Film Review: Dracula (Luc Besson, 2026)

I'm torn here. Did i like this film or did i not? It really could go either way. First off, the film is gorgeous. Well except for those weird and awfully bad CGI gargoyles. I mean, really? What the hell was that all about? But otherwise, a succulent film indeed.

Of course the fact that it blatantly ripped off many of the stylistic flourishes (or at least tried to) of Coppola's 1992 Dracula (my personal favourite) and last year's Nosferatu says something about something. Hell, compare this film's poster with one from the aforementioned Nosferatu, and you'll wonder why no lawsuit has been filed.

Then there's the acting. Other than the always charming Christoph Waltz in the Van Helsing inspired role, the portrayals range from uneven to downright laughable. Caleb Landry Jones, looking like all the meth heads you see hanging out front of the local convenience store does not make a convincing vampire of any ilk, and Zoë Bleu Sidel, daughter of Rosanna Arquette, seems to be there solely to pretty up the proceedings.

Oh, did i meantion all the rape allegations against director Luc Besson and the fact he once impregnated and married a fifteen year old, as well as wrote explicit sex scenes into Léon: The Professional for the 12 year old Natalie Portman to perform, luckily to have them refused by Miss Portman, her parents, and pretty much everyone else involved in the production?

Yeah, we can always seperate the art from the artist (i generally like both The Fifth Element and the aforementioned Léon: The Professional) but these are character traits that lead a man to write movie after movie where women are either sex objects or wilting flowers to be fawned over and/or protected by the men in the movies.

This all being said, Dracula: A Love Tale is, as i stated way back at the start of this long-winded critical diatribe, gorgeous to look at, and i quite enjoyed the leaning into the Shakespearean tragic love story of it all. Seriously, why can't we just let them live their lives after reuniting after 400 years!? But i digress.

The film has it's moments (but not those damn gargoyles!) and legit enjoyed the comedic snippets as well as Waltz's nonchalant attitude toward the role of vampire hunter, but it's obvious visual plagerism and mediocre acting (and mishmash of bad accents) takes it down down down. Too far down down down to be anything more than a visually stunning whatchamacallit of misbegotten horror remakes. Which is a shame because it definitely had potential to be an all-new all-different kinda Dracula.

So in the end, i guess i liked parts and didn't like parts. It really could, and did go either way. So does that mean i'm still torn? Maybe i'll just go rewatch Coppola's Dracula and call it a day.