Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

The historical Vlad Tepes "Dracula"

[maxavail · 7/10 · 15 January 2008]

The movie deals with the so-called historical figure of Vlad Tepes (phonetically that is "Tzepesh" and it literally means "Impaler"), not the vampire of Bram Stoker but the tormented Wallachian (Romanian) medieval ruler that stood against the might of the Ottoman Empire with nothing but a few trained men of his own and his reputation as master of psychological warfare by means of sheer terror and unprecedented scale of prisoner execution through impalement (Google on that for detailed info). Vlad's father, also called Vlad, was a member of the Teutonic knightly order of the Dragon, which had been established in Germany with the purpose of protecting Christianity against the rise of Islam at the gates of Europe. His affiliation with this order gained him the surname "Dracul" which is a Romanian translation for "Dragon" and also a synonym for "devil". Vlad the Impaler, that is the son of Vlad Dracul, inherited his father's membership into the order of the Dragon, but because he was the son of Dracul, he was named "Draculea", or "Dracula", which means "son of Dracul", son of the Dragon, and ultimately son of the devil. His reputation as a mad executioner would be well justified by today's standards, although he was just a babe when compared to other rulers of his time (his own cousin, Stephen the Great, ruler of Moldavia, "the Athlete of Christ" as he had been named by the Pope for having repeatedly beaten the crap out of the Turks, had reportedly killed many more people through impalement than Vlad but because he had always been politically correct, he never went down into history as a deranged butcher). Vlad Tepes had the Saxons of Transilvania account for their transgressions against the conquered local Romanian population and it was because of the vengeful literate Germans who wrote exacerbated stories about him that he was later on remembered as the sadistic figure we now read of in the history books. He had also been ruthless with the breaking of the law in his own land. The only punishment instituted for whatever crime committed, regardless of its seriousness, was the one and only impalement. It's because of this that, during his reign, crime had reportedly dropped to nil. That is why, for the Romanians, he's still, up to this day, considered a national hero of special importance, unlike any other, because his name is called upon in times of great oppression, when corruption and plundering of the national economy by the oligarchic political class bring the common, ordinary citizens on their knees. When confronted with such disasters, Romanians cry out the verses of Mihai Eminescu (1850-1889), the greatest national poet of Romania, who had even written a poem in Tepes's honor which, in time, became a sort of a prayer for those crushed by the arrogance of the ruling class. In a few words, it goes something like this (in free translation):

"Where are you, lord Tepes / So that, by grabbing them / You would divide them in two packs: / Lunatics and scoundrels. / And in two large jails / You would forcibly gather them / And then set fire to the prison / And the madhouse."

(sounds much, much better in Romanian...lol :)))

Very good for a TV/Cable movie

[jazkat · 6/10 · 1 November 2000]

The only problem I had with this movie was the excessive and exaggerated use of the "shaky-cam". This can be an effective took, if used subtly. That was not the case in Dark Prince. I found it very annoying at times and once, it became down-right painful to watch. The good news is that its not always that bad. I enjoyed it and would recommend it for good acting, compelling story line, very good battle scenes, great sets and location shots, and captivating subject matter for those who want intelligent Halloween entertainment.

Old-fashioned swashbuckler on a low budget: needs more bite

[DrMMGilchrist · 6/10 · 18 September 2001]

The UK rental release of this film is titled 'Dark Prince: The Legend of Dracula', rather than 'The True Story of', thereby leaving fewer hostages to fortune re: its accuracy or otherwise, and placing it firmly in the realm of folk-tradition. I was initially perturbed by the blurb on the case, which described it as 'Braveheart meets Interview with the Vampire' - conjuring some truly nightmarish but hilarious visions of an Undead Mel Gibson running around Romania in a kilt, in pursuit of Tom Cruise... However, it is an old-style swashbuckling drama about the 15C Romanian warlord Vlad Dracula (which means 'son of (the Knight of) the Dragon'), also known as 'Tepes', or 'Impaler'. It has some interesting religious-political currents, and a (too) handsome leading actor.

