Review of Dracula Untold (2014) by Robert H — 02 Mar 2015

Dracula as a character has had many incarnations over the years, from Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee, to Frank Langella and Gary Oldman. All of these brought essentially the same story, but what distinguishes DRACULA UNTOLD is that it tells the heretofore "untold" origin story of one of literature's most enduring villains. Or is he really a villain? That's also something different that this retelling/reboot brings to the table: it recasts its titular character as a conflicted antihero, as is the fad right now. All of these elements could potentially make for a great film, but what Universal has delivered here is bland and uninspired at best. That's not to say this isn't a well-made film, but for all of the hoopla surrounding what is hoped to be the beginning of a Universal monster cinematic universe this film doesn't exactly inspire confidence in that regard.

Even if you've never seen a Dracula film before, you probably already know about the character's origins as a Transylvanian prince. When the Turkish Sultan (Dominic Cooper) reinstates a tradition whereby 1000 Transylvanian boys (including Vlad's own son) are conscripted into his army, Vlad goes to a mysterious mountain in search of a way to protect his people. First, I'll get the positives out of the way. For the most part, the acting is solid. Luke Evans is decent as the titular Dracula, and he does a good job of selling him as a conflicted character. Dominic Cooper, although maybe miscast as Sultan Mahmed/Mahmoud, still acquits himself nicely by turning in a decent performance as well. I also liked some of the production design and sets. The visual effects were little more hit or miss, though. The first couple of times they show an effect of someone turning into a group of bats was pretty cool, but then they reuse that same effect over and over again. To make matters worse, using it so much obscured a lot of what was going on in and around it.

This leads me to what is probably my biggest gripe: the bowdlerization of what is actually some fairly adult source material. Leaving aside the sexual metaphor of being bitten by a vampire for a little bit, Vlad in real life was an extremely violent and cruel man who intimidated invading armies by impaling people on stakes for them to see, hence his nickname. Not that the film needed to show this happening, but in general the film goes out of its way to obscure violence of any kind, be it sword fights or whatever. For a film about a bloodsucking madman, this film is curiously lacking in that department. What few battle sequences there are also take place at night, and the darkness serves as yet another way of hiding the brutal reality of medieval warfare. The film also neuters its source material by eliminating almost any sexual connotation associated with being bitten by a vampire, and worst of all never shows any penetration when someone is bitten. All of this combines to create the feeling that the PG-13 was used for profitability instead of being a purely artistic choice.

Still, I wasn't ever bored while watching this. Sure, the story wasn't too original or even that well written, but despite my complaints I still think that this will satisfy the demographic its being targeted towards. The acting is decent, as is the general look of the film, despite being overly dark in some scenes. Overall, it probably won't win over any fans of previous versions of Dracula, but it is a suitably entertaining popcorn movie for the tween/teenage crowd.