Drácula

This film is one of the worst adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel to ever see the light of day (pun intended). The dialogues are a terrible combination of failed attempts at being profound about subjects like religion and love, and lots of stupid jokes and situations. The characters are just poorly written, they feel superficial and it's hard to empathize with any of them. The film is outright disrespectful of Stoker's work and of vampire folklore in general. It feels more like a caricature or a mockery of Coppola's version than an honest take on Stoker's book. There's even a dancing montage and CGI gargoyles reminiscent of Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The ambiance is just confusing, trying to be serious at times, but then cutting the tension with a stupid joke or goofy action. This confusion is clearly noticeable in Christoph Waltz's performance, who doesn't seem to be sure what to do and falls back at reenacting Dr. King Shultz. The protagonist has some decent moments, but spends half the time crying and mumbling like a mental patient, and half acting like a Parisian pimp. Nothing even remotely close to give presence and substance needed for such a heavy character. Don't waste your money on the theatre, wait until it comes out on a streaming platform, probably very soon, considering the quality.

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.

Dracula: A Love Tale is a new fantasy romance film directed, partially written, and produced by Luc Besson, known for The Fifth Element and Léon.

After the death of his wife, Prince Vlad (Caleb Landry Jones) turns against the church and humanity. He transforms into the vampire Dracula, retreating to his castle.

When Jonathan Harker (Ewens Abid) visits, Dracula learns about his wife Mina (Zoë Bleu), who bears a striking resemblance to the woman he once lost. He becomes obsessed with her and tries to win her over. This leads to an inner conflict: can the monstrous side of him make way for the more human Vlad so that he can experience love again?

Luc Besson based this adaptation on Bram Stoker's Dracula, which has been filmed several times before. One of the most famous versions is Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) by Francis Ford Coppola. Last year, a new version of Nosferatu, directed by Robert Eggers, was also released. All these films essentially tell the same story of Dracula but emphasize different elements.

While Bram Stoker's Dracula is mainly a gothic-romantic story with horror elements, Nosferatu focuses more on the horror aspect. Besson also opts for the romantic angle, but takes a lot of time with it. As a result, you follow a lost, aimless Dracula who only regains direction when he meets Mina. Until then, the film feels empty and slow, much like the character himself. This emptiness is filled with familiar scenes and elements from Stoker's book, but due to their repetition, they can seem meaningless and shallow.

Though Besson places the romantic aspect at the center, he adds little new. At times, it even seems like he has removed or adjusted elements, possibly to make the film more suitable for a younger or teenage audience.

The makeup effects are fitting and effective, but with other visual effects, the CGI is clearly noticeable.

The cast delivers a solid performance but remains in the shadow of previous iconic portrayals of characters from the Dracula story, such as Gary Oldman, Bill Skarsgård, Anthony Hopkins, or Willem Dafoe.

This film is utterly tragically beautiful. I must say that i havent been stuck on a movie for decades but this movie changes everything. It has some humor and will be for sure beloved by people who love dark romance. It hasn't been reviewed greatly because some people might find it bold, but i find it very artistic. Nobody ever took this kind of twists in Dracula movies. I think people are right now a bit thrown back by this twist but i can asure you to watch this movie and be impressed by it!

This movie is so slow paced, boring, and overly stylish.

So boring actually, that I fell asleep not even half of the way.

If you really want a good dracula movie, go for the 1992 version, It have all the boudouir, drama, romance, tragedy and everything else.

Skip this one unless you want something to bore you to sleep.