that matter in the end: Did I or Did I not enjoy the movie? And this movie was definitely enjoyable and fun.

    Manny reviewers say that this is a bad movie because it doesn't follow the historical time-line and details of the characters in it. Ultimately I really don't care, it's a fiction movie, not a documentary about the history of...

    I even read, in a 3/10 star review, a reviewer that says the movie is bad because of historical falsies. That reviewer wrote in his comment : "The film might captivate some audiences who are looking for a fun time, but there is nothing memorable or legendary about it." isn't that all a movie should be about? Having a fun time is what I came for...

    Dracula Untold isn't related in any aspect to the old Dracula story. It is a story of its' own and a very good one to. I think that the directors and the script writers did an excellent job writing a different side to the Dracula story.

    So, for those who care about the chronicles of Dracula and close their mind to a different story don't watch this movie. But, if you're looking for a fun fiction story this is a fantastic movie.

    I gave it 8/10 stars because it could have been better.

    Overall this movie is seriously underrated.

    *Sorry for bad English. May contain grammar mistakes.*

  • Great CGI, no relation to history whatsoever...
    by Bogdan Istrate on 6 October 2014

    311 out of 532 people found the following review useful:

    I've watched this movie with an open mind, intending not to look into the historical facts and just enjoy a good CGI-packed film, that tells the story of my country's most famous ancestor. But I couldn't, I just could. They've went on to use actual names for people and places, that some may think some things are actually true. Absolutely nothing from this movie has to do with reality!!!

    So, the year is 1442, when the real Vlad the Impaler was 11 years old, having been born in 1431. He's opposed to the sultan Mehmed II, the future conqueror of Constatinople (present-day Istanbul), who, at the time, was only 10 years old. Yet their characters are a bit older than that, aren't day?

    Then the need to connect Vlad "Dracula" the Impaler to Transylvania. They've made him prince. Uhmm... he wasn't the ruler of Transylvania, he was the ruler of Wallachia, which is just south of Transylvania. He merely stayed imprisoned in Transylvania for a good 12 years. He never ruled Transylvania, as the movie depicts, but I guess they had to stay with the legend, because who cares about history, right?!

    Then there's the Ottoman side. Mehmed II was a child at the time described in the movie. He did try to come and personally punish the rebellious Vlad, but that happened in 1462, so 20 years later. And he did not die by Vlad's hand, although he was almost shot by an arrow of the Wallachian prince during a night attack.

    One last thing. They've totally messed it up with the geography. I mean, look for yourself for the Tihuta passage and Cozia monastery and how you can get from Bran castle to the monastery using that passage. Let's just say that between the buildings and the passage there are some hundreds of kilometers.

    If you're not taking in consideration the historical facts (which basically don't exist, apart from the resemblance of some names), the movie is rather thin. The story doesn't hold and some parts are kind of forced there so the action might have some coherence - which it lacks, in parts. (I mean, seriously, an army marching miles and miles blind-folded? OK, I'll buy, for the movies's sake, but gathering an entire country's people to a single monastery...?!?! What were we? The Vatican?! Or someone falling for hundreds of meters and not dying instantly when they hit the ground...)

    I believe the movie would have been a lot better if they didn't use actual places and figures and they would have kept the persona drafted only from legends, with no historical ground. But it's Hollywood, so who cares about history, right?!

  • A title no one seems to understand
    by matej-trkanjec-133-920386 on 10 October 2014

    158 out of 234 people found the following review useful:

    Leaving the cinema last night I found myself arguing with half the audience about the movie. Half of them said the movie sucked, and the other half (myself included) loved it. Now, this is a type of movie that will divide the audience so much that there will not be a middle. One will either love it or hate it (which seems to be a pattern in recent Hollywood history). By just watching the trailer it was clear as day that this will not be a masterpiece or a rebirth of Stocker's fable. So I ask a very plausible question: What did you expect?

    1) The acting. This is a prototype of how a star is born. Luke Evans was by far the best choice for the lead role. His dark and passionate portrait of the prince was staggering. He was believable in every scene from start to finish. The changes of his character were so sophisticated and cool that only after the movie ends one actually realizes what a good performance that was. Evans is the only one that equals the '92 Gary Oldman performance. Cooper on the other hand used as a great counter performance showing just how bad his acting really is. That only emphasized Evans' performance. It was noticeable that the director felt the same way and gave him just a couple of scenes in the movie. Though, the end fight between the two was interesting, in my opinion it was more to the character and wardrobe than Cooper's performance. Two young actors of which one has, and will have a great career - Evans. Dance had an interesting role, but nothing worth praising. The rest of the cast I felt just filled the space and did a decent job.