'Dark Prince' was made for US TV, not the cinema, so is cursed by a fairly low budget (no massive armies tramping around the countryside or large-scale battles). However, it does reasonably well within its constraints, helped by the use of location filming in Romania and a largely Romanian supporting cast, with just a handful of foreign leads. These include the dashing German actor Rudolf Martin as Vlad, and British actors Jane March and Roger Daltrey (yes, of 'The Who'!) as Lidia and King Janos. Given the 30 year time-span of the story, Janos aged more convincingly than some of the other characters, perhaps because he wasn't exactly young to start with. I had hitherto only seen Rudolf Martin as Dracula in 'Buffy the Vampire-Slayer', and had been rather taken with his looks. In 'Dark Prince' he gave a fine performance, with plenty of sword-fighting, as the same character's living form. All in all he made a good swashbuckling Vlad, though I wasn't convinced latterly that he looked like a 45-year-old who had just had a 10-year stint in prison! Needless to say, the portrayal is rather idealised. Christopher Brand as Bruno, Vlad's faithful sidekick, is good: 'Little John' as drawn by Breughel.

Mediaeval Romania is not a subject I know in great detail, but the broad outlines of the story were recognisable, allowing for the romanticisation of swashbuckling genre. It included some of the key points of the Vlad Tepes myth: impaling his enemies; nailing hats to the heads of Turkish envoys; a wife who ends up in the river; and a feud with his brother Radu who sided with the Turks. What struck me was that, within genre constraints, the script at least *attempted* to convey some of the ideological animosities that divided efforts to present a united front against the Turks just before and after the fall of Constantinople: Vlad gets into serious trouble with the Orthodox Church for getting assistance from the Catholic Hungarians and Papal money. As a bit of background plot, though, I think it would have been helpful to make more reference to the fall of Constantinople, the Second Rome - a world-shattering event for 15C people, especially in south-eastern Europe. It would have given a keener sense of how much was at stake (pun intended).

Vlad's cruelty and vengefulness are not glossed over, although somewhat sanitised (it is a TV movie). One of the most impressive scenes, closely related to a contemporary German woodcut, is the one where he sits dipping bread in wine, at a table in front of a field full of impaled boyars... The nailing of the Turks' hats scene is especially disturbing because presented as a black joke between Vlad and his young son. Lidia is the innocent 'moral viewpoint' character, but she becomes unhinged in her efforts to square her husband's motives with his methods. There is a strong thread running through the film as to how far ends can justify means: Vlad's rule is brutal, but the townsfolk feel safe (symbolised by the communal gold cup at the fountain - an element taken from the Romanian folklore about him); he wants to preserve his Orthodox country from the Turks, but must solicit Catholic help from Hungary to do so, thereby risking his soul through excommunication.

The film climaxes with an entirely a-historical scene more reminiscent of Scottish history: think John Comyn vs. Robert de Brus (Vlad's death was really rather less dramatic.) Judging by other reviews, the shift into fantasy clearly flummoxed some. However, there is in it a nod to the Orthodox cult of ruler as 'Strastoterpets' ('Passion-bearer'), a Christianised form of sacrificial kingship. Meanwhile, Father Stefan, whose machinations stemmed from his obsessive belief that a 'bleeding' icon was proof that Vlad was the Antichrist, pays by turning him into something almost as disconcerting... In this, the film serves as an effective precursor to the purely fictional, Stoker-derived 'Dracula' stories and films we know and love. Indeed, it can be watched as a prologue to the Coppola version.

The film essentially projects the Romanian folk-tradition of Vlad Tepes as national hero, akin to that other ruthless, violent, clergy-harrying 'son of the Chief Dragon' whose story followed the fall of the First Rome, at the other end of the Empire. The caption at the end, that there is a myth of his return, completes the analogy: Vlad Dracula as the Romanian Arthur?

Good atmospheric history

[mermatt · 1 November 2000]

This film is based on the known history of Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler), son of Dracul (the name means either devil or dragon), who has come to be known through Bram Stoker's famous novel as Dracula. The film begins with Vlad confessing his life story to Greek Orthodox priests. He is caught in the weblike power struggles involving the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, Hungary, and the Moslem Turks. In the midst of all this, he tries to do what is best for his homeland.

The film illustrates the origins of the Dracula myth: blood drinking, impaling with stakes, fear of mirrors, rebellion against religion, and the doom of eternal life because he is cursed to be welcome in neither heaven nor hell. Vlad is presented historically as a Robin Hood freedom fighter, a George Washington of Romania, and a man who tries to bring peace and justice to his troubled land. Some see him as a Messiah while others believe he is the Anti-Christ. In some ways, Vlad can be viewed as a 15th Century Godfather.

