Dracula Untold


Action / Drama / Fantasy / Horror / War

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 23%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 59%
IMDb Rating 6.3 10 151887


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 679,289 times
January 19, 2015 at 02:03 AM



Luke Evans as Vlad
Sarah Gadon as Mirena
Dominic Cooper as Mehmed
Charles Dance as Master Vampire
720p 1080p
749.09 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 32 min
P/S 4 / 55
1.43 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 32 min
P/S 13 / 58

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Bogdan Istrate 3 / 10

Great CGI, no relation to history whatsoever...

I've watched this movie with an open mind, intending not to look into the historical facts and just enjoy a good CGI-packed film, that tells the story of my country's most famous ancestor. But I couldn't, I just could. They've went on to use actual names for people and places, that some may think some things are actually true. Absolutely nothing from this movie has to do with reality!!!

So, the year is 1442, when the real Vlad the Impaler was 11 years old, having been born in 1431. He's opposed to the sultan Mehmed II, the future conqueror of Constatinople (present-day Istanbul), who, at the time, was only 10 years old. Yet their characters are a bit older than that, aren't day?

Then the need to connect Vlad "Dracula" the Impaler to Transylvania. They've made him prince. Uhmm... he wasn't the ruler of Transylvania, he was the ruler of Wallachia, which is just south of Transylvania. He merely stayed imprisoned in Transylvania for a good 12 years. He never ruled Transylvania, as the movie depicts, but I guess they had to stay with the legend, because who cares about history, right?!

Then there's the Ottoman side. Mehmed II was a child at the time described in the movie. He did try to come and personally punish the rebellious Vlad, but that happened in 1462, so 20 years later. And he did not die by Vlad's hand, although he was almost shot by an arrow of the Wallachian prince during a night attack.

One last thing. They've totally messed it up with the geography. I mean, look for yourself for the Tihuta passage and Cozia monastery and how you can get from Bran castle to the monastery using that passage. Let's just say that between the buildings and the passage there are some hundreds of kilometers.

If you're not taking in consideration the historical facts (which basically don't exist, apart from the resemblance of some names), the movie is rather thin. The story doesn't hold and some parts are kind of forced there so the action might have some coherence - which it lacks, in parts. (I mean, seriously, an army marching miles and miles blind-folded? OK, I'll buy, for the movies's sake, but gathering an entire country's people to a single monastery...?!?! What were we? The Vatican?! Or someone falling for hundreds of meters and not dying instantly when they hit the ground...)

I believe the movie would have been a lot better if they didn't use actual places and figures and they would have kept the persona drafted only from legends, with no historical ground. But it's Hollywood, so who cares about history, right?!

Reviewed by John Doe 8 / 10

It's not about the historical Dracula, it's about a new story

For all who says that this movie is bad because it doesn't follow the Dracula story we all know from the past I say, it's not suppose to. When I sit down to watch a movie there's one thing that matter in the end: Did I or Did I not enjoy the movie? And this movie was definitely enjoyable and fun.

Manny reviewers say that this is a bad movie because it doesn't follow the historical time-line and details of the characters in it. Ultimately I really don't care, it's a fiction movie, not a documentary about the history of...

I even read, in a 3/10 star review, a reviewer that says the movie is bad because of historical falsies. That reviewer wrote in his comment : "The film might captivate some audiences who are looking for a fun time, but there is nothing memorable or legendary about it." isn't that all a movie should be about? Having a fun time is what I came for...

Dracula Untold isn't related in any aspect to the old Dracula story. It is a story of its' own and a very good one to. I think that the directors and the script writers did an excellent job writing a different side to the Dracula story.

So, for those who care about the chronicles of Dracula and close their mind to a different story don't watch this movie. But, if you're looking for a fun fiction story this is a fantastic movie.

I gave it 8/10 stars because it could have been better.

Overall this movie is seriously underrated.

*Sorry for bad English. May contain grammar mistakes.*

Reviewed by erdemozkan 2 / 10

I am Lost for Words...

To Summarize, for me it is a pretty bad movie. Why? (INCLUDES SPOILERS)

1. Script: They've got it all wrong. Others might find it OK but if your bad guy is in fact one of the most important characters of the world history, you just can't go and change his story and the way he dies. Sultan II. Mehmed, unlike in the movie, died from a regular disease when he was 50 years old. He did not die in battle, especially not killed by Dracula or Vlad III. In fact, they never even directly confronted each other on a battlefield. Not to mention that the timeline was all wrong Sultan Mehmed was known as Faith (the Conquerer) and not Mehmed after his victory in Constantinople / Istanbul (1453).

2. Cast: Bad casting and performance all around. Except for Charles Dance. AND... Again, if you are doing a flick including a real life personality from world history, please DO BOTHER to go and check how he actually looked like. At least google his name and see a couple of original portraits for yourself OK?

3. Props and Looks: Ottoman janissary/soldiers never used regular (straight) swords. They used bent swords like scimitars. The final fight scene though presents Sultan Mehmed using a 2 handed sword, strictly used by European Chivalry. Ottoman soldiers never wore that kind of a heavy, full plate armor as well.

Bad research and execution on scriptwriters and directors behalf which might be ignored by many people but if you actually know the history of these events, there isn't any way to agree, sorry.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment