Dracula: Untold Impression

#1 Posted by EasyComeEasyGo (574 posts) -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1_E84So-2I

Saw this trailer when I was getting ready to watch Transformers 4, it has been like years since we had an actual good Vampire/Dracula movie, [no not Twilight] so this got me interested. Looks good but the only thing I didn't like was the fact Dracula use the Bats as weapons and a fist of Bats looks kinda wack but still, gotta do something to attract those lovers special effect. Hopefully this is Vlad The Impaler treatment we are getting and so far, what's your thoughts on this?

#2 Posted by foxhound_fox (87604 posts) -

I'm very interested. Anything that attempts a serious take on the Dracula myth always grabs my attention. This one certainly has a Castlevania vibe to it, for better or worse (there was a thread the other day with the TC claiming it rips off Lords of Shadow, but it was pretty vague).

Bram Stoker's Dracula is one of my favourite novels of all time and it really did change the face of horror fiction forever.

#3 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26027 posts) -

Baffled that this, of all films coming out in the next year or so, has managed two threads so recently.

#4 Edited by AGeekyLink (55 posts) -

This looks like a cool movie. I'll be sure to check it out.

#5 Edited by Behardy24 (3044 posts) -

This looks alright.

#6 Posted by The_Last_Ride (70460 posts) -

Actually looks like a good Dracula movie

#7 Posted by airshocker (28976 posts) -

I liked it because to me it's a more realistic take on the Dracula story. I mean, as realistic as a vampire story can get. Will definitely be seeing it no matter the reviews.

#8 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (13328 posts) -

That looked extremely stupid and awesome at the same time.

I'll probably support it, I love vampires. Especially when they aren't sprinkled with glitter and without weakness.

#9 Posted by indzman (17175 posts) -

I liked it because to me it's a more realistic take on the Dracula story. I mean, as realistic as a vampire story can get. Will definitely be seeing it no matter the reviews.

#10 Posted by VaguelyTagged (10116 posts) -

i failed to see how you guys call this a realistic take on Dracula. Coppola's 1992 version looks way more realistic to me.

#11 Edited by airshocker (28976 posts) -

i failed to see how you guys call this a realistic take on Dracula. Coppola's 1992 version looks way more realistic to me.

That's because you have no imagination.

This movie is portraying a man turning to something powerful and dark as a means to save the people he loves. That's so very human I don't really see how it could be any more realistic.

#12 Posted by Flubbbs (2953 posts) -

Byzantium was a good vampire film

#13 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26027 posts) -

@VaguelyTagged said:

i failed to see how you guys call this a realistic take on Dracula. Coppola's 1992 version looks way more realistic to me.

That's because you have no imagination.

This movie is portraying a man turning to something powerful and dark as a means to save the people he loves. That's so very human I don't really see how it could be any more realistic.

...having human themes does not equal realism...

#14 Posted by geniobastardo (1295 posts) -

I'm all for the hype. I love Dhampyres.

#15 Posted by sSubZerOo (43062 posts) -

It seemed alright until the point where Dracula obliterates a army with a swarm of bats punching into the ground, then it just became silly.

#16 Edited by airshocker (28976 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@VaguelyTagged said:

i failed to see how you guys call this a realistic take on Dracula. Coppola's 1992 version looks way more realistic to me.

That's because you have no imagination.

This movie is portraying a man turning to something powerful and dark as a means to save the people he loves. That's so very human I don't really see how it could be any more realistic.

...having human themes does not equal realism...

And yet a feudal lord going down a dark path in order to get revenge is far more realistic than most other interpretations of Dracula.

#17 Posted by EasyComeEasyGo (574 posts) -

@sSubZerOo: yeah It had me until they started showing Dracula using the bats as weapons, Mummy-style. It still looks better than I expected and it look Dupe at the same time.

#18 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26027 posts) -

@SaintLeonidas said:

@airshocker said:

@VaguelyTagged said:

i failed to see how you guys call this a realistic take on Dracula. Coppola's 1992 version looks way more realistic to me.

That's because you have no imagination.

This movie is portraying a man turning to something powerful and dark as a means to save the people he loves. That's so very human I don't really see how it could be any more realistic.

...having human themes does not equal realism...

And yet a feudal lord going down a dark path in order to get revenge is far more realistic than most other interpretations of Dracula.

If you think that flying, superhuman strength, turning into swarms of bats which can attack armies, etc. equals realism...then you must live in your own fantasy world, very much unlike reality. Again, having humans themes does not equal realism. I could make a film about aliens with three heads, living on a space rock, with magical powers, but as long as there are human themes of love, survival, fighting for the ones you love, you'd call that realism? Nothing about this film screams realism. It is fantasy to its core.

#19 Posted by airshocker (28976 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@SaintLeonidas said:

@airshocker said:

@VaguelyTagged said:

i failed to see how you guys call this a realistic take on Dracula. Coppola's 1992 version looks way more realistic to me.

That's because you have no imagination.

This movie is portraying a man turning to something powerful and dark as a means to save the people he loves. That's so very human I don't really see how it could be any more realistic.

...having human themes does not equal realism...

And yet a feudal lord going down a dark path in order to get revenge is far more realistic than most other interpretations of Dracula.

If you think that flying, superhuman strength, turning into swarms of bats which can attack armies, etc. equals realism...then you must live in your own fantasy world, very much unlike reality. Again, having humans themes does not equal realism. I could make a film about aliens with three heads, living on a space rock, with magical powers, but as long as there are human themes of love, survival, fighting for the ones you love, you'd call that realism? Nothing about this film screams realism. It is fantasy to its core.

I already told you what I thought was realistic about it. You need to learn how to read.

Obviously the supernatural portions of the movie are going to be just that: Supernatural.