Vlad (2003) User Reviews

Great concept, horrible movie

[letterbox_of_kj · 2/10 · 8 November 2003]

Well, this is one movie that in my opinion really sucked. It could have had all the potential of being great, but instead it turned out to be everything else but. The acting wasn't terrible, but the story was. At least the cutting and the way in which the story proceeded.

A lot of side stories were never followed up, and I can think of a thousand other things that would have been much more relevant to the story that they could have included in this movie. I like, or rather love, a good movie about Vlad, Dracula or vampires, but in this case I was really disappointed. Vlad wasn't even scary.

This could have been a good movie, but the script totally f**ked it up. The love affair between Justin and that old-english dead babe was totally uncalled for and just felt unnecessary. A lot of things didn't make sense at all and... well, I don't know what I'm saying anymore.

Oh yeah, one more thing: how cool is it to have the main villain (and in this case it is goddamn DRACULA) strangling his victims??? Not cool at all. This definitely made Vlad seem weaker than he really should be.

Yeah yeah. The movie sucked. So be it.

Ambition Should Not Necessarily Raise the Rating of the Film

[siegling · 3/10 · 4 March 2006]

A lot of people in the comments are giving this movie more stars than it deserves for ideas, or a different approach to the Dracula mythos than the usual vampire schlock. And in fact the makers of this film reached similar points to the novel "The Historian" from different paths. It is obvious from their dates of publication that both researched the topic heavily but neither influenced the other.

Anyway, perhaps it started out with a stronger script and got destroyed in editing, but the mess that we're left with at the end is pretty bad. Unforgivably bad plot movement, TV-movie cinematography and terrible editing whack this film in the end. You might enjoy parts of it, but the end result is a confused mess. There are good performances - by the entire cast, mind you - and lovely, appropriate locations. Certainly better than the abysmal 2005 "Way of the Vampire", but unfortunately the shortcomings outweigh the positives here.

the return of goat-boy!

[industrygeek · 3/10 · 2 April 2006]

I just saw this movie last night, cause it look interesting. An award-winning and critically acclaimed b-movie. It should work as a warning call, i know... Because if it won an award at some horror movie festival... and some critics liked it... there's a good chance it's really really pretentious! And what do you know? It was! Ha HA HAA! Some people say here on IMDb that it is an "intellegent vampire movie". This movie has the same problems most Asian horror movies has. Its too damn "smart" for its own good. And its also supposed to be romantic and sexy, because anyone with half a brain knows that the whole vampire mythology and Dracula is all about sex. But this was more like watching one of those Harlequin movies my mother likes. I'm not banging independent vampire flicks... but i've seen better ones... and worse... Vlad is better then say... way of the vampire. And in i'ts defense i can say that Hollywood hasn't put out a decent vampire movie in... well... i guess the early 70's. And yes i am counting the chick flick "bram stokers Dracula".

Oh, and if they ever make a movie about Lenin, Billy Zane should play the lead! Anyway, don't rent or buy this... pick up a copy of "dracula 2001"... it's rubbish too... but you can always amuse yourself by staring at Jeri Ryans tits. Unless you're in to the whole goat boy look, then Vlad is the movie for you!

Simply put, average

[krotkruton · 5/10 · 18 January 2006]

I read a couple of the other reviews of this movie and didn't think that most of them were fair. I really think this was just an average movie, not a good or bad movie, just average.

I watch a lot of movies and love anything about vampires, but this movie didn't really do it for me. There was a lot of information about Vlad, but there wasn't a whole lot of info about vampires. Without giving anything away, I'll just say that the causes are Vlad's vampirism were nothing you haven't heard before if you've seen more than one vampire movie. With all the build up about Vlad, I was hoping for a more original plot. However, I don't think that because the movie failed to be original that it should count against it, I just think it shouldn't be praised for it either.

Besides the plot, the movies did have a pretty good production value. I'd say that it was a bit better than a made-for-TV movie but obviously not a big budget film. Just because it's an independent movie doesn't mean that its great. Independent companies put out plenty of bad movies, but this falls somewhere in-between.

I wouldn't say this movie is worth watching, but I don't regret watching it either.

It shows something not revealed in other movies (AT FIRST!!!)

[Danelush · 1/10 · 22 March 2005]

***SPOILERS*** In the first moments of the movie I thought: "Well, it starts well, shows something not shown in other movies!" I refer to the sequence where the father and Mircea, the eldest brother of Vlad were having a gruesome end!

But from this moment on, the touch with the reality is absent.

First of all, Vlad Tepes' father, Vlad Basarab, was known as Vlad Dracul not because he was part of a secret organization, as it was suggested in the movie, but for the following reason: He received from the emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg the highest Order that was given to a knight in those troubled days - higher than The Teutons' Order, The Order of the Maltese Knights or The Order of the Knights from Rhodos. That was The Dragon's Order. In Romanian, Dracul means The Devil. And from Dragon to Devil was only a small step.

Than, Vlad and his brother, Radu The Handsome, weren't even there when their relatives died. They were forced guests at the Sublime Porte as a pledge that their father wouldn't have risen again against the Turks.

Another weird thing in this movie is that misinterprets an old Romanian tradition. When a young girl dies at the age of marriage, she is buried dressed in a wedding dress, as a sign of her purity. She is not wedded with her fiancé, as Linsey says in the movie. But I guess, the one who wrote the script was after the sensational, at any costs.

And what was that blur with the rambling English lass and the wanna-be knight, Justin?!

Vlad Tepes (now known as Draculea or Dracula) has punished very harsh the thieves, liars and the enemies. And that scared people as hell. Yes, he was harsh even for those days. But efficient!!! While he ruled the country nobody dared to still something!!! LOL! That's why in my country HE is a national HERO!!!!

And the verses recited in the movie (wroted By Mihai Eminescu) shows it very clear: "Why aren't you coming back, our Lord Tzepesh, to seize them,/To divide them in two packs : in in-sanes and crooks/And by force hoard them up in two large prison houses/And set the jail and the cuckoos house ablaze.

So, in conclusion, if you want to see a movie about vampires that doesn't scare not even a cat, well... you might watch this one. But if you would like to see a REAL movie about Vlad Tepes, I suggest Vlad Tepes aka Vlad the Impaler: The True Life of Dracula (1979).

bad like the bit of a drunken vampire....

[padishar · 1/10 · 3 November 2003]

so, I thought, nice, a new dracula movie, a bit of suspense, erotic, history and horror - but I was really wrong.

The actors look nice, like Barbie and Ken are running through the woods... the costume design, acting and score is like a tv show.. like hercules/ xena.

Mr. Zane, did a good job in dying fast (after 30 minutes).

The plot and the way through the movie is such badly cut - you are feeling - you must have been fallen asleep and missed the important parts.

The score, is as bad, as the screenplay... it does not fit to the screenplay and did nothing in favor for the quality of the scenes.

I got trouble to find a category for this kind of movie, perhaps, you can call it: REAL-TIME-HORROR-EXPERIENCE it is so horrible to watch and wait for the end.... so, don´t waste your time and money.

tsk tsk

[thoraj · 1/10 · 7 February 2007]

Tsk tsk Billy Zane! I am horrified by this flick and some of the comments it has gotten. Original storyline in some aspects but the filmmakers could have done much better if they had put any thought at all into it. I just can't believe that anyone would like this... the only positive things I can say is that the locations were nice. The actors were horrible and completely unbelievable. I love Brad Dourif and I know that he sometimes makes odd choices as to his work so I can't fault him or his performance but there is just not enough of him. But Billy Zane : what were you thinking? The role is not good and you didn't even give a decent performance! Don't see this film... rent anything else in fact. Anything, really, trust me on this. I am a huge fans of all vampire flicks and this one has the honor of being the worst one I have ever seen.

Worst. Movie. Ever.

[seth_simes · 1/10 · 1 September 2006]

Horrible acting, no plot, and a woman who mysteriously travels in time for no reason whatsoever. Vlad doesn't have the dark, alluring charm that vampires are supposed to have, but instead wears a stressed maniacal gaze akin to that of a man having painful explosive diarrhea. Especially in the sex scenes, where he looks like he's about to spontaneously combust out of frustration of his ineptitude as a frightening vampire shrouded in torture and suffering.

But the special effect were great though. Oh wait, there were none other than the part where he climbs a wall (is pulled up the wall in a rope, on fast forward).

A Dracula film with no bite.

[poolandrews · 3/10 · 11 January 2009]

Vlad starts as four foreign exchange students arrive in Romania where they are to travel to the Carpathian mountains in order to conduct research on their respective thesis which all involve Dracula, Vampires, Romania or the legends surrounding them, a guy named Adrian (Billy Zane) & his mate Rafescu (Brad Dourif) accompanies them as guides. On the way they come across a time travelling woman named Ilona (Iva Hasperger) who was once married to the infamous Vlad Tepes (Francesco Quinn). One of the students Lindsey (Monica Davidescu) has a secret, she has a ancient necklace that belonged to Vlad & supposedly gave him his powers & intends to return it after her Grandfather stole it during the second World War. But the necklace gives Vlad his power back & he sets out to reclaim his wife & the necklace...

Written & directed by Michael D. Sellers this confusing mess of a romantic Vampire drama doesn't have a lot going for it, in fact I would have little hesitation in saying Vlad is rather anaemic. The script is a mess, there's all these flashback sequences that don't make much sense as well as ideas that just seem out of place like the whole sub-plot with the necklace & Ilona who for some strange reason that is never explained manages to travel hundreds of years into the future seemingly at random. Vlad isn't really a traditional Vampire film to be fair to it, it focuses on Vlad (the real life person who the character of Dracula was supposedly based on) & tries to paint him as a tortured soul as we see these annoying flashbacks to his past & what he has suffered. A character driven film about Dracula? What is the world coming to? Vlad never drinks anyone's blood, he randomly appears about halfway through the film with no explanation, he can walk in the sunlight & can change into a Wolf. He doesn't seem to have much of a plan except get his wife back & the necklace, hardly the most exciting plot or motivation for a character ever. The other character's are no better, no-one is likable & they all do stupid things & a sub-plot about a secret organisation trying to steal the necklace is raised but then completely forgotten about. The narrative is also very bitty, the location changes constantly with little regard to continuity & scenes don't seem to flow into each other that smoothly which left me somewhat confused.

So the actual story & script has virtually zero entertainment value as far as I am concerned but to give Vlad some credit it does look quite nice on occasion, there's a nice visual style to it & while sometimes it can look a bit too staged it's pretty nice to look at. One thing I have to mention are the accents, they are absolutely terrible & is Billy Zane meant to be Romanian or Russian? The thick poorly executed accents make some of the dialogue hard to understand & at certain points character's randomly start talking in Romanian which is annoying too. Vlad has no gore whatsoever, in fact I don't think a single drop of human blood is seen during the entire film, a Wolf is shot at the end & it's body is seen but that's it. This is a very soft film. There are one or two clumsily edited sex scenes randomly inserted into the film but they don't improve it any. Vlad goes for storytelling & drama rather than scares & gore which is fine if you have a good engaging story that's well written, unfortunately Vlad doesn't.

Actually shot in Buchrest in Romania the film certainly has an authentic look & feel about it, as I said it does look quite nice & I'll give it that. One of the hardest working men in the acting business Billy Zane is the 'name' actor here & he doesn't seem that interested with a poor accent & has the good sense to be killed off before the hour mark, the only other actor of note is Brad Dourif who is a genre regular.

Vlad is part historical drama, part romance, part horror & all crap. Sorry but that's the way I feel about it, to be honest it didn't do anything for me at all & I just thought it was a mess of ideas none of which come together with any coherency. Not recommend.

It's alright

[hopelex1 · 5/10 · 7 January 2006]

I watched Vlad not once, but twice. I love vampire movies, but this was just one of many that was less than thrilling. It wasn't the worst, but it wasn't the best either.

I tried to give it another chance and I admit that I understood it better the second time around, but like so many others before this, it just didn't do it for me.

I enjoyed Brad Dourif and Billy Zane, but there roles weren't quite what I expected. I'm fans of their work, but not really of this film.

If you're a hardcore vampire movie buff, I would probably say that you will get bored with portions of this film. Again, it's not the worst, but it's a little dry....

Vlad is the perfect mixture

[divinethomas · 9/10 · 26 August 2004]

I've read other people's comments and I'm surprised that a couple had so many problems with this movie. Vlad is the perfect mixture of historical fact and Romanian myth. It takes the whole vampire myth and returns it to it's rightful owner. Vlad Tepes was the basis of Stoker's Dracula and the vampire myth started in Romania and it's surrounding countries. I really liked how this movie didn't have the cinematic bloodsucker that we are all too used to, but instead had a tortured spirit that was doomed to wander the earth. The photography and locations are impressive (shot in the Carpathians) and the characters are believable. I'd definitely recommend this intelligent vampire story to anyone who is a genre fan, into historical pieces, or even just needs something to watch on a Friday night. I think that anyone who comes into this movie looking to see it for what it is, not some hack and slash horror film but a look into the historical Vlad mixed with a modern day adventure element, will enjoy the movie.

A remarkable and sadly overlooked vampire movie

[jluis1984 · 6/10 · 23 January 2006]

First of all, "Vlad" is a different kind vampire movie. It has almost nothing in common with the typical vampire movie and moves further in the Gothic fantasy genre, horror-fantasy would be a better term. Far away from typical clichés of the genre, this movie presents us a twist in the well known history of Count Dracula as it removes any link to Bram Stoker's novel and focuses on the myths that inspired Stoker's novel. This movie is a tale of Romanian vampires.

The plot is a bit confusing, but at its core, it is about four graduated students who are selected by a Rumanian organization that will fund their research for their final thesis as their projects deal with Rumanian folklore and/or Vlad Tepes, the legendary ruler of Valachia who inspired Stoker to write the famous novel. The organization, lead by Radescu (Brad Douriff), is in fact a facade for an ancient order created by Tepes centuries ago, and their purposes will reveal when one of the students, Linsey (Monica Davidescu), reveals her secret: Her family had stolen a medallion from Vlad's grave.

The secret powers of the medallion will create chaos as the members of the order try to find it, for different purposes everyone, and the students are in the middle of the struggle aided by Adrian (Billy Zane), a loyal agent of Radescu who tries to avoid the rebirth of Vlad.

Now, the plot is for once very clever and quite interesting. The writers really did a great research when they wrote the story as it includes pieces of real history, Romanian folklore and Vlad Tepes' biography. Of course, spiced with fantasy and horror elements. Nevertheless, this is also its big problem, the movie tries to accomplish many tasks and this creates a confusing script. Certainly, a bigger budget would have resulted in a longer movie, and a longer movie would have fixed the confusion.

Depsite that huge problem, the movie works at its level, with an incredibly looking visuals, thanks to the beautiful Romanian locations and the amazing camera-work. It's indeed surprising how much they could make with so small budget.

Sadly, the budget hurts the SFX and they look as if they came from a cheap TV series. This indeed decreases a work of good quality, but fortunately, they focus on acting and not in SFX, so it is not that notorious.

The acting is very good, and the young actors show promise. While some of the characters were not very developed, the actors did a good job with the little they had and the result is pretty good. Again, a bit more of care in the script would have resulted in outstanding performances, but yet, the actors carry the film with grace.

Last but not least, the most remarkable feature of this movie is without a doubt the music. It is an outstanding work and it is a shame that the movie had not been more known, because the music is really outstanding. Few times a b-movie has a score this good and the movie really makes the most of it.

While probably this movie is not Oscar material, it is certainly among the best vampire movies of this decade. Or at least, among the most original. A great fantasy movie. 6.5/10

i thought it was pretty bad all around

[disdressed12 · 3/10 · 7 November 2007]

i will be fair here and say that i didn't watch the whole movie.the reason is i found it way too slow and boring,plus it just looked too low budget.low budget isn't always a bad thing,when the rest of the movie is good.sometimes you don't even notice the budget.for me that is not the case with this movie.i have heard of some of the actors in this movie,and they've done some good work in the past.but in tis movie,it just seemed like no one wanted to be there.this is just my opinion and i could be wrong,but that's how i saw things.anyway,the bottom line is,from what i saw,this movie wasn't going anywhere fast.i give Vlad a 3/10

terrible script

[darrenbarnes · 2/10 · 26 September 2006]

Most published novels and short stories are pretty good.

Sure there are a few stinkers, but on the whole the stories are worth your time.

The same certainly can't be said for the boat load of poor movie scripts out there, and Vlad proudly continues that trend. A promising storyline with a terrible script and acting. Many of the actor's lines were laughable, and numerous scenes didn't flow properly.

Whether it's independent or big budget, I can't believe a studio would make a film such as Vlad, with a script that could be outdone by many high school English students.

"Vlad, Vlad, Vlad the impaler! Vlad, Vlad, he could have been a sailor!"

[Vomitron_G · 4/10 · 21 February 2010]

Go google the 'summary' above and find out which song by whom these lyrics are from. Hèhèh.

Okay, never mind that, I'll get to the point and keep it a simple one: VLAD's a pretty lame and pointless movie about... ehrr, yeah, well, actually, what was it about again? Let's see: a group of students are sent off to study the myth of Vlad Tepes, aka Dracula. They visit some historical sites. Then a girl from a few centuries ago shows up and so does the ancient Vlad, through a portal in time, or something. Apparently, one of the students has this amulet that should be buried again to lay the evil Vlad to rest... Pretty boring movie where nothing really happens and one that occasionally shoves some historical facts concerning Vlad The Impaler down our throats, instead of showing him committing his vile acts. Vlad just seems to be nothing else but a fool in love... Billy Zane was a hoot with his Rrrrrroumanian accent. I had quite a laugh with the scene where he unsuspectingly encounters Dracula in the woods. Without any hesitation whatsoever, Mr. Zane starts hitting Mr. Tepes in the face, real hard. Pretty funny. Brad Douriff was wasted on this film and really hasn't got that much screen time. This flick is for Vlad Tepes-completists only...

Unbelievably good, great musical score

[buddybrd · 8/10 · 23 October 2003]

This movie kept my attention, and kept it till the end. The actors all did a solid job of making their parts live. Brad Dourif and Billy Zane gave the film class and credibility. Kam Heskin is a hottie, and carried her part well. Francesco Quinn makes your skin crawl in this horror genre tale, admirably making the role of Vlad the Impaler come to life and chilling you down to your socks! (He looks a lot like his dad Anthony Quinn in some of the scenes) The Romanian actress (whom I've never seen before) did a great job of looking terrified & sexy. I wonder if she speaks any English? If not, she did a great job of handling the wordy role. The musical score really punches up the terror in the scary scenes, and sounds like a score from a Hollywood major film. This movie was filmed on location in Romania, with the major horror parts actually filmed in the Carpathians at Vlad's real castle. The Dracula character takes on a new & completely different direction, which in no way mimics former Dracula movies. I enjoyed this one....

A Very Confused Story

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 5 July 2004]

In Romania, four students (two Americans – Jeff Meyer (Paul Popowich) and his sister Alexa (Kam Heskin); one British – Justin (Nicholas Iron); and one Romanian – Linsey (Monica Davidescu)) are selected by Radescu (Brad Dourif), the dean of a local university, and his assistant Adrian (Billy Zane) for a research about the life of the prince Vlad (Francesco Quinn). Linsey has a powerful necklace that belonged to Vlad, which was stolen many years ago by a former relative of her from the grave of Vlad. She intends to return it to the tomb. Meanwhile, a society that worships Vlad wants to retrieve the necklace. While in their way to the castle of Vlad, the group meets Ilona (Iva Hasperger), a woman from the Middle Ages, who was brought to the present days by the power of the necklace. Later they fight against the evil Vlad. Although having wonderful locations, photography and soundtrack and a cast with beautiful women, this movie does not work well, having a very confused story. With some improvements in the screenplay, it would be a good movie. The director and writer could at least spare the viewers from such a corny end. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): `Vlad – O Cavaleiro das Trevas' (`Vlad – The Knight of the Darkness')

Re: Where will it end.... ? by einherjer9

[divinethomas · 9/10 · 9 September 2004]

I'd like to make a few points to einherjer9. First of all, it's obvious by his "review" that he didn't see the movie, but instead read the synopsis and made a judgment... Second, this is a fun movie to watch that does delve quite a bit into the historical "Vlad Tepes", more so than any other fantasy/horror film ever has. If he wants to see a historical film about the actual "Impaler" then he should check out "Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula (2000)", which I'm sure he would trash too. Last... This is NOT a "Hollywood" film in my opinion. "Hollywood" films are the big studio movies that are cranked out without care for much more the making money. "Vlad" was made by an independent production company, in the vein of when independent meant something, not in the sense of independent like Miramax and Dreamworks. "Vlad" was made for what studios pay one actor to appear for five minutes in a "Friends" episode... Yet it looks better than most $50 million dollar movies. So all I can say to our friend "einherjer9" is that before he trashes "the independent film maker" he should at least have the courtesy to see the movie.

A cut above the run-of-the-mill horror film

[grammarbitch · 7/10 · 26 October 2005]

Vlad doesn't turn out to be the film you'd expect when you see that name, and it's much better and much more interesting than its cable/TiVo synopsis might lead one to believe. Because it's not just another vampire movie, or even a restless, tragic spirit movie. Vlad is an intriguing blend of historical fact and supernatural fiction. It's a movie with both a brain and a heart; the script believes its audience is at least IQ 80 and it doesn't treat the viewer as an imbecile, or an ADHD blood-and-guts freak who needs some lame-brained pseudo-action sequence every 7.5 seconds in order to stay interested in a film. Don't get me wrong; there's action, and there's plenty of supernatural trappings to Vlad. But there's also knowledge to be gained from the literate script, and heartstrings to be (rightfully) tugged by the backstory and plight of the tragic eponymous character. Good acting, superior writing and a marvelous grace note ending make Vlad a film that will stay with you long after you've first viewed it, and that only improves on repeat viewings. It's certainly not for everybody, but if you enjoy a film that doesn't insult your intelligence whilst telling you a fascinating story, then Vlad is the film for you. It could well become a classic if only more people were to take that chance and give it a try. It's really *that* good.

not a brainless teenage horror movie

[doc-207 · 10/10 · 12 December 2003]

This one kept my attention and is based more on the actual Vlad Tepes (Dracula) rather than Bram Stoker's version of the 15th century Prince. The movie is set in present day. Four graduate students venture to the Carpathian mountains of Romania to conduct research on the historical Vlad, one of them bears a necklace that Vlad was buried in. The group begins a two day 50 mile hiking trek through forests and mountains to a little known and inaccessible set of crumbling ruins at Poenari, a fortress built by the historical Vlad Tepes. The artifact, a 15th century necklace, brings Vlad back from the past along with several frightening experiences and inner visions. The acting is good and the movie is filmed on location in Romania where Vlad actually existed. Vlad is both historically accurate and a horror fantasy and is not your typical mindless horror film. This one is worth seeing and the musical score by Christopher Fields is fabulous.

A Quality, Intellectual, Immersive Dracula

[tabuno · 7/10 · 23 January 2019]

24 May 2005. This version of Dracula uses authentic location and the people of Romania to the best effect in this quality, independent production. With a sincerity and viciousness, Dracula is portrayed in historic terms without a soul or humanity. The acting is honest and mostly pure. With a limited budget, the special effects at times are a distraction while the music, however, resonates and merges with the mystical tension that surrounds this movie. At times, the dialogue and the characters tend to shade into stereotypical two-dimensions but only bits. Overall, this movie is superior to most flat attempts to recreate the Dracula mystique. Vlad has successfully caught the images, the historical context, the seductive power and vibrant horror/attraction of an age that appears in the present. This is an enjoyable, informative, and powerful movie that didn't quite have the resources to carry off a great movie. Seven out of Ten Stars.

A Must-See!

[tedbrooks47 · 10/10 · 31 August 2004]

I was lucky enough to catch this film at a screening in Los Angeles and enjoyed it immensely. What I liked most was the way the film blends all the classic elements in a traditional vampire film, but remains unique in its approach. Rather than relying on blood and gore, it portrays Vlad the Impaler as more than a monster. We're shown glimpses of his past and quickly empathize with his pain, even as we're terrified by his brutality.

The love stories woven into the film and the pace at which it's told keep you emotionally invested and on the edge of your seat. The tone and feel of romance, aided by the beautiful backdrop of the Carpathian mountains, is undeniable and moving.

The film carefully balances love and anguish while merging past and present worlds. Even though it's set in modern day, the film shows how we as people face the same struggles throughout our history. Vlad is incredibly well thought out and acted, and should be enjoyable to a wide range of people. The nudity and violence in the film is done with taste and purpose and I'd recommend this film to anyone that wants a romantic saga about one of the world's most notorious monsters.

Such unrealized promise!

[decusa · 6/10 · 21 March 2008]

This is a pretty watchable movie as it is--but lost so much of its potential in the final act! It is enjoyably, wonderfully cerebral through the first two thirds, not a typical buckets-of-blood go-for-the-cheap horror flick. Nor is it a "vampire" movie most of the way, but sets up Vlad Tepes as more of a revenant spirit (think a hard-as-nails medieval lord as the spirit in The Grudge!)

But the filmmakers didn't have the guts to follow through on their own creativity and a muddled mixing of the revenant spirit idea with stereotypical vampirism took the thunder out of it. Then to top it off there was a whole unnecessary time-loop element that just muddled things further. Still, if you're prepared for the final disappointments it's definitely worth buying and enjoying most of it.

well worth watching

[SaxxoneGirly · 8/10 · 11 January 2006]

I'm not usually a fan of horror/gore films, or scary films in general, but I bought this on impulse from Amazon and I'm glad I did. The four students do a good job of portraying their different characters and motivations, and the progression of Justin's character from a somewhat caddish Englishman (as a Brit I was highly amused) into a protective, sensitive and undoubtedly more courageous soul was well done. I'm not sure yet whether Justin and Ilona's meeting in her own time was a clever nod to fate, destiny and re-incarnation (the two of them felt they were always meant to be together) or whether it was an unnecessary 'happy ending' for the two of them.

As I own the DVD, I have only seen the open ending where it is implied that Alexa is still possessed/under the influence of Vlad and that was a fitting twist, if not an entirely unpredictable one.

I think allowing arguably one of the more well-known actors (Billy Zane) to play a lesser role (and die!) was a wise move, and he linked the story well, although his occasional random bouts of "Da..." (Yes, or agreement) to prove he can be Eastern European were unnecessary.

