Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula

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.

Some things...

1) Dracula's first wife (whose name has never been historically documented other than known to be a Transylvanian noblewoman) committed suicide in 1462, not 1464, when Dracula was already imprisoned by the King of Hungary anyway. Not sure why the film changed this, really.

2) The impalings... aren't accurate. The oiled stake is put in the buttocks and slowly moves out through the mouth. This takes days, the impalee dying a slow death. We don't see any actual impalings during the movie save one, and the guy slides down the stake like it's a flag pole.

3) While not necessarily portrayed as a nice guy, I was expecting a bit more brutality. Much of Vlad Tepes' acts are brushed aside in the framing story of Dracula being interrogated by the priests in 1476 as "stories" by Dracula himself and this just seems like a kind of cop-out. I realize we don't need to see Dracula cutting the breasts off of women and such, but there was PLENTY of more hard-hitting material that could have been put in there. Example: instead of Dracula just closing the doors and executing the boyars like he does in the film, wouldn't it be far more effective cinematically to follow what *really* happened and show Dracula and his men dragging the boyars to go and build (by themselves) Castle Dracula, which took years and basically worked the lot of them to death? Also would have been effective to show the scene of Dracula rounding up all the homeless and beggars into the grand hall, then having his men burn it to the ground. The only real story of Dracula that was included was the one with the golden goblet that wasn't touched by anyone... that's about it.

4) I realize it was done for dramatic purposes, but the film kept sticking Dracula's broth Radu in places/times he simply wasn't. Dracula was killed in 1476 by a man (a Turk) disguised as one of his own guards... in a MARSH somewhat near Snagov, not inside Snagov Chapel.

5) The ending is neither here or there... I'd rather they didn't go that route, but then the end of Vlad's life is a bit anti-climactic.

The biggest reason why i love this movie so much because im from Balkan and Romania is my neighboring country and they are also Orthodox like myself. But thats not the only reason of course, movie was just wonderful (even thought it had low budget), Rudolph Martin was also great, location and music everything, I just loved it so much. The only problem i saw was the cover of the movie. Its very misleading, because this movie is definitely not about bloodsucking creatures, its about a Prince who would do anything to bring justice to his people and his country, even become a catholic, and his actions were seen as fight against God and his soul was condemned forever. Its a must see, especially for the people of Orthodox orgins.

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.

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.