Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

UnderworldRocks 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, during watching, one needs not finish the entire film to figure out that vampire is hardly related here, 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...

manjodude Although the movie makers advertise the story as true, lot of online sources mention that the ending in this movie is fictitious. Anyway, the Dracula story is interesting and the performances were good. But from start to end, the movie doesn't really hold my attention. Average action or drama sequences and the ending was also quite damp. I don't know what else to talk about it. Among the actors, Rudolf Martin as Vlad Dracula does a fine job and even Jane March as his wife comes up with an emotionally strong act. If the fight sequences were more engaging, this movie would have scored better. Eventually, no scene really lingers in your mind. Probably, the movie budget was an issue? Verdict: Passable fare. Wish the Dracula(movie) had more teeth :)

Zytahar 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...

ClericOni 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.