Dracula Untold

[Sgt_Gath]

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

a Dracula movie was PG-13?.....that takes a lot away right there......did they make up an origin for him?.....

 

[Sgt_Gath]

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

a Dracula movie was PG-13?.....that takes a lot away right there......did they make up an origin for him?.....

Just his historical origin, pretty much.

The movie is basically about Vlad the Impaler becoming a vampire to fight off the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

a Dracula movie was PG-13?.....that takes a lot away right there......did they make up an origin for him?.....

Just his historical origin, pretty much.

The movie is basically about Vlad the Impaler becoming a vampire to fight off the Ottoman Empire.

Vlad wasnt a nice guy....the commercial gives one the impression that Vlad cared about his people...that he had "feelings"....

 

[ChrisL]

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

I enjoyed this version of Dracula. I found that it pretty much stuck with the original Bram Stoker version of Dracula. The book was EXCELLENT. Have you ever read it?

 

[Sgt_Gath]

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

a Dracula movie was PG-13?.....that takes a lot away right there......did they make up an origin for him?.....

Just his historical origin, pretty much.

The movie is basically about Vlad the Impaler becoming a vampire to fight off the Ottoman Empire.

Vlad wasnt a nice guy....the commercial gives one the impression that Vlad cared about his people...that he had "feelings"....

Yea... That was frankly one of the movie's problems.

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

I enjoyed this version of Dracula. I found that it pretty much stuck with the original Bram Stoker version of Dracula. The book was EXCELLENT. Have you ever read it?

I haven't, unfortunately. I did like the movie though.

I tried to read the book a loooong time ago, but I think I was too young to really get anything out of it.

This took a lot of cues from the movie, but it wasn't a direct prequel.

 

[ChrisL]

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

a Dracula movie was PG-13?.....that takes a lot away right there......did they make up an origin for him?.....

Just his historical origin, pretty much.

The movie is basically about Vlad the Impaler becoming a vampire to fight off the Ottoman Empire.

Vlad wasnt a nice guy....the commercial gives one the impression that Vlad cared about his people...that he had "feelings"....

Yea... That was frankly one of the movie's problems.

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

I enjoyed this version of Dracula. I found that it pretty much stuck with the original Bram Stoker version of Dracula. The book was EXCELLENT. Have you ever read it?

I haven't, unfortunately. I did like the movie though.

I tried to read the book a loooong time ago, but I think I was too young to really get anything out of it.

This took a lot of cues from the movie, but it wasn't a direct prequel.

You should try reading it again. I read it in college for a literature class, and it was an excellent read IMO. I really love those time period pieces though.

 

[Sgt_Gath]

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

a Dracula movie was PG-13?.....that takes a lot away right there......did they make up an origin for him?.....

Just his historical origin, pretty much.

The movie is basically about Vlad the Impaler becoming a vampire to fight off the Ottoman Empire.

Vlad wasnt a nice guy....the commercial gives one the impression that Vlad cared about his people...that he had "feelings"....

Yea... That was frankly one of the movie's problems.

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

I enjoyed this version of Dracula. I found that it pretty much stuck with the original Bram Stoker version of Dracula. The book was EXCELLENT. Have you ever read it?

I haven't, unfortunately. I did like the movie though.

I tried to read the book a loooong time ago, but I think I was too young to really get anything out of it.

This took a lot of cues from the movie, but it wasn't a direct prequel.

You should try reading it again. I read it in college for a literature class, and it was an excellent read IMO. I really love those time period pieces though.

Thanks for the tip!

I'll have to give it a shot. We actually might still have a copy laying around, come to think of it. lol

 

[ChrisL]

a Dracula movie was PG-13?.....that takes a lot away right there......did they make up an origin for him?.....

Just his historical origin, pretty much.

The movie is basically about Vlad the Impaler becoming a vampire to fight off the Ottoman Empire.

Vlad wasnt a nice guy....the commercial gives one the impression that Vlad cared about his people...that he had "feelings"....

Yea... That was frankly one of the movie's problems.

Anyone else seen this one?

I just saw it this afternoon. I'd give it about a 6.5 out of 10, overall.

Weirdly, however, I found myself both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by it at the same time.

First off, it was actually a lot better than the trailer makes it seem. The action was entertaining, the cast was pretty decent (Charles Dance, as always, was awesome), and the story flowed pretty well. It even managed to pull off the "hero falling to darkness" storyline in a fairly believable manner - or, at the very least, in such a manner as to put any of George Lucas' godawful Star Wars prequels to shame.

On the other hand, however, they tried to keep a fairly light PG-13 "swashbuckling" tone to the film, where it really should have been R-rated, dark, heavy, brooding, and violent. That, unfortunately, kept the movie from being anywhere near as epic or memorable as it could have been.

Dracula, for instance, never really becomes "evil," so much as (quite justifiably) angry and vengeful. Likewise, many scenes that could have been very powerful if done correctly are robbed of that by not being given enough build-up, or even really pay-off, for them to have full emotional impact.

I mean... Ugh. It's frankly kind of frustrating, because with just a few simple changes to the story and tone of the movie, this could have been a freaking classic.

Instead, it's simply "meh."

They did, however, leave it open for a sequel, and this is supposed to be the lead-in movie for Universal's new "1940s Movie Monster Reboot" cinematic universe.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

I enjoyed this version of Dracula. I found that it pretty much stuck with the original Bram Stoker version of Dracula. The book was EXCELLENT. Have you ever read it?

I haven't, unfortunately. I did like the movie though.

I tried to read the book a loooong time ago, but I think I was too young to really get anything out of it.

This took a lot of cues from the movie, but it wasn't a direct prequel.

You should try reading it again. I read it in college for a literature class, and it was an excellent read IMO. I really love those time period pieces though.

Thanks for the tip!

I'll have to give it a shot. We actually might still have a copy laying around, come to think of it. lol

I think you will really like it. It's NOTHING like Twilight!

 

[Sgt_Gath]

I think you will really like it. It's NOTHING like Twilight!

Let's hope not!

 

[ChrisL]

I think you will really like it. It's NOTHING like Twilight!

Let's hope not!

That was classic Gath, awesome!

 

[Sgt_Gath]

I think you will really like it. It's NOTHING like Twilight!

Let's hope not!

That was classic Gath, awesome!

Eh. I try.

 

[ChrisL]

I think you will really like it. It's NOTHING like Twilight!

Let's hope not!

That was classic Gath, awesome!

Eh. I try.

You do good work!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Dracula" 1897, Bram Stoker. If there's anything left 'untold' I'd think they're inventing it out of thin air.