"The First Year of Dracula": "Universe" is not what you want to push, you can push it if you want

Amelia 2022-03-14 14:12:22

Recently, the famous director Martin Scorsese's remarks that "Marvel movies are not movies, they are more like theme parks" has caused huge controversy, and some old-school directors have supported it. , there have also been mild pushbacks from young filmmakers, and of course a large number of fans defending Marvel. However, no matter if a Marvel movie is a movie or not, there should be no objection that this is the "most successful and profitable series" so far, otherwise there will be no major studios holding back to launch their own "universe".

It is understandable for a business organization to make money. Seeing that Disney has made a lot of money with the Marvel Universe, Warner, Fox (which was not merged into Disney at the time), and Sony are also developing their own superheroes, and Universal Pictures naturally also will be greedy. Mr. Martin's "theme park" is not correct in a certain angle. Presumably, Universal is very happy that it can obtain the authorization of Warner's "Harry Potter" series when it builds Universal Studios around the world.

In fact, Universal does not own the copyright of superheroes. Marvel's "Hulk" and Dark Horse's "Hellboy" are both well-known characters, but unfortunately they are alone and unpopular. As for other series, "Jurassic Park/World", "Fast and Furious", "Bourne Bound", etc. are also available, but it is still a lot worse to form a "universe" with a large scale. Therefore, Universal began to use the brains of launching a monster movie universe before 2010.

Speaking of Universal's earliest prestige, it is also thanks to monster movies. Horror movies were originally imported products from Europe. The German director Paul Leni, who was persecuted by the Nazis, went to the United States for asylum and was accepted by the discerning world. Under his auspices, Universal has developed a series of horror commercial films such as Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, The Mummy, and Dracula, which became famous for a while and injected the genes of monster movies.

With an astonishing number of monster characters, wouldn't it be a pity not to build a "universe"? At least there's still some residual value to be squeezed out of repeated remakes. In 2010, Universal launched "Wolfman", although the cast is extremely strong (Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving), but because of the plot Old-fashioned and lacking in new ideas, resulting in a bleak box office. However, after this failed test of water, Universal was still unwilling to let it go. Four years later, "Dracula's First Year", known as the first bomb of the Universal Monster Universe, was released.

Dracula has gone through a number of transformations on the big screen since being written by Irish author Bram Stoker. Throughout several of the most well-known Dracula films, the 1922 Murnau version of "Nosferatu" has the most primitive horror atmosphere (for personal film reviews, see "Nosferatu": Vampires, Come and Worship Your Ancestors ); Browning's Dracula in 1933 began to focus on the protagonist; Herzog's Nosferatu: Ghost of the Night in 1979 returned to expressionism; The Coppola version of "Four Hundred Years of Fright" turned out to be a poignant love story, completely rewriting Dracula's horror genes. Since then, vampires have gradually evolved into one of the most popular cultural symbols, and various vampire movies have emerged one after another, until they have developed into works such as "Twilight" and "True Blood", which feature handsome men and beautiful women.

It is not difficult to see that as time goes by, "Dracula" (or "Vampire"), as an ancient monster, its terrifying attributes are constantly weakening. So much so that when audiences hear the word "vampire", their first reaction is often the image of a handsome guy with blood dripping from his mouth. So as a starting point for Universal's ambitious plan, how can we mobilize the audience's willingness to spend?

Universal's answer is to take into account both tradition and the present. In the story, the prototype of the legendary Dracula, Vlad III, the "Punctured Archduke" of Romania, is selected to show legitimacy. At the same time, probably out of consideration of the overall values ​​of the monster universe, Vlad III abandoned the brutal and cruel side (liked the piercing punishment, and nailed enemies or subjects to pickets at every turn), and shaped it as a countermeasure against the Turkish army. hero. On the other hand, focusing on exaggerating the love of the Grand Duke and his wife, he attributed the reason why he chose to become a vampire to protect his wife, children and people, especially when his wife fell from a building and died, Vlad was full of grief and anger, and completely converted dark power.

From the perspective of popcorn movies, audiences can accept superficial content and entertainment, but I am afraid it is difficult to accept boredom. As an origin story, Dracula's First Year's plot is solid and organized, but it's uninspired and lacking in engrossment. Every choice of Vlad seems to be step by step, but the curse of immortality and the conflict of darkness are just scribbled. And the war and fighting scenes are also very dull and boring. It is a bit unreasonable that a movie with a fantasy as its selling point does not work hard on the ability of vampires.

The "universe" is not something you can push if you want. There are two key elements to building a cinematic universe. One is the linkage of roles, which requires a unified and logical worldview. This superhero movie undoubtedly has a great advantage. Whether it is Marvel or DC, it already has a huge comic world as a text basis. And Universal's monster universe, including the monster universe created by Warner, has to reconsider the relationship between the various characters (changing the size of King Kong and Godzilla is the most direct example), and there will inevitably be blunt places.

The second is whether the story itself is worth watching. Universal's monster characters, in the final analysis, exist to scare people. But time has changed, and people have long been aware of "vampires", "werewolves", "mummies", etc. What's more, Universal has further weakened the horror style for the so-called innovation and turned it into a pure action-adventure movie, which is equivalent to Failure to do so is predictable. The setback of "The First Year of Dracula" did not make Universal give up, but it downplayed its symbolic significance as the first part of the Monster Cinematic Universe in external publicity, and used this slogan in the debut of "The New Mummy" in 2017 above. Of course, that was another "tragedy", and we'll talk about it later.

View more about Dracula Untold reviews

Extended Reading
  • Kurt 2022-04-21 09:01:36

    A bitter brother made a wrong decision and then made up for it with one more wrong decision... and killed his wife... If he didn't live long enough, he would wait for his wife to be reborn! The plot is shit

  • Flo 2022-03-18 09:01:03

    The plot is okay, the special effects are good, and it's a movie with a lot of emotion.

Dracula Untold quotes

  • Shkelgim: [about the scared helmet] I left it... where I found it.

  • Vlad: [seeing the bats leaving cave] Bats don't come out during the day. Something's disturbed them.