Dracula: Untold

Dracula origin story: Take 1,000

So, given the fact that this is the umpteenth attempt on telling the Dracula (or vampires as whole) origin story, I am going to attempt a different way of telling this particular synopsis. Detailing my views on the synopsis in general, joining the Dracula mythos. First, we have taken the route of saying Dracula is Vlad the Impaler, which is good in the traditional sense, being as how Bram Stoker's original inspiration for Dracula was the once feared man of history. I am a bit jaded with this story, but for purists it is a dream come true. Actually, the best, most interesting telling of the Dracula fable came from Dracula 2000 in which Gerard Butler is accredited for the man himself. In that movie they made Dracula out to be Judas (the man who betrayed Jesus), and offered so many more answers to why certain weaknesses effect him. Crosses effect him because it is a constant reminder of his betrayal, silver effects him because it symbolizes the silver used to pay Judas off for the betrayal, etc. As far as this story goes we don't get any real answers as to why everything has a negative effect on him. They go for the "this effects Dracula because he is technically a demon" blah, blah, blah. I can respect telling a story as it was originally written for the sake of purism, but yearned for more explanation.

Second, let's talk about the thing that tries to separate this from the rest of the Dracula tales, which is: Dracula is now a hero of sorts. Even though the movie says he is monster, he is still painted as the misunderstood hero with his back against the wall that chooses evil because he has no other choices. As much as I like the aspect of taking a villain and portraying him as something the audiences can root for, there is still something that gnaws at the back of my head telling me this is wrong. I should hope that my above paragraph shakes any doubt that I have any lingering thoughts of "horror icon purism," but this just seemed wrong. I am not saying that Dracula can never be made out to be the hero, I am saying that the director just spun this into a story that reeked a bit too much like "vampire love story," and that is still an open wound since the series that shall not be named in a Dracula movie review. I could have taken Dracula as a hero of some sort, I just wish he had more of a reason for doing this besides "I love my family." Sure, he has a country to look after, making his decision seem more like act of valor; but, he has a line in it that ruins any chance that secondary reason has of saving it. So, to recap, Dracula as a hero could be possible, it just wasn't portrayed well here. 

Third, we go back to old, faithful, wacky, Dracula superpowers; which include: super strength, super speed, transformation into animals, control of animals, mind control (especially over the weak willed, and women...yeah, the correlation there is kind of sexist), fast healing, super vision, and super hearing. I like the old powers, it is a lot more entertaining then seeing invulnerable, juggernaut vampires lust after plain-Jane teenagers; but, again, I have to say it was not done right here. I would have liked to see him control more animals than bats (like wolves from older movies). I would have liked to see more from the supervision instead of what equated to infrared vision. Everything just seems so down played, and the only thing that was played up were the bat scenes. Admittedly, they were cool; but, it just seemed like he automatically had control of these powers, sans a five minute sequence where he seems to stumble around. It all just felt more rushed than anything, and made for a bad interpretation. 

As for the rest of the story, it is pretty jumbled and almost un-watchable. What they tried doing was combine love story, with war epic, with horror fiction, with grandiose action movie, and what came up was a movie that collapsed in on itself. A lot of secondary characters seemed like they were supposed to be more important to the audience than just background characters. It feels as though there were scenes sacrificed for time that would have helped us connect with someone other than Dracula; but, what we got is Chair 1 talks to Dracula before he dies, Table 2 talks to Dracula before he dies, and Desk 3 talks to Dracula. It never hits home when any of the characters die, or when Dracula makes his sacrifices because we are just meant to take these things as being bad at face value, instead of getting to know the situation. The other thing that stuck out as a misstep was giving Dracula a time table, Let me elaborate. Dracula (at this time Vlad) is given a centuries old vampire's blood to drink, and is told he has three days with these vampire powers; unless, he consumes human blood, then the effect becomes permanent. Basically, it is adding a clause that most audience members (who haven't had there head stuck in the sand) can see right through. We all know he is going to fail, or else he won't become the Dracula of legend. We all know about the time he is going to fail in the film, and probably can predict the circumstance leading to this happening. Aside from that, the only other big problem I had with the story was the ending. A bit too cliche, and cheesy, and I don't think this is how the production company wants to begin the Avengers-style-monster-mash-up that is rumored to be in the works. 

There a couple of good things I can say about this movie and the first is the action. Yes, I know that I always harp on not talking about the action unless it defined the movie; but, besides the acting this is the only good thing I really have to say about the picture. Seeing the "Batman" fighting scenes were interesting, not necessarily something that is going to change the movie industry as we know, but fair enough. The bat controlling scenes were fun, not enough to distract me from the horrible plot; but, fun none the less. The sword fighting scenes were....garbage, but the rest of the action makes up for them. 

The acting here was great, but since I can only really talk about two or three characters that seemed to be more then set pieces it isn't really a good showing overall. Luke Evans did well here, but this isn't going to be a series he can retire off of if my predictions on the box office become reality. I love Dominic Cooper's acting in most things, but an Ottoman Turkish Lord he is not. He tries his best, but fails to convince me...hell of a bad guy though. Charles Dance gave the best performance here, but  that is not surprising since he is Charles Dance. He knows the role of a vampire better than most, and has amazing skill to boot. It should surprise no one that his scenes carried this movie. 

In the end, this is just one more drop in the bucket of Dracula lore. It is not going to ruin Dracula's long standing reputation since there plenty of other worse movies out there that have tried and failed before it. I didn't love it, but (all things considered) I hated it far less then I thought I was going to. Make your own opinion on if you want this to be the first of many monster movies to come out, I just think a sequel or series dedicated to this won't hold much water. 

Final Verdict: Netflix it As with most other movies in the same standing this is just good for one of those mindless, lazy days. Nothing to rush out and see.