2/10
Ahistorical portray
21 May 2008
As an avid reader of Romanian history, I held great expectations from this movie. I understood the movie lacked the necessary resources to stage the great battles that took place, but I was still hoping for a fair portray of Vlad and his environment. I was therefore greatly disappointed when both Vlad and one of his closest servants wore skin pants, almost resembling the rock-and-roll days of the 80s. The movie enforces a Gothic impression of Wallachia, following the stereotype created by vampire movies instead of offering a true historical depiction of the country.

The battles are embarrassing to watch. In 1467, Mehmed II invaded Wallachia with up to 90,000 men. Vlad possessed over some 22,000 men, while 7,000 were sent to defend Chilia against his cousin, Stephen, who ruled Moldavia. In the movie, the battle is presented with the Ottomans skirmishing the army of what someone would believe to be Van Halen. Apart from the ahistorical depiction of the costumes, Hollywood added things that have no bearing to history. Vlad's conflict with the Orthodox priests is not documented, nor is it documented that he was to be killed by a priest when he was an infant. Vlad's brother, Radu the Handsome, is more accurately portrayed, but the two never fought a duel. The presence of other historical characters which had great influence on the development of Vlad's reign, are absent.

One could go on in an endless circle on why this movie is poor, ahistorical, and anachronistic; but it wouldn't be worth it. This is just a poor B-movie that failed in everything it set out to do.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed