Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining enough
Review: A decent film, that tries to tell the story of Vlad Dracula. The costumes, settings, and scenery are very good, and the overall feel of the Balkans in the 15th cenutry is evoked, but as several reviewers have pointed out, this film rewrites much of the story for dramatic purposes.A few examples: Mehmed was not yet the sultan when Vlad and Radu first came to him, his father was. Vlad was definitely NOT the brooding, Gothy, heart-throb hunk as portrayed by Rudolf Martin. The real Vlad was on the short side, had a huge moustache, and was not very handsome. The most infamous episode on Vlad's life, "the forest of the impaled", was left out completely. This was when the Turks were invading Wallachia and came across a valley of some 10,000 (or more) Turkish soldiers and Balkan collaborators impaled on stakes by Vlad. It was this event that convinced Mehmed that he could not take Wallachia by force, and he ordered the Turkish army to retreat. Vlad's wife's death is mostly anecdotal and in the realm of folktale. Her true fate is unknown, though this obviously worked very well in a dramtic movie. When Vlad was deposed, he did not spend years in a dungeon, but rather was under a kind of house arrest at an estate, as befitted his royal stature. He did not die betrayed by the Romanian priesthood, but rather in a forest with a small contingent of his loyal soldiers, attacked by Turks and Romanian collaborators. Etc., etc. Still, despite all of these problems, the film works well enough as a cinematic retelling, and is often interesting to watch, much like Braveheart (also a good film, but very historically inaccurate). If it inspires someone to go and read a real biography of Vlad, or learn more about the Ottoman Empire and the turbulent history of the Balkans, then that is a good thing. But yeah, the front cover of the DVD really is stupid!
Rating: 
Summary: Could be better...
Review: Admittedly, this is a welcome effort to present the true Vlad the Impaler, a hero of Rumania, and maybe even for whole Europe, since he fought very bravely to stop the Turkish assault. Unfortunately, the movie does not have the courage to go all the way and still hints to more mythological aspects of the story, as if the producers tried to please the fans of Bram Stoker too; especially towards the end. This causes the most damage as the movie ends up failing both the truth and the Stoker fans. However, the acting is good, the costumes and decor realistic, and it makes for a pleasant watch. Jane March (Lydia) is appropriately beautiful and fragile, and Rudolf Martin makes a dark yet troubled Vlad. Furthermore, this is the first attempt (at least that I'm aware of) to narrate the truth, which is a very positive thing by itself. Bottomline: if you are a very faithful Bram Stoker fan and expect blood-drinking and the such, you would probably be dissappointed. For anybody else, I suggest you see it, as it is closer to the true "Drakula" than any other film so far.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable
Review: Correcting Amazon's listing, this DVD is not widescreen but full screen, presented in its original 1.33:1 format. Digitally mastered. Audio: English 5.1 digital surround and Dolby 2.0. Subtitles: English and Spanish. Special features include: Select filmographies for director and cast; trailers for this and other features; menus and scene selection; photo gallery. DRACULA: THE DARK PRINCE (a.k.a. DARK PRINCE: THE TRUE STORY OF DRACULA, from USA Networks) stars Rudolf Martin, Jane March, Roger Daltry, and Peter Weller. Shot on location in Romania with a largely Romanian crew. The DVD's cover art has very little resemblance to the feature. This is not a vampire movie, though at times it's dark and bloody. Martin (Vlad III) and March (Lidia) have many truly sublime moments in DARK PRINCE. The performances overall are well worth wading through the production's few awkward moments. Michael Sutton (Radu) and Christopher Brand (Bruno) add welcome depth with their supporting roles, as does Weller (Fr. Stefan) certainly. March's Lidia is almost distractingly modern in her distain for Dracula's methods, until considering noble daughters might well have been shielded from such political realities. It's Martin's portrayal of the medieval ruler that lingers, however. Coldly ruthless, commanding, born and trained to rule, weary of the necessary dancing with the Roman and Orthodox churches. Yet humanity shines through when he smiles at his infant child. Well done finale, worth the price of admission.
Rating: 
Summary: Exceptional Performance by Rudolf Martin
Review: Do not let the box cover of this video mislead you. It is much more than some silly blood sucking vampire movie. In fact, there is nothing at all of Vampires. Just the fact that his family's name was Dracul, a name that represented his father's bloodline association with the Order of the Dragons. Personally, I rate this movie high above Bram Strokers Dracula. The simple fact is, they really cannot even be compared. This is a movie that actually tries to understand and show the viewer what motivated the man known as Vlad the Impaler. Having watched the movie, I can state as a personal opinion, that it was not insanity or evil. It was a passion and love for his murdered father, country, his country-men/people and family. Rudolf Martin does an exceptional job depecting the life and mind of Vald Dracula. There is not a single moment in this movie that you do not understand the reasons behind his "perceived" cruelty. There are many who believed him to be a tyrant, but I think it is important to note, as they did at the end of the movie, that he was beloved by his people and there are many in Romania today who pray for his return. I personally adore this man... at least as he was reflected in the film. His passion for revenge and justice; his love for his country, people and wife; and his consistent willingness to fight the people and the establishments that repressed the freedom of Romania and its people. The entire cast plays their role to the hilt, finally giving viewers an opportunity to observe the mental and emotional circumstances that palyed a part in shaping him into the man he became. Some may think that his methods were too harsh. Impaling men on a stake for committing petty crimes. However, his controversial methods of bringing order to his country resulted in the well known "golden goblet at the city square well". What ruler today has brought such order to their country that any person can leave a prized possession out in a public area for days on end and have it never once removed. I know that there are many people who may disagree with that statement as they are well allowed to. Perhaps the idea is to instill in people such morality and ethics that peace will be the natural end result. Well centuries before his time and centuries later, that does not seem to be a possible reality, not even with all the religions and "advancements" that abound. Personally, if chaos can be stilled by inflicting such fear, then that works for me. Honestly, what would anyone have to fear unless they were committing a crime. As seen in this movie, Vlad Dracul was not a tyrant for self serving reasons. He did not personally gain from the punishments he inflicted. The people of his country gained. They gained in being able to walk the streets of their country without worry of being victimized by petty criminals and corrupt, greedy self-serving noblemen. How refreshing to see a leader who is as quick to inflict the same punishment to those of his class as he was to those of the class below him. Based on this movie alone, I personally perceive Vlad Dracul as a man that many leaders and people today can look to as an example of what it means to have integrity, honor, courage and passion in life.
Rating:
Summary: The best Dracula film I've seen
Review: Except for one small movie made under communist rule in Romania years ago, I've found nothing in the entire Dracula movie franchise that really addresses the truth behind the typical vampire folklore. I saw this movie when it premiered on TV three years ago and from the beginning, I was hooked. I confess I didn't know too much about the real Vlad the Impaler before, so naturally this perspective fascinated me. More than getting into the historical facts behind the popular Dracula (even if some are distorted for the sake of drama), this is rather authentic movie in the way it is shot, on location in Romania. (Note: Look closely and you can actually see the house where Vlad Tepes was born in one scene). Even more so, the acting was surprisingly superb for a TV movie. Rudolf Martin (besides being the sexiest guy I've ever seen) takes on the role with an appropriate balance of humanity and ruthless brutality. His portrayal manages to elicit some understanding of a man who once impaled an entire army on a hillside. Other than this movie, I've seen him only in smaller supporting roles, but it's not hard to see that he is an extremely talented actor. As Vlad's fragile young wife, Jane March is convincing, but it's hard to figure out at first what her feeling for Vlad are. Once she starts losing her mind, that becomes quite obvious though. Overall, I can easily say that this is a fascinating, beautifully shot and acted movie that is, shall I say (in regard to Rudolf Martin) aesthetically pleasing. This is the kind of Dracula movie people should see. Capes and fangs have nothing on this guy.