The plot unfolds slowly but the movie is nicely photographed and well acted. Vlad himself is played as a moody, brooding, dark figure who easily gives life to the many legends that have become attached to his name.

This is another very well-executed TV-movie and is definitely worth watching. The fact that it premiered on Halloween night is appropriate because the atmosphere is quite spooky.

Not historically accurate

[Zytahar · 6/10 · 11 January 2008]

An OK movie, good for relaxation. Unfortunately, historically inaccurate. There was no Romania at that time, but three principalities inhabited by Romanians: Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania. Vlad Tepes ruled in Wallachia. Related to his wife's death, there is a small stream called Lady's River that is said to be the river his wife threw herself in when she saw the turks were coming. Interesting end, but that is just fiction, of course. The legend of Dracula the Vampire appeared hundreds of years later. Overall, the movie is most fiction than truth.

Romanians do regard him as a great lord. It is said, as shown in the movie, that fountains had cups made of gold and nobody dared taking them. Our greatest poet, Mihai Eminescu summons Vlad Tepes in one of his greatest poems, The Third Letter. He asks him to come back once more and burn our country's foes...

Minimally entertaining low budget flop

[zhivago97 · 2/10 · 11 July 2021]

What is this movie? Action? Horror? Romance? Drama? Suspense? Comedy? It tries to be everything but ends up being a hodgepodge of watered down nothing. It's neither historically accurate nor "true", and what is portrayed is simply boring (aside from being factually wrong).

I really wanted to like this film. It starts off being very atmospheric but within minutes dumbs down into a low budget hot mess.

Sometimes when movies are really bad I at least laugh and get some enjoyment from the ridiculousness. But not this movie, it's just plain boring. The character development is especially poor. The "true" story of Dracula left me not caring one iota about Dracula or what happens next. And that's bad!

Slow at times but a good hybrid of history and fiction

[zxakari · 6/10 · 15 July 2007]

I would like to see more Dracula movies based on the actual person. This is the first one I have ever come across. It's nice to see an interpretation on the real person rather than the Hollywood version. Though i wouldn't rely on this movie for true and accurate history, it did appear to stretch it for drama sake. The atmosphere is perfect, dark and haunting in a medieval sort of way. I thought it was amusing how at certain points the movie there were allusions to the common vampire myth (two i recall are about mirrors and driving a stake through Dracula's heart). Those point do spark interest into the real customs and beliefs of that time that formed the myth. I would recommend this movie to those who are at the least mildly interested in history and Dracula. Though it's a little dull at times and the brutality is dumbed down (it is a TV movie), it's a good movie to see when its on TV.

Interesting Movie, But Far From The True Story.

[ClericOni · 5/10 · 8 July 2006]

I was watching the Sci-Fi Channel when this movie started and when I saw the title, I thought someone finally did a biographical movie and started watching with interest. I admit Peter Weller starring in the movie got my attention too. It started OK with the maps like Bram Stoker's Dracula had, but when the first ever scene started, I knew this was another fantasy Dracula movie without the vampires. Expect only a very few points of facts from the actual history here. I compared it to history and might sound like too much criticizing but since it claims to be a true story I couldn't help it. If it was to have just the title, I would have watched it as fiction.

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT. There are really no spoilers here but just some historical comparisons. But if you don't want to see it or think you'd be bored by it, or that it can be a spoiler, then I'd suggest not to read beyond this point* The costumes of the Turks are far from accurate (They look like they wear WWI British desert hats made out of metal. The outfits are not even close to the actual uniforms of the Ottomans.), the sultan wears an Arabic outfit rather than the actual historic Ottoman one, is made to look like a gay, dark and long haired Fabio who has a crush on Romanian boys (Which is funny because the Sultan himself was rarely present there if not never). The Sultan tortures a kid in front of his soldiers which is unseen in actual history. All of Vlad's atrocities and sadism, while shown in a few hints in the movie, are actually reversed and reflected in the Turks and Vlad himself is shown like a poor innocent victim of the circumstances who couldn't help it. If I didn't know any better, I would have sworn that the movie was made by Romanian fanatics of Vlad Tepes. Not a lot other than his atrocities and sadistic pleasures is known about Vlad himself since most of his historical records were burned to ashes by Romanians themselves since they've tried to cover up Vlad's attempts at helping the Turks conquer his own country to save himself from execution for what he's done to the Turkish prisoners of war. The Sultan in actual history offers several chances at peace to Vlad before commanding his generals to have Vlad's head brought to him after hearing what has been done to prisoners of war and his messengers. The death of Vlad Tepes in the movie is not even remotely close to actual history either. Sure there are a few scenes which have historical facts in them but like I've said before, they are very few.

I think movie makers are starting to abuse the quote "A True Story" or "Based On A True Story" taking only a grain of fact and building a mostly fictional story on it. As a fantasy movie with very few hints of facts it's very entertaining. But to call this movie historically a true story would be a crime and be like calling The Adventures of Baron Munchausen a true story. I have yet to see a movie based on the true story of Vlad Tepes with historical accuracy. Don't get me wrong, this movie tries very hard to look real, but it's not.

As an entertaining movie I'd give it more than 5 stars but calling it a true story, it gets 5.

I hope those who've read this found it informative. Those who think I'm getting into a flame fight, I really am not. I'm merely sharing my own opinions about this movie and everyone is entitled to their own if yours is different.

"You have given me eternal life . . . "

[icfarm · 9/10 · 8 October 2007]

This 2000 TV film, which, I believe, originally aired on Lifetime for Halloween of that year, is excellently done.

It begins with Vlad (Rudolph Martin) meeting with his spiritual adviser, Father Stephan (Peter Weller). He is to appear before the authorities of the Orthodox Church to face charges that he has committed heresy/blasphemy by converting to Roman Catholicism.

Vlad tells his tale, which begins with the "folk-tales" he says he is familiar with: to-wit, an engraving of the Blessed Virgin wept tears of blood at the moment of his birth, a sign that he is an Antichrist. Also tales of hideous torture which he describes as "forgeries and lies", maintaining that only "those who broke the law" were punished.

Then we go back to when he and his brother Radu were children; they were captured by their father's enemy, the Sultan, to be held prisoner until their father, Prince of Romania, agrees to the tribute the Sultan demands. Radu, it is implied, becomes the Sultan's personal plaything, while Vlad is subjected to torture for refusing to comply with his (the Sultan's) desires. Eventually, as a young man, Vlad is released. He seeks out the King of Hungary (Roger Daltrey) for financial/military aid to fight Turkish oppression, as well as those in his own country of Romania who are complicit with the Turkish overlords. The king agrees.

At a banquet with the King, Vlad meets Lidia (Jane March) and her father, Aaron. He learns that Lidia intends to join a convent, but the two soon fall in love, and instead, she becomes his bride. The two soon have a son. One night, Vlad hosts a banquet for Romanian nobles, who he believes are in league with the Turks and are also responsible for the death (by being buried alive) of his father. The men, after a few drinks, are told the real reason Vlad has called them there; the are captured at swordpoint, soon to be impaled. But Lidia, upstairs in her bed, hears their cries. She comes out of their bedroom to see what is happening but goes into labor. Their son is born.

As the child grows, Vlad gains a reputation for brutality. His method of justice includes public impalements. At one point, a group of Romanian emmisaries who have come to make a final demand for tribute from his country - and are led by his brother, Radu, who has stayed with and decided to side with the Turks - refuse to remove their turbans when asked to do so. Vlad thinks of an appropriate punishment for this - their turbans are nailed to their foreheads. He spares only his brother.

Lidia witnesses this, and it is the final straw. She has already begun to be driven mad by her husband's methods, having witnessed impalement firsthand. She imagines that she hears the victims of such punishment crying out to her. She decides that she must leave her husband and take their son with her, before his father has any further influence on him. Instead, Vlad keeps their son and sends his wife to a convent. His battles with the Turks continue.

Eventually, he calls for his wife to be sent back to him and asks for her understanding and forgiveness for what he must do. His wife stays with him, but, after Vlad seemingly comes back to life after his soldiers were convinced that he was killed in battle, she becomes convinced that her husband is a damned soul; that is to say, that his spirit is doomed to remain in limbo on earth forever because neither Heaven nor Hell will receive him. She commits suicide, which, according to her own beliefs, will damn her own soul.

Lidia's father, who blames Vlad for his daughter's bad end, devises a plot against him; going to Radu, Aaron has given him a set of forged documents that indicate that Vlad was conspiring against the King of Hungary, his greatest ally. When Vlad appears before the King to ask for further aid, he is instead imprisoned for years. However, he is released when the King uncovers the plot. "Would you like to become Prince of Romania again?", he asks Vlad. But there is one condition; he must marry the King's daughter, which would also entail converting (even if in name only) to Roman Catholicism. And from now on, when he battles, it will be on behalf of the Catholic Church.

This is what leads to the trial Vlad must face before the Orthodox priests. They are determining whether to excommunicate him from their Church. Although he insists that he "accepted the Pope's money, never his religion", they ultimately decide to do so.

There follows a final revelation of betrayal (I won't give the twist away), a final battle with Radu, and Vlad's death. When Father Stephan does not want to bury Vlad inside the Orthodox church where he had worshipped in his lifetime, Vlad's son pulls a sword on him and says, "or you die with him".

But one night, Fr. Stephan hears strange noises coming from below his study, where Vlad's coffin his being kept. He goes downstairs and finds said coffin empty. Then Vlad himself, very much alive, appears before him. "I wanted to thank you", he says. You see, by excommunicating him during his lifetime, the Orthodox Church has supposedly damned him to remain immortal on earth forever by damning his soul. The final shot is what makes this a dark-tinged romance more than anything else; Vlad and Lidia, walking hand-in-hand through a thick mist, two souls, we are led to assume, that are now spending their eternal damnation together.

Well worth a watch, especially this time of year (note date of my review). And yes, if I neglected to mention it, Rudolph Martin is gorgeous! And for you gentlemen, Ms. March is still no slouch herself.

Cheers.

Balkan History For Idiots

[Eradan · 6/10 · 10 November 2019]

It's hard to know how to rate this odd little movie. On one hand, it's dreadful trash that affects to explore the Dracula Mythos while in fact exploiting it at every turn.

On the other hand, this is one of the very few, English-language productions* that addresses the fact that for three centuries, Europe was under attack by an aggressive, expansionist muslim empire. While Western Europe was enjoying the Renaissance, the (mostly) Eastern Orthodox peoples of the Balkans were fighting for their lives against the massive armies of the Ottoman Sultanate. It was their blood and pain that made the Renaissance possible.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox. As for the "Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula", I'll go with the majority and rate it a '6'.

* The only other one I can think of offhand is the much higher-budget "Dracula Untold" (2014).

Ahistorical portray

[wizzard_bane · 2/10 · 21 May 2008]

As an avid reader of Romanian history, I held great expectations from this movie. I understood the movie lacked the necessary resources to stage the great battles that took place, but I was still hoping for a fair portray of Vlad and his environment. I was therefore greatly disappointed when both Vlad and one of his closest servants wore skin pants, almost resembling the rock-and-roll days of the 80s. The movie enforces a Gothic impression of Wallachia, following the stereotype created by vampire movies instead of offering a true historical depiction of the country.

The battles are embarrassing to watch. In 1467, Mehmed II invaded Wallachia with up to 90,000 men. Vlad possessed over some 22,000 men, while 7,000 were sent to defend Chilia against his cousin, Stephen, who ruled Moldavia. In the movie, the battle is presented with the Ottomans skirmishing the army of what someone would believe to be Van Halen. Apart from the ahistorical depiction of the costumes, Hollywood added things that have no bearing to history. Vlad's conflict with the Orthodox priests is not documented, nor is it documented that he was to be killed by a priest when he was an infant. Vlad's brother, Radu the Handsome, is more accurately portrayed, but the two never fought a duel. The presence of other historical characters which had great influence on the development of Vlad's reign, are absent.

One could go on in an endless circle on why this movie is poor, ahistorical, and anachronistic; but it wouldn't be worth it. This is just a poor B-movie that failed in everything it set out to do.

A very pleasant surprise. Mostly historical, mostly good.

[stormruston · 8/10 · 21 August 2005]

This is a very loosely biographical based movie on Vlad Dracula, and it was a very refreshing change.

Roger Daltrey is the weakest actor, and he is pretty good.

Rudolf Martin was perfect for the role of Dracula, what a mix of passion, and vanity.

The story is fact based and if you know your history you can see it weaved though-out this tale. The sets are amazing for a fairly low budget movie.The fight scenes are fair to slightly above average, but this movie is so strongly written you can forgive the weaker fight scenes.

One of the Best Dracula movies I have seen, and by far the best low budget historical(ish) Vlad movie I have seen.