    2) The story. Unlike the stories so far (unfortunately there have been a lot) this one takes us far back to the very beginning, to the origins. It is innovative, and interesting to see how the story reveals itself. This is what the ones who don't like the movie don't like the most. Everyone expected a classic Dracula story and bloodsucking and London and Van Helsing etc. This is something else and accept it as it is. A good fantasy action movie with great visual effects, good acting and a decent story. The story has a nice paste, it is a great combination of slow sequences and action. But, the true problem with the movie is the length. 93 min is way to short for a movie of this type. If it were 30 min longer the characters could have been explored more, the story could have had more drama, and the ending could have been longer and bloodier. But this length shows that a nice story with enough drama, suspense, action and a bit gore, can be told in 90 min. We are, unfortunately spoiled by all the big spectacles lasting over 120 min, so 90 min can seem a bit short.

    3) The visual effects. By far the most memorable part (besides Evans). They are dark, brutal and entertaining. It is a joy to watch and it always leaves one sitting and waiting to see what Dracula will come up with next. And yes, the burning on the sun is very believable and quite gruesome.

    I have said a lot about this movie so far and most of it was good. This movie has its flaws - the length, the story holes, the lack of a good antagonist... One could really go on for days. But that is not the point. What matters is that Dracula untold provided exactly what it said it would - a great ride. It will not be a huge box office hit, it will not win an Acadamy award. But people will see it, they will have a good time go home and forget about it. That is exactly what Dracula is - 90 min of good entertainment. Not everything has to be The Shawshank Redemption or the Godfather. And most importantly, not every Dracula story has to be R rated and a pure horror movie. So, go see it, expect a fun ride, and you will enjoy it.

  • I am Lost for Words...
    by erdemozkan on 10 October 2014

    291 out of 529 people found the following review useful:

    To Summarize, for me it is a pretty bad movie. Why? (INCLUDES SPOILERS)

    1. Script: They've got it all wrong. Others might find it OK but if your bad guy is in fact one of the most important characters of the world history, you just can't go and change his story and the way he dies. Sultan II. Mehmed, unlike in the movie, died from a regular disease when he was 50 years old. He did not die in battle, especially not killed by Dracula or Vlad III. In fact, they never even directly confronted each other on a battlefield. Not to mention that the timeline was all wrong Sultan Mehmed was known as Faith (the Conquerer) and not Mehmed after his victory in Constantinople / Istanbul (1453).

    2. Cast: Bad casting and performance all around. Except for Charles Dance. AND... Again, if you are doing a flick including a real life personality from world history, please DO BOTHER to go and check how he actually looked like. At least google his name and see a couple of original portraits for yourself OK?

    3. Props and Looks: Ottoman janissary/soldiers never used regular (straight) swords. They used bent swords like scimitars. The final fight scene though presents Sultan Mehmed using a 2 handed sword, strictly used by European Chivalry. Ottoman soldiers never wore that kind of a heavy, full plate armor as well.

    Bad research and execution on scriptwriters and directors behalf which might be ignored by many people but if you actually know the history of these events, there isn't any way to agree, sorry.

  • see it as a purely entertainment film
    by zacktheman-175-161208 on 2 December 2014

    74 out of 113 people found the following review useful:

    many reviewers complain about the history of the movie not being accurate or truthful; in case you forget, Dracula, the vampire, is all fictitious, so why complain about history?? I don't care if the story is not along the line of the other Dracula stories we know of as long as the story is well told. such a movie shouldn't be taken so seriously; see it as purely entertainment; now back to serious review; to put it simply, I like the movie. Luke Evans is perfectly cast as Dracula. The movie is 90 minute so you wouldn't have everything 'spelled out'. It's reasonably fast paced; the movie has its flaws but minor enough that you can reasonably pass it; the only major flaw that I see and think the movie should work on explaining is how the Sultan knows about Dracula's weaknesses. Dang, Dracula almost got defeated because of the Sultan's knowledge and the director thinks it's not important to dwell on it?? that's why it's only 8 for me.

  • A spectacular visual treat of a visceral emotional turmoil.
    by Tejaswy Nalam on 15 October 2014

    138 out of 243 people found the following review useful:

    A one word review of this movie would be the easiest thing in the world, safely beating such acts as breathing, eating, and, if you are in a country like India, reproducing.

    It would read Luke Evans.

    And like most one word reviews, it would be gross injustice and more importantly not accepted by IMDb.

