Dracula

I have to admit that when I sat down to watch this 2025 movie titled "Dracula: A Love Tale", from writer and director Luc Besson, I initially sat down with some hesitation.

Isn't the "Dracula" tale one that has been bled dry? No pun intended. I mean, no movie will ever come close to the 1992 movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" from director Francis Ford Coppola. Yet, I still opted to check out this movie as Luc Besson actually does have some pretty good movies to his name.

The storyline in the movie is one that the most of us are more than familiar with, from exposure to it either through the book, or from the many, many renderings of a filmed version of the story. But there was still some new aspects brought to the narrative here, so it wasn't just a full-blown copy-paste work of previous told narratives in other "Dracula" movies. But of course the core of the narrative is one that is repetitive, as it has been brought to the screen so many times before 2025.

Of the entire cast ensemble, I was actually only familiar with Caleb Landry Jones and Christoph Waltz. At first, I was not really particularly keen on Caleb Landry Jones in the role as Vlad Tepes, but he really managed to carry it nicely, and the way that the make-up and special effects departments, and not to forget the wardrobe, brought the character to life really helped quite a lot. The acting performances in the movie were certainly good.

Now, visually, I have to say that the movie was quite nice. There were a lot of really nice things to witness, and the attention to detail was just phenomenal. Without such great effects, the movie wouldn't have been quite as effective.

While the movie is entertaining and enjoyable, I have to say that there was still a lingering sensation of this tale having been re-told too many times already, and thus made this 2025 movie feel somewhat unnecessary to have seen the light of day - pardon the pun. I am not saying that the movie is bad, far from it.

My rating of writer and director Luc Besson's 2025 take on the classic Bram Stoker story lands on a six out of ten stars.

This movie could have been a masterpiece, the story, while well known, is solid, great actors, seasoned director ... however it felt pretty flat. Some bits are extremely good, while some feel almost goofy, you ask yourself Why ???? But why ????

Quite disappointing because a few logic changes, this movie would have been epic.

It feels more like a moody fanfic than a fresh take. Visually, it's stunning. The castles, the costumes, the lighting - pure eye candy. But that's where the magic ends.

The script? Thin. The romance? Forced. Caleb Landry Jones tries hard, but the chemistry is dead on arrival. Even Christoph Waltz felt like he was sleepwalking through his scenes.

I get what Besson was aiming for-a tragic love story wrapped in gothic horror-but it never quite lands. The pacing drags, and the emotional beats feel hollow.

Is it worth watching? Maybe, if you're into atmospheric visuals. Otherwise, it's a stylish shell with not much soul.

It takes real nerve to tackle Bram Stoker's most-filmed anti-hero in 2025. First, the role has already been immortalised by everyone from Bela Lugosi to Gary Oldman, so comparisons are savage. Second, gothic horror sits miles away from Luc Besson's usual playground of kinetic sci-fi (The Fifth Element) and neon crime capers (Léon). Walking in, I honestly wasn't sure whether we'd get an idiosyncratic triumph or a beautiful train wreck.

Happily, it's closer to the former. Visually, the film is a feast: swirling Carpathian blizzards bleed into candle-lit castle corridors, while Besson's trademark flair for colour and movement gives the vampire myth a fresh, almost operatic sheen. The cast meet the challenge head-on-Dracula himself is equal parts seductively reptilian and heartbreakingly lonely, and the supporting ensemble never drops the ball. I found myself grinning at several sly nods to past adaptations yet never felt trapped in pastiche.

Where the film stumbles is in the marrow of its story. The plot beats are solid but seldom surprising, and a mid-act detour about Dracula's centuries-old heartbreak lingers a few crimson drops too long. Trim twenty minutes, sharpen a couple of character arcs, and we might be talking instant classic. As it stands, Dracula is a very good film-bold, stylistically sumptuous, thoroughly entertaining-but not quite the genre-redefining masterpiece its ambition hints at.

Verdict: 7.5 / 10. Worth the ticket for the imagery and performances alone; just don't expect it to eclipse Coppola's fang-print on the legend.

Luc Besson's *Dracula* tries to be bold and artistic but ends up as an over-stylized, slow-moving mess. While the visuals are striking, they can't hide the film's self-indulgent pacing and lack of real scares. The story drags, weighed down by pretentious themes and melodramatic performances. Dracula himself is more mopey than menacing, and the supposed emotional depth feels forced. Strangely, the film borrows heavily in tone and aesthetic from Patrick Süskind's *Perfume*-the same obsessive atmosphere, the same brooding romanticism-but without the narrative clarity or psychological sharpness. Besson's ambition to "reimagine" the legend results in a film that's more style than substance. Despite its glossy presentation, this version of *Dracula* is cold, derivative, and ultimately forgettable.