"Drácula: Untold". Critic review

I dare say no one should had  ever dared to tell this mishmash of a minimally historical setting and an own fantasy of a seven year old boy playing with his toys. I won 't fool anybody, I went to the cinema knowing the kind of movie I was willing to watch, but here in Spain we were celebrating The Cinema Festival and during 3 or 4 days, you can go to the cinema to watch any film you want for the prize of 2,90 euros. Besides, this movie was supposed to be another version of the legend of Vlad the Impaler and I feel very atractted to the historical figure of Dracula and all the vampire stuff. Vampires have a bipolar personality because of the huge amount of time they have living in this world losing the humanity feeling in time. That's a trait really hard for them to fight for so as not to became monsters, and this word "monster" is the key that reflects the main idea of the movie. Dracula summed  it up in a phrase told by himself in the movie.

"Sometimes  the world  doesn't need  a hero, sometimes what it needs is a monster"

I think this is the one thing that conects the Vlad Tepes history with the story the screenwriter and the director have wanted to tell due to the fact that Vlad Tepes was not a saint, he was someone able  of cruelty as a mean to apply his  concept of righteousness in his kingdom. He had no mercy with anyone yet he was the necessary evil to keep Vallachia away from the Turks so he is considered a hero in Romania, a savior of the nation. However, in this movie his image is smoothed showing him as a loving father and spouse in contrast to his past as a cruel and merciless monster, something that it's not right at all considering his true story with women and children.


I would like to comment some details I didn't like. SPOILERS!

1. The behavior of Princess of Wallachia. I understand that for a mother is threatening and difficult to have  your child away in hands of the civilization that is invading your country, but  she is the spouse of the ruler, she has to support the prince decissions...and when she started to shout and cry in front of the Turks  when the emissary of Mehmet II requires their child plus the other thousand children  embarrassingly reminds me a stupid and dramatic TV show . It is the "queen" of the ruler of Wallachia, should behave as such. At least in a context in which men were the decision makers.
2. Vlad  is Dracula , we agree that grants great power ... but it is laughable to see how he ...by himself is  able to defeat an entire army. What a bullshit. It was quite comic to watch the scene whe the battle is over and all soldiers are  seeing in front of them all the  corpses enemies in the field.A nd that happened after the speech saying he was going to protect  them. A monster and a hero.  
3. He ALWAYS HAVE to save his wife and child, no matter how far  or how busy  he is, framing the futility of his own men. SuperDracula, isn't it?
4. The scene where the monk discovers that the Prince is becoming vampire. If the real Vlad Tepes had had an attack on his person  perpetrated by a monk and  villagers they would  had prayed for death by impalement. Everybody can get an idea. Another bullshit, Dracula the saint, the champion of all virtues. I blinked in disbelief at the cinema.
5. In the fight against the  Sultan Mehmet II, it is quite interesting the use of a brilliant golden armour for whom is supposed to be the villain and a dark costume for whom is supposed to be the hero. Another symbol of generational change  in terms of morality. The good ones are not completely virtuous and their outfit does not show his inner light, now darkness "Hero" is what you get. Same with the movie Maleficent.
6. The vampires that Dracula created to attack the Turks finally decide to kill the son of their creator to force him to be totally evil. I don't find the logic in this situation, but don't worry because SuperVlad will sacrifize himself opening the clouds in the sky to let come the light destroying all the vampires, saving his son's life and the lives of the villagers that attacked him previously. More "saint" stuff.
7. Oh! Wait!. Dracula is so omnipotent...he does not really dies, he resurrected after a kind follower let a drop of blood in his mouth. So in the next sequence Dracula is in the XXI century walking in a street and finding the reincarnation of his wife.  

I didn't read any critic before so as not to expect anything. But the truth is...that I did expect something, a minimun of coherence between what is fantasy and what is historical reflection. It's a pity because the waste of production is quite remarkable and they could have made something really good. It was entertaning after all.