I like the real one

[zep42 · 7/10 · 30 October 2006]

When Bram Stoker decided to name his famous vampire after a legendary Romanian prince, it had very very little to do with vampires at all. In fact there is only a small fraction of the original Dracula in the novel. The reality, as portrayed in this movie, is very different. Vlad was a brutal ruler, and he had his reasons. To call him evil would be ignorant. In Romanian folklore Vlad is celebrated as a national hero, and many still today pray for his return. Vlad was a patriot who took it to the limit - and beyond - since it seemed necessary at his time and situation! As for historical facts I can't tell for sure how much of this movie is true, but my research so far tells me it's between 50-75%.

Go rent this movie if you'd like to get closer to knowing the real Dracula. I guarantee he's more interesting than Stokers!

Dull and weak

[grantss · 3/10 · 16 October 2021]

The dramatized story of Dracula, looking at the historic events rather than the Hollywood version.

There's a reason just about every film you see of Dracula has him as a vampire or sadistic impaler. It makes for more entertaining viewing. This film purports to tell the true story of Dracula (well, it's in the title...) and while I'm not going to argue for or against or even investigate its accuracy, it's quite dull.

Really just a series of events sometimes tenuously linked, the plot is listless, unengaging and uninteresting. The story itself needn't have been dull but the writing is poor. In addition, direction is pretty basic and performances are largely hammy. Rudolf Martin is incredibly bad as Dracula and the supporting cast aren't much better. You know a film's a B-grade one when Roger Daltrey is in the cast.

Good interpretation of the history of Vlad Dracula

[croatiansensation29 · 26 March 2005]

I have always been fascinated by the history of Vlad Dracula, and am glad that someone finally decided to make a film of this fascinating man. Low budget or not, this film is a great interpretation of the history of the legend.

Not your typical Dracula film, this film tells the story of the real Dracula, who inspired the story by Bram Stoker. It shows his birth, to his reign as prince of Romania, to his death. Some of the scenes are based on fact, others, I'm sure, were written just for the film. I have quite a few historical books about the man, and yes, the atrocities shown in this movie, were in fact done by the man.

The film was filmed in Romania and Hungary, so that does add to the realism of the story. The film is low budget, but even so, the sword fights had excellent choreography, and the special effects were above par for the budget. The only drawback for me was the length. Only 90 minutes.

All in all, this movie is worth a rental by both historical buffs, and horror fans. Hopefully someone will make a big screen version of this story one day. It sure does deserve one.

Not the true story but a good enough one nevertheless.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 30 September 2011]

The story of Dracula is one of the best horror stories of all time but the story of the historical figure, Vlad the Impaler, on which Dracula is partly based, is at least just as good and interesting. This movie presents itself as the true story of Vlad the Impaler, or Dracula as they say but the movie has neither the quality, story or resources to really be considered to be the definitive story about Vlad the Impaler, or Dracula's origins.

But most important thing; it isn't really being historically accurate in the first place. It doesn't do the true story of Vlad much justice and while watching this movie you're being left puzzled as to why he is still considered to be a national hero by the Romanian people. You can blame it on the budget really. Because the movie didn't had lots of money to spend, it sticked more to some of its melodrama and talking moments, while ignoring all of the important battles fought and the monstrosities committed by Vlad the Impaler.

The movie seems to be afraid of it that we might start hating on the main characters. It's the reason why it makes Vlad look like a reasonable family man, while he in fact was a cruel, sadistic man, responsible for the death of tens of thousands, also mostly innocents. It might also be because of the miscast Rudolf Martin, who looks far too gentle and sophisticated for the main role of the villain-hero Vlad. He never comes across as a strong, powerful leader, that strikes fear into people's hearts.

It's also quite puzzling as to why if this movie wanted to tell the true story of Vlad the Impaler, why does he end up becoming Dracula by the end, while of course in fact the historical person Vlad had nothing to do with the character Dracula. Perhaps they were planning or secretly hoping on doing on sequel, telling the Dracula tale with some of the same actors out of this movie.

But there is really more wrong with the story, or rather said the way the story gets told. It's a quite short movie and this can be seen back in its way of storytelling. The movie too often makes sudden jumps, especially toward the end. It's quite ridicules at times, for instance when Vlad bans his wife from his castle. 2 minutes later he is asking her for forgiveness and 5 minutes later again they are living together again happily, like nothing ever happened. Or when Vald gets captured and set free again, in the time-span of maybe just 2 minutes. This approach completely ruins some of the movie its potential good dramatic or powerful moments.