Rating:
Summary: Historical Fiction
Review: Here's something different: a Dracula movie with no vampires! Based on the life and legends of Vlad Tepes, the Wallachian prince known as Vlad the Impaler, this film is a lavish historical spectacle with strong production values. Unfortunately, the full-frame presentation robs the DVD transfer of some of the impact it might have had in widescreen. As for the story, it falls just short of the kind of rousing dark epic the producers were aiming for. The character of Dracula is almost sympathetic, and the film doesn't try to explain away his brutality with simplistic rationalizations, but the end result lacks real impact. However it's worth watching for hard-core Dracula fans, and Roger Daltrey's portrayal of the King of Hungary is striking to say the least (I never would have guessed it was him!). If you're looking for a real horror movie, this probably won't fit the bill for you, but the film makers deserve a few points for trying something off beat.
Rating:
Summary: History can be just as fun for Dracula
Review: I can't say enough great things about this movie. The story is tight, the actors are great, and the atmosphere is very "Dracula the Myth".
Rating:
Summary: not 5 stars but 10 stars!!!!
Review: I had figured this would be just another cheesey vampire movie, but it wasn't. I don't even know why he had fangs on the cover. He was never portrayed as a vampire in the movie. It is a factual and historical account of Vlad The Impaler from ancient Romania. The movie was touching, intense, and kept my eyes glued to the tv so as not to miss a single thing. It was so good, that my other Army buddies that watched it with me all fought over who was going to borrow it from me first! I think it'll be weeks before I get this dvd back! It arrived fast and in perfect condition. ...
Rating:
Summary: Bad DVD cover, Great Film.
Review: I had long thought that a movie about Vlad the Impaler, the historical figure that was the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula, would be a good choice for a film. I even had the opening shot of the film worked out: a tracking shot across a field at ground level, increasingly littered with weapons and armor, but no bodies. Then we start to see the bottoms of poles, more and more as we move along until poles appear in the foreground and finally we see one in close up and there is blood running down it. Then the camera pans up and we see the body impaled on the top of the pole and then the camera slowly pulls back and we the entire forest of impaled Turkish soldiers. Yes, this is a movie just begging to be made. Unfortunately, "Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula" is not that film. The main problem is that the script by Thomas Baum decides to turn Vlad Tepes (1431?-1476?), son of Vlad Dracul (1390?-1447) into a teenage heartthrob played by Rudolph Martin (1967- ). Historically Vlad the Impaler is remembered as a bloodthirsty tyrant with a reputation for creative cruelty Dante would have admired: in his brief six-year reign he is believed to have conservatively executed 40,000 victims. His reputation was such that basically once they stopped printing up the first Bibles on the new printing presses they started printing up pamphlets about Vlad's deeps, with woodblock illustrations of his enjoying a feat while his victims suffered on their poles. However, this 2000 film does not want to take that route and for some reason I suspect this is because "Dark Prince" was a made for television film instead of a theatrical release, where Vlad's actions could be more graphically displayed. The framing device for the story is that in 1476, shortly before his death, Vlad is brought before the inquisition of the Eastern Orthodox church and made to account for his actions. Within this context he tells his life story, beginning when he and his brother Radu were held prisoners by the Turks as teenagers. Upon his release Vlad claimed the throne of Wallachia (a.k.a. Romania) and slaughtering the nobles who betrayed his father. Politically Vlad's kindgom is caught between the hated Turks and the untrustworthy King Janos of Hungary (Roger Daltrey). Consequently, in the final analysis, "Dark Prince" wants to recast Vlad the Impaler as a 15th century freedom fighter. Consequently, "Dark Prince" wants to deal with Vlad as more of a morally ambiguous figure, a creature of his times who took actions out of political necessity and who was pretty good looking with his dark hair (which certainly runs counter to the man we see in the paintings believed to be Vlad). However, what makes Vlad interesting from a historical perspective is that you can make the case that Vlad the Impaler is to Eastern Europe what El Cid was to the West in terms of being primarily responsible for stopping the Muslims armies from overrunning Christian Europe. When a Turkish army approached his capital he initiated a scorched earth policy and impaled the Turkish advance guard around the walls of his city. When he saw this the Sultan and his invading army retreated. But this is a low-budget film so that scene was never going to be shot. At the end of "Dark Prince" we find out this film was only inspired by the history of Vlad the Impaler, which means it ends up being about as fictional as Stoker's "Dracula," which brings up all sorts of attendant ironies to play with. In the end, those who know about the historical Vlad will be distracted by all the liberties and distortions in the film while the neophytes would have yet another dose of "history" courtesy of a made-for-television movie. There was a rather interesting gimmick with this film in that Martin played the vampire version of Dracula in the season premier of the fifth season of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and made a much better impression on the television show than he did in this made for television film.
Rating:
Summary: Neither Stoker's Dracula or the historical Vlad the Impaler
Review: I had long thought that a movie about Vlad the Impaler, the historical figure that was the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula, would be a good choice for a film. I even had the opening shot of the film worked out: a tracking shot across a field at ground level, increasingly littered with weapons and armor, but no bodies. Then we start to see the bottoms of poles, more and more as we move along until poles appear in the foreground and finally we see one in close up and there is blood running down it. Then the camera pans up and we see the body impaled on the top of the pole and then the camera slowly pulls back and we the entire forest of impaled Turkish soldiers. Yes, this is a movie just begging to be made. Unfortunately, "Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula" is not that film. The main problem is that the script by Thomas Baum decides to turn Vlad Tepes (1431?-1476?), son of Vlad Dracul (1390?-1447) into a teenage heartthrob played by Rudolph Martin (1967- ). Historically Vlad the Impaler is remembered as a bloodthirsty tyrant with a reputation for creative cruelty Dante would have admired: in his brief six-year reign he is believed to have conservatively executed 40,000 victims. His reputation was such that basically once they stopped printing up the first Bibles on the new printing presses they started printing up pamphlets about Vlad's deeps, with woodblock illustrations of his enjoying a feat while his victims suffered on their poles. However, this 2000 film does not want to take that route and for some reason I suspect this is because "Dark Prince" was a made for television film instead of a theatrical release, where Vlad's actions could be more graphically displayed. The framing device for the story is that in 1476, shortly before his death, Vlad is brought before the inquisition of the Eastern Orthodox church and made to account for his actions. Within this context he tells his life story, beginning when he and his brother Radu were held prisoners by the Turks as teenagers. Upon his release Vlad claimed the throne of Wallachia (a.k.a. Romania) and slaughtering the nobles who betrayed his father. Politically Vlad's kindgom is caught between the hated Turks and the untrustworthy King Janos of Hungary (Roger Daltrey). Consequently, in the final analysis, "Dark Prince" wants to recast Vlad the Impaler as a 15th century freedom fighter. Consequently, "Dark Prince" wants to deal with Vlad as more of a morally ambiguous figure, a creature of his times who took actions out of political necessity and who was pretty good looking with his dark hair (which certainly runs counter to the man we see in the paintings believed to be Vlad). However, what makes Vlad interesting from a historical perspective is that you can make the case that Vlad the Impaler is to Eastern Europe what El Cid was to the West in terms of being primarily responsible for stopping the Muslims armies from overrunning Christian Europe. When a Turkish army approached his capital he initiated a scorched earth policy and impaled the Turkish advance guard around the walls of his city. When he saw this the Sultan and his invading army retreated. But this is a low-budget film so that scene was never going to be shot. At the end of "Dark Prince" we find out this film was only inspired by the history of Vlad the Impaler, which means it ends up being about as fictional as Stoker's "Dracula," which brings up all sorts of attendant ironies to play with. In the end, those who know about the historical Vlad will be distracted by all the liberties and distortions in the film while the neophytes would have yet another dose of "history" courtesy of a made-for-television movie. There was a rather interesting gimmick with this film in that Martin played the vampire version of Dracula in the season premier of the fifth season of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and made a much better impression on the television show than he did in this made for television film.
| 
