I am an orthodox Christian.Now back to movie.From my point of view:1)original castle is beneath the one ,now in Romania! 2)real Vlad was not vampire,(they don't exist),just a ruler that lived in a different time then we.Maybe he find the way 2 make an order in country,(it is not easy being a leader),and God knows did Vlad enjoyed in blood.Only God knows a human soul,even we don't know our selves,neither we know all!Now what happens in a spiritual world,we shall see!Therefore people be good:D 3)By the Church,the end of the world must come;so,in what lend he will eternal walk.We all know what Christianity preach about the End;happy Earth,and hell. More about movie:1)acting of Vlad,and Bruno is really outstanding.So real!real,lol2)I don,t like in a movie ,from the Orthodox point,this:Vlad claims in front of the priests that in his heart he stayed an Orthodox Christian, explaining everything nice.Now I think he didn't deserve to be cursed.About the scene when he nailed the Turkish to their turbans,they should asked him;"do you contrite"?You can't damn someone,if he ain't guilty.Priests are humans 2,they can make a mistake.3)Lisa,his wife,did suicide(I am talking about movie),to be cursed too? We don't know what someone want's to do with their procedures.4)End of movie says,he is cursed,has to live like a ghosts or should we wait for the movie part 2,when he will be a vampire so neither a ghost neither a man.So,if cursed then evil person indeed.Then his wife is cursed to,she chosen hell,....,well,even they are capable to love each other!

An OK movie, good for relaxation. Unfortunately, historically inaccurate. There was no Romania at that time, but three principalities inhabited by Romanians: Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania. Vlad Tepes ruled in Wallachia. Related to his wife's death, there is a small stream called Lady's River that is said to be the river his wife threw herself in when she saw the turks were coming. Interesting end, but that is just fiction, of course. The legend of Dracula the Vampire appeared hundreds of years later. Overall, the movie is most fiction than truth.Romanians do regard him as a great lord. It is said, as shown in the movie, that fountains had cups made of gold and nobody dared taking them. Our greatest poet, Mihai Eminescu summons Vlad Tepes in one of his greatest poems, The Third Letter. He asks him to come back once more and burn our country's foes...

OMG it was one of the best movies I have seen. Well Pirates of the Caribbean is first then Dark Prince The True Story of Dracula is the second. I loved it. Rudolf Martin was great for the part. He show anger and love and hate very well. anyway I thought Dracula was known as a vampire but when i saw this movie it changed i don't know if this is the absolute true story but it was still a very good movie. I hope that i get to see it again i just saw it on TV today and i thought it was very good I'm also the type of person to believe in that kind of stuff i like myths and true stories and vampires and people who cant die i dig that kind of stuff. i guess I'm kinda crazy but over all I LOVED IT.

Some things...1) Dracula's first wife (whose name has never been historically documented other than known to be a Transylvanian noblewoman) committed suicide in 1462, not 1464, when Dracula was already imprisoned by the King of Hungary anyway. Not sure why the film changed this, really.2) The impalings... aren't accurate. The oiled stake is put in the buttocks and slowly moves out through the mouth. This takes days, the impalee dying a slow death. We don't see any actual impalings during the movie save one, and the guy slides down the stake like it's a flag pole.3) While not necessarily portrayed as a nice guy, I was expecting a bit more brutality. Much of Vlad Tepes' acts are brushed aside in the framing story of Dracula being interrogated by the priests in 1476 as "stories" by Dracula himself and this just seems like a kind of cop-out. I realize we don't need to see Dracula cutting the breasts off of women and such, but there was PLENTY of more hard-hitting material that could have been put in there. Example: instead of Dracula just closing the doors and executing the boyars like he does in the film, wouldn't it be far more effective cinematically to follow what *really* happened and show Dracula and his men dragging the boyars to go and build (by themselves) Castle Dracula, which took years and basically worked the lot of them to death? Also would have been effective to show the scene of Dracula rounding up all the homeless and beggars into the grand hall, then having his men burn it to the ground. The only real story of Dracula that was included was the one with the golden goblet that wasn't touched by anyone... that's about it.4) I realize it was done for dramatic purposes, but the film kept sticking Dracula's broth Radu in places/times he simply wasn't. Dracula was killed in 1476 by a man (a Turk) disguised as one of his own guards... in a MARSH somewhat near Snagov, not inside Snagov Chapel.5) The ending is neither here or there... I'd rather they didn't go that route, but then the end of Vlad's life is a bit anti-climactic.