This is a film that combines history with myth and it is an extremely good mix. The flashbacks and history of Vlad's family and his own problems give him a human edge, and Francesco Quinn is amazing in the role. Perfectly judged. The use of subtitles to translate Ilona's middle English speech was also inspired, as technically it's not a 'foreign' language, only an old one.

No film could ever be perfect, but this is a very good addition to the Dracula saga. It is easy to see how the legends of vampires spread from stories like this one. It's also more intelligent than the usual blood-fest. In fact, there are only odd moments of violence in it. This is a film that lets characterisation, dialogue and implications tell the story and its all the better for a lack of excess gore every five minutes.

Give it a look, I doubt you'll be disappointed.

Intelligent vampire movie

[slayrrr666 · 7/10 · 9 January 2006]

"Vlad" is a halfway decent attempt to make an original vampire movie.

**SPOILERS**

In the 15th Century, Vlad Drakul (Claudiu Bleont) is captured and passes on his rule onto his son. He would be called Vlad Drakula, the source of terror around Europe for centuries, until his amulet goes missing. Today, Radescu, (Brad Dourif) an American College professor, arranges for several students to come to Romania to study the legend of Drakul. Sending local guide Adrian (Billy Zane) to pick up the gang, brother and sister Jeff (Paul Popowich) and Alexa Meyer, (Kam Heskin) Linsey, (Monica Davidescu) a Romanian, and Justin, (Nicholas Irons) and after getting introduced to one another, takes them all to the supposed burial site of the legendary figure. Since Adrian can't make the rest of the trip, he asks his friend Mircea (Emil Hostina) to lead them the rest of the way. As they travel along, everyone starts to experience weird dreams of being with Count Dracula. When Linsey reveals the truth of her visit, she puts the rest of the group in danger of Vlad Tepes, (Francesco Quinn) the real life murderer from history.

The Good News: This actually isn't all that bad of a movie. It tries to mix together a historic event about the merciless reign of Count Dracula and a new story involving them being in taken to his resting site and the horror that brings. The opening introduction to the legend of Dracula is handled well, and remains faithful to what actually happened in history. That makes the movie seem that much more genuine when taking a historical figure and translating it into fantasy. It keeps the historic facts accurate, which makes it seem all the more believable and all the more scary. We also have some great scenery here, as this seemed to have been filmed on location in Romania, and that allows the surroundings to shine through, heightening the little bit of tension it has. It needed some more, but the little it has was about right for the film. That's about what the film had going for it: atmosphere. The end has a great example of the atmosphere the film has. Going into detail about it would give away the film, so I won't say anything, but it is easily the best part. The lights, the camera movements, the angles, it's really creepy and is the best part of the movie.

The Bad News: Despite the fact it provides a nice jump, the scene it the hotel was completely unnecessary. It never comes up again in the plot, doesn't really have much going for it except for the jump, stretched it out longer than need be. The ending is kind of a let down, as the photography shifts all over the place from well-in-focus to blurry to quick-cutting style that makes it nearly impossible to figure out what is going on. It's an annoying trick that I hope goes away. This also has a very weird vampire, in that there is no neck-biting involved and it doesn't make sense for traditional vampire fans to do that. It has a slow pace to it, and withe few deaths, it sometimes can take a while to get into it. Other than that, I really didn't find much wrong with it.

The Final Verdict: Dracula could've been more of a threatening persona, as I didn't really feel scared by him, but it still has some great, creepy moments that make it seem like it had potential. It does treat a historical figure with respect, which few films do, but the horror aspect slows it down a little. Worth a look if you enjoy the legend or are interested in him, but be warned that it isn't a traditional vampire movie and that the historical part of him is only relegated to the introduction and a few pieces spread throughout the film.

Rated R: Violence, mild Language, Nudity, two sex scenes, drug use and the on-screen death of an infant.