I saw the movie, and it was awesome, because it asserts self-defense is allowed vs. islam (!)
(I know, I know – totally out of character for racist masochistic liberal Hollywood, right?)!
Anyway, I wasn’t going to review it, or reply to the slanderous lies presented by the Turks about it, [in the New Statesman (and reprinted in the New Republic), where Turkish writer Elest Ali asks the burning cinematic question, “Is Dracula Untold an Islamophobic movie?”] until others decided to take her down first, (here).
“Let’ em continue to stew in their own prideful holier-than-thou lies and ignorant slander,” I said to my self: that alone is all the punishment they need.
Why educate the enemy?
But since then, others (and my own damned ego LOL!) have prompted me to revise that initial stance, so here goes after all:
The Turk’s review of the recently-released “Dracula Untold” movie is (of course) …
Nothing but pathetic lies.
The Turkish “reviewer” made so many historical errors it’s hard to know where to start.
She says Dracula was of the line of the “Draculesti,” whatever that is. WRONG.
Dracula’s surname was BASARAB. The family ruled nearby Bessarabia, and the progenitor was Voda Negru (the Black Prince) aka Basarab the Old. Their symbol was BAAL ( the pagan’s horned moon-bull god) but NOT ALLAH! ‘Basara’ is an ancient Arabic word which means “stern-faced biter” (how prophetic LOL)! Chances are, they were originally ARABS; hardly “racists” when it comes to islam (although they may have been righteously indignant about Arabia being violently conquered and enslaved by the bandit-king Muhammad and his goons)!
His own middle name was Dragulya, which means “beloved one” and his nickname (which he gleefully adopted and even used in signing offical correspondence,) was of course Dracula. His father (whom he despised) had been given the honorific “Dracul” when inducted into the Ordo Draconis when Vlad was born in 1431.
Anyway, let’s start off with noting how the Turkish movie critic completely avoids the main motivating issue of contention in the movie: the “Devshirme” culling (kidnapping) of indigenous children to satisfy the Sultan’s perverse desires, and to be brainwashed and used later as janissary shock troops against their own brethren.
Dracula strenuously objected to the practice, which was first introduced around the time of his birth (the Turks had first invaded Wallachia only ten years before that)!
That’s the main plotline for the movie, and yet she’s avoided it completely, probably because, as a “TRUE STORY,” it makes her own Turkish people look like the evil ISIS-like swine they’ve always been, and, it increasingly seems, still are!
And the rest of the review is nothing but fact-free, speculative opinion presented as fact – in other words, pathetic lies to deflect from Turkish guilt; i.e:
“Vlad Dracul II of the house of Draculesti sought support from the Ottoman Sultan in his claim to the Wallachian throne. To put him on it, the Ottomans waged war with Dracul’s enemies. In return, Dracul willingly offered them not one, but two of his sons: Vlad Tepes Dracula and Radu cel Frumos – aka Radu the handsome. While Vlad Tepes went on to become the progenitor of the vampire myth, his brother would remain loyal to the Sultan, and his childhood friend, Mehmet II.”
Vlad Dracul didn’t “seek support” from the muslims, he was already on the Wallachian throne, and was supported by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Sigismund, and by the king of Hungary, Matthew Corvinus!
In fact, the situation was the exact opposite: he was extorted into giving up his sons as hostages to the Turks BECAUSE they suspected he would attack them in a Crusade if they didn’t force him to do so!
Besides, Vlad wasn’t known as “Vlad Tepes” until AFTER he’d learned impaling – FROM THE TURKS!
In addition, Radu wasn’t Mehmet II’s “childhood friend” because the sultan was a grown man when the Basarab child-hostages were rendered unto him – in stead, Radu was only an innocent 8-year-old child when Mehmet first RAPED him, and gave him syphilis (which they both eventually later died from)!!!!
The Turkish muslim author of this insipid article then states:
“The film’s generous use of the word “Turk” was interesting. To call an Ottoman a Turk is like calling a Roman an Italian. True, the Ottoman sultans were of Turkic origin. But the empire was much too big, much too ethnically diverse to be called Turkish.”
LIAR!!!! Just look at a map!
Apart from the fact that “Turks had a Turkic origin” OUTSIDE of what was then, as now, known as “Turkey,” the nomadic barbarian tribes of same had all violently invaded Greek THRACE and Tarsus and ANATOLIA before the conqerors re-named it to “Turkey!”
Turkey ITSELF abuts Romania at Bulgaria, and Turkish ships can easily get straight to Romania directly from TURKEY itself, not from some varied and diverse part of the allegedly multi-ethnic-and-cultural empire!
And of course all empires can claim to be multi-ethnic, but MOST if not all of them cannot validly claim to have expanded to have become so through means of “peaceful tolerance!”
In fact, even the multi-ethnic and multi-religious Roman empire consisted of multiple countries which had all been first violently invaded and enslaved by Rome’s own pagan emperors.
And it’s only an historical aside that all of later Christendom itself was peacefully converted when all the provincial Roman heads of state decided to go along with emperor Constantine’s own conversion, in order to continue to curry favor with his regime!
However, contrast pagan Rome’s tolerance of other religions with islam’s intolerance.
And Judeo-Christian tenets have no world-conquest mandate, unlike islam’s official one.
Anyway, I saw the film a few weeks ago, here in Ottawa.
The Turks were clearly depicted AS muslims, displaying their crescent-moon banners.
And it was awesome: the theatre was packed, and everyone was cheering loudly for Vlad and hating the Turks (muslims) and there was not a muslim to be seen in the audience!!!
And, (apart from the vampire stuff,) the only obvious historical inaccuracies were:
a) that Dracula had no army when the Turks came calling, and
b) that the Turks shot holes in Dracula’s castle with cannons.
In reality, it was Dracula who first brought Chinese gunpowder, rifles and cannons to Europe, to blow the shit out of the (very surprised) backwards barbarian Turks LOL!
Another historical inaccuracy in the movie was where Dracula slew Mehmed II; in reality, he ran away from his ignoble defeats in Transilvania and Wallachia, to have better luck elsewhere – an inaccuracy I’d be surprised the Turkish reviewer missed, has she not also demonstrated such complete bias and total ignorance of history in the rest of her article!
It was Vlad’s successful defense of his native lands which caused the eventual conquest of unfortunate Contstantinople, because once the Sultan had been evicted from Wallachia and Transilvania, his own men had demanded a victory – ANY victory! – from him, or else he would be EATEN by them. So, in suicidally reckless despair, he had then decided to kill himself in a “glorious” attempt to do the impossible: to take the impregnable holy city.
His unexpected audacity caught the Greek defenders there completely off guard (for who but a suicidally desperate madman would ever have even dreamed of trying such a thing?!) and so almost by accident, he succeeded. Then, however, Wallachia and Transilvania only remained muslim-free for another few years, until the almost-inevitable masochistic liberal treason of the sell-out boyars (the corrupt, upper-class of liberals of their day) enabled its downfall; but the rest of Eastern Europe wasn’t so fortunate in their leadership.
Dracula alone had stemmed the tide of the Ottoman advance at the time; without him, it’s probable that North America would never have been discovered, as Christopher Columbus would have been left to his own devices, speaking Arabic in remote “Andalusian” mosques!