Between History And Myth
Pros: The best interpretation of the real story
Cons: A few misplacings,wrong name of the country,wrong time-frame
Not quite the true story of Dracula.
As a medievist historian specialized in Romanian history,more exactly the life and reign of Vlad The 3rd Dracula The Impaler I must admit that the script writer had done his best job, because the story is the best interpretation of the historical truth.Seeing the movie I had the strange feeling that the main character's part was written by Vlad himself because this character is the perfect image of Vlad's personality.
The settings were very good,they really looked like XVth century,the costumes were good but they could be better(I saw some zippers that were not quite medieval),the music is absolutely beautiful.
I don't want to turn this review into a history lesson but I have to talk a little about the mistakes.
1.Time Frame: It is right that the years of Vlad's birth and death are the exact ones,but the others are wrong.For example the great Ottoman campaign was in 1462,in the movie it is placed somewhere between 1465-1470.
2.Location:Vlad was born in Sighisoara(Transylvania) in a house in the town,not in his "father's house in the region of Transylvania" that looks more exactly like a castle.
The name of the country is wrong.Vlad The Impaler was prince of Wallachia,not Romania(the name Romania appears for the first time in the XIXth century).
3.Characters: The king of Hungary that imprisoned Vlad was Matthias Corvinus, son of Janos Hunyadi,Janos being the governor of Hungary and the voivode of Transylvania during the reign of king Sigismund of Luxemburgh.
Vlad's wife wasn't any Lidia,but unknowing her name we can accept the name Lidia.And she didn't comitted suicide.
Vlad's first child was Mihnea, not Vlad.
The prince that followed Vlad Dracul on the Wallachian throne was Vladislav 2nd not some Karl.
The sultan who kept Vlad and Radu as prisoners was Murad the 2nd,not his son Mahomed(The Conqueror).It is right that Radu and Mahomed were very, very intimate friends.
I agree with the fact that the movie in question is not a history documentary so those mistakes can be accepted.
Ok.The story is very good,the closest to the truth,with some artistic "upgrades".In spite of the fact that I don't agree with that antichrist and excommunication issue I must say that the ending is absolutely beautiful.Such an artistic view.
I'd like to congratulate Rudolph Martin for his act,he was magnificent in this role.
But I guess that all the staff deserves some congrats.They all were good.
So."Dark Prince:The True Story Of Dracula" is a must seen if you want to see some history,not only sharp fangs and blood.It is my favourite movie and I think that is the best "Dracula" movie ever made.
Pros: The best interpretation of the real story
Cons: A few misplacings,wrong name of the country,wrong time-frame
Not quite the true story of Dracula.
As a medievist historian specialized in Romanian history,more exactly the life and reign of Vlad The 3rd Dracula The Impaler I must admit that the script writer had done his best job, because the story is the best interpretation of the historical truth.Seeing the movie I had the strange feeling that the main character's part was written by Vlad himself because this character is the perfect image of Vlad's personality.
The settings were very good,they really looked like XVth century,the costumes were good but they could be better(I saw some zippers that were not quite medieval),the music is absolutely beautiful.
I don't want to turn this review into a history lesson but I have to talk a little about the mistakes.
1.Time Frame: It is right that the years of Vlad's birth and death are the exact ones,but the others are wrong.For example the great Ottoman campaign was in 1462,in the movie it is placed somewhere between 1465-1470.
2.Location:Vlad was born in Sighisoara(Transylvania) in a house in the town,not in his "father's house in the region of Transylvania" that looks more exactly like a castle.
The name of the country is wrong.Vlad The Impaler was prince of Wallachia,not Romania(the name Romania appears for the first time in the XIXth century).
3.Characters: The king of Hungary that imprisoned Vlad was Matthias Corvinus, son of Janos Hunyadi,Janos being the governor of Hungary and the voivode of Transylvania during the reign of king Sigismund of Luxemburgh.
Vlad's wife wasn't any Lidia,but unknowing her name we can accept the name Lidia.And she didn't comitted suicide.
Vlad's first child was Mihnea, not Vlad.
The prince that followed Vlad Dracul on the Wallachian throne was Vladislav 2nd not some Karl.
The sultan who kept Vlad and Radu as prisoners was Murad the 2nd,not his son Mahomed(The Conqueror).It is right that Radu and Mahomed were very, very intimate friends.
I agree with the fact that the movie in question is not a history documentary so those mistakes can be accepted.
Ok.The story is very good,the closest to the truth,with some artistic "upgrades".In spite of the fact that I don't agree with that antichrist and excommunication issue I must say that the ending is absolutely beautiful.Such an artistic view.
I'd like to congratulate Rudolph Martin for his act,he was magnificent in this role.
But I guess that all the staff deserves some congrats.They all were good.
So."Dark Prince:The True Story Of Dracula" is a must seen if you want to see some history,not only sharp fangs and blood.It is my favourite movie and I think that is the best "Dracula" movie ever made.
Postări
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu