Just saw it in IMAX because the time was more convenient. 😉
Caligula seemed sucky at first, but he may have ended up being one of the film's highlights.
It' seems like KOTOR 2 in how some stuff was cut out or unfinished, so I'll be waiting for the extended version on Blu-Ray.
Anyway, I enjoyed it. Not breathtaking by any standard, but it was fun!
Originally posted by RobtardSir u must have good taste in movies.
Just about all of it. Found the story boring, the pace was awful, little more than a bunch of mediocre action scenes linked together after a dull beginning. Acting was cardboard-like for most characters. There were boundless little things that just stood out as idiotic.The
Spoiler:was extremely lame to me.
72hrs to be a vampire bitJust not my type of flick, glad you enjoyed it though, as those IMAX tickets aren't cheap.
Omfg....apparently people are giving it shitty reviews because the movie isnt true to history.
. 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)._
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?!
More like this on IMDB.
Damn people are phuckin retarded.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
...Never insult Charles Dance in my presence again, plebe.
It's not the actor, father, it's the awful script.
He ended up being one of the coolest parts of the movie regardless.
The sunlight scene [those who have seen know what I'm talking about] was easily the worst part of the movie though.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
It's not the actor, father, it's the awful script.He ended up being one of the coolest parts of the movie regardless.
The sunlight scene [those who have seen know what I'm talking about] was easily the worst part of the movie though.
He used the people to kill the enemy.
He didn't want his people to consume the earth as foretold, so he sacrificed himself and his people.
How was this not apparent to the view?
Eh the whole sitting there after all the other vampires died burning himself to death in front of his son instead of closing the could again thing was silly.
Maybe it just seemed that way because when he was brought back to life, he seemed to stop caring about the whole self sacrifice for the world and lived on through the centuries.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Eh the whole sitting there after all the other vampires died burning himself to death in front of his son instead of closing the could again thing was silly.Maybe it just seemed that way because when he was brought back to life, he seemed to stop caring about the whole self sacrifice for the world and lived on through the centuries.
I thought it was apparent he did not want to be a pestilence of the earth, hence the self inflicted death.