new to DVD: Dracula Untold

Every generation has its Dracula. For some, it's Bela Lugosi. For others, it's Christopher Lee. When I was a kid, I alternately associated Count Dracula with Lugosi -- due not to the original film, but due to Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein -- and, of all people, Judd Hirsch, who played the character for laughs in The Halloween That Almost Wasn't. Since 1992, my idea of Dracula has always been dominated by Gary Oldman, due to the excellent, now underrated Coppola/ Hart version of the character in Bram Stoker's "Dracula."

With the exception of Sherlock Holmes, Dracula has been portrayed on screen more times -- and by more actors -- than any other fictional character. So by now, it may seem like every possible variation of the character has been presented. Perhaps this was the motivation behind the title of Dracula Untold, which, if not entirely original in concept (in a way, it's almost like a feature-length version of the prologue to the Coppola/ Hart film) at least offers a take never presented before in quite such a fashion.

Dracula Untold presents Dracula as a devoted father, a loving husband, a fearsome warrior (even before he is turned), a brilliant military leader, and a ruler who truly cares for the safety of his subjects. That he is also a vampire is not second to these other aspects of his character, but only one side of the man.

It's the 15th Century, and and the principality of Transylvania and Wallachia shares an uneasy truce with the Turkish Empire, which has already conquered much of the region: Prince Vlad is allowed to rule with autonomy, as long as he makes regular tribute to his "brother," the sultan who rules the Turkish Empire. (Sultan Mehmed and Prince Vlad are not related by blood, but, according to this story, anyway, were raised together in Turkey). This tribute usually comes in the form of treasure chests filled with silver coin, but the story is set into motion when the Sultan one day makes an additional demand: 1,000 Romanian boys of varying age to be "voluntarily" handed over to the Turkish Army, to be raised, trained, and eventually employed as soldiers. Vlad and his subjects are horrified by this demand, but because the Turks already have an army far better trained and highly outnumbering the Romanian army, the Romanians reluctantly agree to the Sultan's demand.

But when the Sultan makes a further demand that Vlad personally hand his son over as one of the recruits, Vlad cannot bring himself to comply. Interestingly, he almost complies, but the small group of soldiers sent to take Vlad's son make the mistake of mocking Vlad in front of his family, and Vlad kills them.

So now, Vlad has saved his son, but committed an act of war against the Turkish Empire, a far, far more powerful enemy. How can he protect his people from the Sultan's retaliation? In desperation, Vlad turns to the mysterious creature that resides in the caves of Broken Tooth Mountain. "I know not what it is," Vlad reasons, "but I know it kills Turks."

The creature in the cave, of course, turns out to be a vampire. It may even, in fact, be the very first vampire, if the origin tale it tells to Vlad is to be believed. The creature, compellingly, excellently played by Charles Dance, strikes a Faustian bargain with Vlad: It can give Vlad all the powers of a vampire for three days, and if Vlad can last that long without succumbing to a vampire's natural thirst for blood (he can spill as much blood as he likes, he just can't drink any) he will have the option of returning to human form again. However, if he drinks blood even once during those three days, he will remain a vampire forever.

About that bargain: The Master Vampire (as he is listed in the credits) played by Dance may ostensibly seem like a villain, but considering how much he has to gain if Vlad fails his challenge (I won't explain exactly what, as I have to leave some details for you to discover), he is remarkably honest and forthcoming. The Master Vampire freely admits that despite all of the power that comes with it, he sees vampirism as a curse. He even sees the immortality that comes with vampirism as a curse. Vlad accepts, of course, not because he doesn't believe the creature's warnings, but because he believes he will have the moral strength to resist the blood-thirst.

I liked this movie, but I also see its chief weakness: It's the type of movie that will highly entertain its viewers, but will also inspire many of those same people who enjoyed it to later go online and complain about it, to mock it with hypocrtical abandon. Why? Because the story, by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, is compelling, but melodramatic. Because, as depicted by director Gary Shore, the nature of Vlad's supernatural abilities is visually creative and exciting to look at, but doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny -- even by fantasy standards -- if over-analyzed after the movie is over. Because Dracula is here presented as one part action hero and one part bodice-ripping costumed lover -- a combination that undeniably works as you watch it, but leaves you feeling silly afterward for daring to admit to yourself that you enjoyed the ride. My prediction: History buffs will top the list of the hypocrites. They will thrill to the fact that the movie uses actual history of Vlad the Impaler -- turning the real-life figure of Mehmed into a central character, and depicting historical events such as the Night Attack of Targoviste as plot points -- but those same would-be historians will then nitpick and whine about creative license, as if one should expect documentary realism from a Hollywood action flick.

Let me tell you: Dracula Untold, if taken in the right spirit, will be experienced as a fun movie, made by unfamiliar names with obvious talent and skill at their craft. The "in" thing will be to say that you didn't like it. But I think you probably will.