However when taking into consideration that this is a low-budget TV production, I have to say that it's really not a bad one. Sure it tells a kind of weak story but the movie at least never becomes a bad or uninteresting one to watch. I have seen far worse, that's for sure!

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A different take on Vlad III a.k.a. Vlad Dracula, prince of Romania.

[scobbah · 5/10 · 2 May 2006]

Here's another take on the legend of Vlad III a.k.a. Vlad Dracula, prince of Romania during the late Fifteenth century. Luckily, this flick is not the regular vampire stuff, but an effort to partly cover Vlad's biography and partly to make another plot out of this infamous prince's actions in history. I must say that for being an adapted release aimed at television, this flick does pretty OK. Too often flicks which are aimed at television release only, become pretty poor due to low budgets in combination with wet director dreams. Here, they've somehow managed to pull all things pretty well together and it doesn't really feel as though it really is a super-B-flick.

The actors' performance is generally OK, nothing that spoils it that is. For the plot and the development of it, those who are interested and have studied Vlad III might wrinkle their eyebrows a bit now and then, as the chronology skips a little now and then. All in all, it's an OK release and I'm happy to see a piece which is actually trying to cover more of the real Vlad III, compared to the more classic two-holes-in-the-neck vampire flicks which there are too many of already. 5/10 - an OK grade that is, you won't spoil your time completely and the flick is neat to kill some time with.

Not a movie about vampires! ... or is it?

[UnderworldRocks · 6/10 · 10 January 2014]

I am really confused.

Is this about vampires or not? Mostly, Dracula is related to Vampire. So at the first glimpse of the word "Dracula" in the title one may think this film has to do with vampires. Besides, look at the poster! Look at the sharp teeth, big fangs! Yes, must be a vampire film!

Then, while watching, one needs not finish the entire film to figure out that vampire is hardly related here, and that this is a biographical type of story about the historical figure Vlad the Impaler, the national hero of Romania, as the title continues to suggest: the "true story".

BUT, at the end of the film, supernatural elements started to appear as Vlad Dracula rose from the coffin... Oh! Wow... I'm speechless, dumbfounded, lost, confused... So, the "true story", uh?

It can't be about vampires because 99.99% of the film has nothing to do with them. If so, then it doesn't live up to that vampire face on the poster!

It can't be about the true story of the HUMAN Vlad the Impaler, either, because the final sequence suggests the appearance of the returning dead, which can't be true. If so, then it doesn't live up to its title which is clearly stated as "The True Story"! I am all confused...

Isn't that poster misleading? Or is it the filmmakers' intention to be ambiguous at the disorienting ending? I'm all lost... I don't know what I just saw...

Maybe it's just the filmmakers' own interpretation of this famous Romanian.

Now, about the film's quality.

Ridley Scott once said that ALIEN (1979) was a B movie with a Class A treatment.

Well, following that logic, this "Dark Prince" is an A movie with a Class B treatment.

Because the story of Dracula, even the real historical figure, could have great potential of being epic.

But this one is just a movie made for TV, so naturally we cannot expect to see styles of Gladiator or Lord of the Rings.

But one thing crucial is missing: Vlad the Impaler's cruelty. The Dracula portrayed here is young and handsome, but not nearly cruel enough. The thing for which Vlad became so famous, the legendary bloody field of Turkish soldiers being impaled, is missing. Maybe it's not the filmmakers' fault. Like I said, this is a TV film which is not meant to be big.

Despite all the cons, the story, the characters, the dialogs, are all pretty engaging.

I once saw Bathory (2008) by Juraj Jakubisko, a film about the legendary Blood Countess, and it was epic, extremely well done!

Hope someday a great director could helm an epic film about the real Dracula, Vlad the Impaler?

Only time will tell...

Not Really The True Story....

[wandernn1-81-683274 · 4/10 · 29 March 2022]

For claiming to be the True Story of Dracula it doesn't really hit the mark. It does tell a decent story however. Acting was alright. There's a lot of reviews that explain it better. If there's a score higher than 4, it's wrong. Haha. 4/10.

