Dracula

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.

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.

Dracula A Love Tale, is Luc Besson copying Coppola's homework, then trying (and failing) to change enough of it to avoid accusations of plagiarism.

The two romantic leads have chemistry, and the visuals are okay, but this movie still falls flat. Uneven pacing, superficial motivations from the supporting characters, and artistic choices that are just thrown in because, why not.

Besson refuses to commit to any real artistic choices in this film. The script might as well be written by chatGPT.

Luc Besson's Dracula is not a traditional horror film. Instead, it's a dark romantic epic that reimagines the Dracula legend through a poetic and psychological lens. Set in a brooding, visually stunning atmosphere, the film explores eternal longing, forbidden love, and the isolation of immortality.

Rather than focusing on gore or action, Besson's take is intimate and character-driven. Dracula is portrayed as a tragic, timeless figure, torn between his monstrous nature and a deep, lingering humanity. The story unfolds with elegance, blending gothic elements, haunting visuals, and emotional depth - all wrapped in Besson's signature cinematic flair.

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.