Dracula Untold (Trailer)- Luke Evans, Dominic Cooper
Options
Comments
-
OMEGA_CONFLICT wrote: »Good movie 8/10
imo dracula doesn't need a sequel. I would not pay to see that ?
Well, they've already pretty much set the stage for a sequel. More than anything they want to set the stage for their combined universe. The funny thing is that people keep saying they are copying Marvel. Those people are forgetting Universal basically started that ? . House of Frankenstein was made back in 1944 and it had Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Wolfman, the Hunchback, and a mad scientist. After that they had movies like House of Dracula, Dracular vs Frankenstein, and a few others that all featured multiple monsters. If they make a combined universe, they really are just taking it back to what they did in the past.
-
O ok
-
Just seen it. It was good. Definitely lookin foward to the sequel. But lookin at y'all posts, are you sayin they're gonna do a Marvel type route?
-
Recaptimus_Prime360 wrote: »Just seen it. It was good. Definitely lookin foward to the sequel. But lookin at y'all posts, are you sayin they're gonna do a Marvel type route?
Yeah, somewhat. They are going to have a shared universe between all the movie monsters. The idea really came up after this movie was put into production, so they were planning on starting it with the upcoming Mummy movie they are working on. However, the decided to change that and now this movie is the official birth of the Monsterverse. I wouldn't say they are going the Marvel route though. I doubt they plan on having as much connectivity as Marvel has. They are more or less probably just leaving doors open for crossover movies like they had in the past. -
I enjoyed the previous Mummy movies. I'd rather they'd do continuations instead of all these reboots. Give the ? some real history that spans generations. Regardless of how bad the movie was before, just wrap up the loose ends and do a better job with the next one.
Unless the previous script was just utterly horrible and too much a mess to build from. -
Seeing a new Wolfman, Creature and Frankenstein would be dope. Those characters need a good revitalization
-
They should throw Simon Belmont in that monster movie and have him fighting Dracula.
-
I would a have liked to see another van helsing with Hugh jackman
-
VulcanRaven wrote: »They should throw Simon Belmont in that monster movie and have him fighting Dracula.
A Castlevania movie would have been doped. The Lords of Shadow may have made for a decent trio of movies. -
I saw it last night.
Pro's:
The visual effects
Luke Evans as a lead actor
The execution of a story based on real historical events
Con's:
Forgettable acting from everyone not named Luke Evans or Ronan Vilbert
Particularly bad acting from the most generic villian in Bradley Cooper
Lifeless script. I could have watched it on mute and not missed a beat
The reviews I've read have trashed the movie because they want Dracula movies to be violent bloodbaths with no compassion. But it's called "Dracula Untold", not "Dracula We Already Knew". Yes, we all are aware of the fact that Dracula is the king of vampires, but this is an origins story so go in without any assumptions and you'll enjoy it.
The only other thing I'm concerned about is the humongous time leap. It was random as he'll. But we'll have to see what Universal has in store with future movies. -
soul rattler wrote: »I saw it last night.
Pro's:
The visual effects
Luke Evans as a lead actor
The execution of a story based on real historical events
Con's:
Forgettable acting from everyone not named Luke Evans or Ronan Vilbert
Particularly bad acting from the most generic villian in Bradley Cooper
Lifeless script. I could have watched it on mute and not missed a beat
The reviews I've read have trashed the movie because they want Dracula movies to be violent bloodbaths with no compassion. But it's called "Dracula Untold", not "Dracula We Already Knew". Yes, we all are aware of the fact that Dracula is the king of vampires, but this is an origins story so go in without any assumptions and you'll enjoy it.
The only other thing I'm concerned about is the humongous time leap. It was random as he'll. But we'll have to see what Universal has in store with future movies.
Well, I don't think the criticisms were so much that it's bad because its not more of the same gory Vampire fare. The criticisms are more that this is a vampire monster movie, yet there is hardly any blood or gore. That typically isn't a good thing. I'd agree with that. The movie didn't have to be a bloodbath, but some actual blood in a vampire movie should be a must. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »I saw it last night.
Pro's:
The visual effects
Luke Evans as a lead actor
The execution of a story based on real historical events
Con's:
Forgettable acting from everyone not named Luke Evans or Ronan Vilbert
Particularly bad acting from the most generic villian in Bradley Cooper
Lifeless script. I could have watched it on mute and not missed a beat
The reviews I've read have trashed the movie because they want Dracula movies to be violent bloodbaths with no compassion. But it's called "Dracula Untold", not "Dracula We Already Knew". Yes, we all are aware of the fact that Dracula is the king of vampires, but this is an origins story so go in without any assumptions and you'll enjoy it.
The only other thing I'm concerned about is the humongous time leap. It was random as he'll. But we'll have to see what Universal has in store with future movies.
Well, I don't think the criticisms were so much that it's bad because its not more of the same gory Vampire fare. The criticisms are more that this is a vampire monster movie, yet there is hardly any blood or gore. That typically isn't a good thing. I'd agree with that. The movie didn't have to be a bloodbath, but some actual blood in a vampire movie should be a must.
As a moviegoer, you can choose whether or not this matters, but too much gore means Rated R, which would significantly cut down ticket sales, which means the studio loses money and the whole "monster movieverse" plan is no longer worth the money it takes to make it and nobody gets anything.
I would rather them keep that PG13 rating and make a genuinely good movie with a good story, script, and acting some complementary effects than risk it all because a few people want to see more blood. -
good quality already leaked online
-
Just watched this movie that is a crazy as hell time jump but was pretty good. So is the first vampire still a vamp and was never set free? I didn't expect him to turn some of his people but he said ? it after his wife died. I figured when Drac stayed in the sun it would just hurt him and not ? him permanently. Definitely curious how they bring the mummy and wolfman together.
-
who got a link to a good copy?
-
CottonCitySlim wrote: »who got a link to a good copy?
I watched it here -
It was a decent movie, definitely didn't have what it takes to be a Blockbuster, but it was an ok watch.
-
Sans comedy and a better script, it was as good as most of Marvel's movies.
-
soul rattler wrote: »Sans comedy and a better script, it was as good as most of Marvel's movies.
So sans everything that makes the Marvel movies good, this movies was as good as the Marvel movies. Ok, that makes sense. -
No.The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »Sans comedy and a better script, it was as good as most of Marvel's movies.
So sans everything that makes the Marvel movies good, this movies was as good as the Marvel movies. Ok, that makes sense.
Basically that wit/charm that Marvel movies have was the only thing this movie didn't. In terms of the story, utilization of characters, set up for sequels, effects, fighting sequences it was definitely on par with most Marvel movies. -
soul rattler wrote: »
No.The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »Sans comedy and a better script, it was as good as most of Marvel's movies.
So sans everything that makes the Marvel movies good, this movies was as good as the Marvel movies. Ok, that makes sense.
Basically that wit/charm that Marvel movies have was the only thing this movie didn't. In terms of the story, utilization of characters, set up for sequels, effects, fighting sequences it was definitely on par with most Marvel movies.
Going to disagree with you there. I liked the movie, but the story and characters were not as strong in this movie as in the Marvel movies. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »
No.The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »Sans comedy and a better script, it was as good as most of Marvel's movies.
So sans everything that makes the Marvel movies good, this movies was as good as the Marvel movies. Ok, that makes sense.
Basically that wit/charm that Marvel movies have was the only thing this movie didn't. In terms of the story, utilization of characters, set up for sequels, effects, fighting sequences it was definitely on par with most Marvel movies.
Going to disagree with you there. I liked the movie, but the story and characters were not as strong in this movie as in the Marvel movies.
So Iron Man 2 and 3, Thor 1 and 2, and Incredible Hulk are all better stories with stronger characters than Dracula? -
soul rattler wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »
No.The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »Sans comedy and a better script, it was as good as most of Marvel's movies.
So sans everything that makes the Marvel movies good, this movies was as good as the Marvel movies. Ok, that makes sense.
Basically that wit/charm that Marvel movies have was the only thing this movie didn't. In terms of the story, utilization of characters, set up for sequels, effects, fighting sequences it was definitely on par with most Marvel movies.
Going to disagree with you there. I liked the movie, but the story and characters were not as strong in this movie as in the Marvel movies.
So Iron Man 2 and 3, Thor 1 and 2, and Incredible Hulk are all better stories with stronger characters than Dracula?
yes -
this movie was aight its better than IM3
-
Bruh Dracula was definitely better than Thor and I really liked that movie.
http://youtu.be/Pbd9CNN6ZoE