    The movie is a visual treat. The story line is very much present, much against what the staggeringly misinformed critics seem to be saying. The fight sequences though not many are well crafted and tread the fine line between satisfying the action heads among us while not making the more delicate among us not throw up.

    And for the purists out there, please understand the title. It says untold. So if you want to whine, do so elsewhere and stop lowballing what is easily among the best movies in the last few months.

    It is a perfectly balanced movie the right doses of action, emotion, intrigue, and as an icing, a great ending.

    Whether it is a weekend watch, or a quick afternoon grab, or something to kill time very very pleasurably, the movie ticks all the right boxes.

  • Good Enough As Long As You Don't Think Of It As A Horror Film
    by Theo Robertson on 10 December 2014

    75 out of 118 people found the following review useful:

    I remember the 1992 version of Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola and thinking that the best part of that version was the anti-heroic Prince Vlad defending Europe against the Ottoman invasion . I do believe there is a market for a historical epic featuring the true life story of Vlad the impaler . This version from 2014 does come close to it in some ways but let's be honest and say no one is going to watch any movie with Dracula in the title unless it features a vampire in the title role and one wonders how many people might have been disappointed by the marketing if not the title alone ?

    One group of people who will be bitterly disappointed will be Turks . While the Persians are still recovering from their portrayal in 300 and its sequel the Muslim Turks might have just been lured in to a sense of false security after MIDNIGHT EXPRESS but low and behold along comes DU . The Turks aren't painted in a good light and one wonders if there might be a rather dubious subtext when the Sultan demands a thousand boys for his army ? That said at least Vlad himself isn't a noble traditional type of nationalist hero and the film does show him struggling against internal dilemmas . It's not really an actors type of character driven cinema but Luke Evans is suitably brooding while best performance is Dominic Cooper as Mehmed who doesn't appear on screen often enough here and is probably the film's trump card

    DU isn't a masterpiece and again it's very important that you go in to this film with the knowledge it's more of a dark sword and sorcery type tale rather than a horror movie . It wasn't until after I saw it that I found out Universal Pictures might be using it to do a reboot of their monster franchise from the 1930s and 40s which explains the ending that jars with the rest of the movie . Do we genuinely want another reboot series ? As it stands this version of Dracula is more than adequate and maybe we should let Eastern European vampires stay dead

  • A beautifully crafted version of Dracula. Worth the watch
    by aimee-837-243757 on 12 October 2014

    246 out of 461 people found the following review useful:

    First and foremost I know it's appalling that I am giving this a 10 but because I went to watch this movie knowing fully that I ought to disregard the true history of it and the classic Dracula novel from 1897 Gothic horror by Irish author Bram Stoker. I kept and open mind and my mind was blown away.

    Luke Evans is an amazing actor that carried out such a brilliance performances. I was so moved by the internal struggle he was portraying as a good hearted prince Vlad to the demon that he was becoming Dracula. I felt for his character deeply. It may have been a short movie in comparison to most movie out there but in that short period of time, I thought it was beautifully told how much he loved his wife and his son. How much he cares for his country and the length a good prince would go through to protect what he holds dear to him heart.

    The cinematography was very beautifully artsy. It is not like 300 where there is unnecessary blood and gore. It's more artistic and tastefully done. No need for all those gore. This movie isn't about horror or violence's. It's about how he became Dracula. It's about the person he was before all the evils. About a men that gave everything to save the things he love and the ultimate sacrifice he made to protect his family.

    I know there are a lot of bad criticism out there for this movie because it's not gore enough or there isn't enough bloody mess and also some that say that the special effect was a joke but I think it's definitely worth the watch and I think this movie is worthy of being in the "good movie " category. The special effects may not be as good as lord of the ring or 300 but considering the budget wasn't as high as those other movies, this movie surpassed all of them.

    It's worthy of a movie that is consider a better movie than most out there. Give it a chance. You will not regret it.

  • Chewing Gum for the eyes
    by malignance on 9 November 2014

    40 out of 52 people found the following review useful:

    While this movie pretty much ignores the history, it's still a good movie, great CGI, good acting and the ending implies a sequel.

    Many have commented that Vlad was not a good guy in real life, hence the historical figures title of the "impaler". The movie does show this in a few scenes but in a interesting if somewhat brief way.

    Good action scenes, battles and some gory images, but then as it's Dracula, what do you expect.

    If your looking for a movie to just sit back and have fun watching, Dracula Untold is an enjoyable romp with good actors, Charles Dance is impeccable as always and Luke Evans is good as the main character.

Similar Movies