Vlad Tepes

This is one of the many good movies about the great romanian kings who change the history. The action depict the life of the romanian king, Vlad Tepes, known as the Impaler. He was the son of Vlad Dracul, named like this because he was member of the Dragon Order, and the grandson of Mircea the Older. Despite of his great ancestors, Vlad manage to get himself notice, even that his rulership wasn't so long. In one thought, Vlad said "Until now I ruled six years and they gone like only one day. I just wish I had two days, so that in the second day to build something useful for my people, something to be remembered. But still, I manage to build in the soul of my people, and that is a greater achievement." The movie also show the true origin of the mith of Dracula, the vampire. This is an example of how people are so easy to believe bad news, and so reluctant when listen to something good. On the overall, it worth seen the movie, not only for the action, but also for the tenacity shown by Draculea in defending his country against the Ottomans.

An impressive movie (considering its age, the political context, and the fact that the Romanian film industry is definitely not Hollywood, in terms of budget), and a well deserved tribute to an interesting historical figure, who was very badly mistreated for centuries. People usually remind only Dracula's cruelty, forgetting his incredible courage and cleverness in fighting for the freedom of his country and of Europe against the overwhelming power of the Ottoman Sultan (who killed many more people than Dracula did). The life of Vlad III is narrated in a quite bare biopic style, strictly focused on the Voivod as a warrior and a political leader, with the obvious intent to celebrate a national hero under the sponsoring of the PCR regime, but the story and the dialogues are good enough to make the film interesting and entertaining, not a mere propaganda, though it's a pity that Dracula's well known interest for alchemy and science, as well as his vast culture (he spoke several languages fluently), aren't mentioned. The best thing are the performances of the actors: on top, the excellent Stefan Sileanu, who's very convincing and charismatic in the role of Dracula and has got the perfect rude charm required for the character. The medieval age is portrayed well enough and there's a decent attempt of insight into Vlad's character: a very brave warrior and smart leader, living in a dark age, who is cruel out of necessity (and not without some moral doubts) in order to save his small country from a Turkish invasion and from his own greedy and unfaithful boyars, who have led Valachia to poverty and corruption. The script underlines Vlad's devotion to his land and somehow also his "rebel hero" side: he's not afraid to break rules and traditions, even to defy the Church, and to raise his head and fight against the arrogance of the Ottoman enemies. Still the best movie about the real Dracula.

To speak about Vlad Țepeș is always a risk. Too many masks. The hero, the demon, the myth, the vampire, the character of historiography and the silhouette of Bram Stoker. The leader from chronicles and the model for Russian czars. A story without frontiers and rules. And, for the circle be full, the Communist vision about past, part of an absurd ideology. So, Procust bed. And, in this case, a good result. A story about courage and justice, patriotic values and crumbs of Medieval facts, politically correct and not very far from facts. A sage interpretation of a period with small extravagant sparkles. Ștefan Sileanu at perfect place, in struggle to create an interesting character, Ernest Maftei in same eternal role and director under PCR pressure. Today, an ironic remark is obligatory. But the 80 years was not a comfortable decade in Romania. In this case, like more others, a gentle smile is enough. And search to discover the dust of that period in its movies.

like many films under Comunist regime, it is a tool of propaganda. and this is the rule who defines especially historical films. the past legitimating the present. the hero in heroic aura. the history as a kind of magnificent page of hagiography. two small details impose the difference. first - the theme. it could be an answer to the image of vampire who is so popular in West. and who has an explanation in film. then - the performances. like in many other Romanian films from the same period, saving the film against the not remarkable dialogues or political command.in rest - well known ingredients : the fight scenes, the music, the war between boyars and the leader, the loyal poor men and the Ottoman Empire. but the virtue is the science of Ștefan Sileanu to do a remarkable Vlad Țepeș. to reflect the essence of a not comfortable and too ambiguous character. then,Alexandru Repan as Mahomed II and the fascinating meet between Vlad and the Valachian Metropolit.

The communistic states used historical films to make propaganda on their policy, as well as to promote national pride. Romania was not an exception and this film is one of the most interesting of its kind.

It presents the true story of Romania's national hero, prince Vlad Tepes of Vlachia, a man who tried to reform his country and resist the Ottoman invasions, using every way available, no matter how cruel, in order to succeed. The idea is that the cause justifies the means and for this, Vlad Tepes was a perfect example.

Having cinema treating their national hero as a monster since 1922, the Romanians have every right to present him as a cruel BUT great leader, which he practically was. There have been other films about this topic but no other has approached so much the historical truth as this one.

Worth the trouble of watching if you don't hate history.