If you prefer reality (mostly) over myth then this film is a must see

[nigelridehalgh · 9/10 · 3 November 2006]

The true story of Vlad Dracula (The Impaler) is often confused by the propaganda that was circulated at the time by the Turks, and borrowed by his enemies on the Christian side of the frontier. Although this film portrays Vlad as more loved than feared by his people, which history disputes, the basic structure is very accurate. The acting, the sets, the scenes are all excellent; if all films made on this sort of budget were as good, Hollywood could close tomorrow. Even if the history doesn't interest you at all then watch it just for the quality of production. Please note that this is not a horror film - just a realistic representation of the Balkans in medieval times.

Pretty good actually

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 7/10 · 10 February 2004]

Even though there are no vampires. It was based on the TRUE story of Vlad the Impailor. I really enjoyed this documentary. And it was pretty funny seeing Rudolf playing Dracula again after his famous apperence on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" as Dracula as well. If you enjoy Dracula movies, I'm not sure if you would get into this. But if you are interested in learning about how Bram got his ideas, then watch it.

7/10

Skip it

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 14 June 2021]

Here's one I watched so you don't have to: DARK PRINCE: THE TRUE STORY OF DRACULA, a US TV movie from 2000 shot in Romania with a local supporting cast to add to the authenticity. Rudolf Martin plays 'Vlad Dracula', a warlord who stands up against the invading Turkish hordes and soon becomes renowned for his sheer savagery on the battlefield and beyond it. It's a great story for a film but sadly this is a television movie through and through, so despite a handful of bloody moments it's never really as sadistic as it could be. It's also very cheap looking, dodgily acted and mired in the shaky-cam that always seems to crop up in these movies from the 2000s. Of course huge liberties are taken with history and some of the costumes are far-out. Peter Weller and Roger Daltrey (!) both show up in support. Skip it.

I'm always a little bit suspicious of made-for-TV movies, but I'll definitely recommend this one.

[pkeets · 9/10 · 31 October 2000]

I'm always a little bit suspicious of made-for-TV movies, but this is a good one. It's an excellent script and good directing--plus everyone turns in an excellent performance. Rudolph Martin is especially terrific as Vlad Dracula, and Christopher Brand makes Bruno a very striking character. Jane Marsh comes across as very delicately beautiful, and the kids are unusually convincing. Roger Daltrey does an excellent transition from middle-aged to old, and Peter Weller emits no clue to give away the ending. There's great support from the supporting cast.

The producers have handled the subject extremely well, considering how much gore they could have spilled, and it turns out to be an intense, dramatic movie. It investigates the characters and suggests how they were warped by the times and politics, and also touches on the metaphysical implications of such viciousness. They've let up a little too much at the end, I think, and tried to skew the whole thing so it looks like a romance--would have been better to end it with just a shot of the castle.

one of the scariest movies you will ever see

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 7/10 · 5 March 2015]

This a prequel to Dracula and it is one of the scariest movie you will ever see. It has a great story line. Great acting. Great special effects. It is not as scary as Dracula (1992). It is not as scary as Dracula (1931) It is not as scary as Nosferatu. It not as good Dracula dead and loving it. It is not as good as The horror of Dracula. It not as scary as Dracula (1970). It is not as scary as Dracula (1974). It is not as scary as Dracula (1977). It is not as scary as Dracula (1979) It is not as scary as Dracula's cures (2002). It is not as scary as Dracula (2006). It not as scary as Dracula (2011). It is not as scary as The terror of Dracula. But those are hard movie to top. It is still a very scary movie. See it.

Interesting meld of history and myth-

[André-7 · 5/10 · 3 August 2001]

The "true" story is burried somewhere in there, no doubt. One shouldn't quibble too much when this is the closest we've ever gotten to a real biopic for this truly awesome historical figure.

Vlad lived in an epoch of utter barbarity and religious fanaticism in which he was forced to surpass any possible rivals for cruelty and psychotic behavious. This does not excuse him, mind you, but I think it allows us to understand him a little better. Both he and Adolphe Hitler got the trains running on time (as Stephen King would say).

For those of you who blindly adore the Francis Ford Coppola travesty... rent the Richard Matheson scripted 1972 telefilm based on Stoker's novel starring Jack Palance. Matheson was the guy who originally brought the historical Dracula myth together with the Mina reicarnated idea. Or better yet, if you can lay your hands on a copy, the Louis Jourdain version produced by the BBC which is absolutely faithful to the Stoker novel.