I will be totally and completely honest with you all, as if I haven’t already established that to all of my readers. I was fully expecting to dislike this film. I mean, how am I supposed to tailor my expectations when the movie I’m sent to review is called “Dracula: A Love Tale?” And yet here I am, prepared to call Luc Besson’s 2026 adaptation of ‘Dracula’ a pretty good movie, and yes — before you ask — this film does have two titles! I am simply going to refer to this film as ‘Dracula.’
Now, if you’re not familiar with the story of “Dracula” by Bram Stoker, the literary nutbag in me would implore you to read it or, at the very least, skim the Wikipedia page. It is a literary classic, and it would be a disservice to yourself not to do so. That being said, you don’t have to have read the book to understand this movie. The film does a good job of following the original story, with maybe the exception of the beginning sequence. This is where the film actually introduces us to Count Dracula before he became an unholy creature of the night, when he was Prince Vladimir of Wallachia (Played by Caleb Landry Jones), living with his wife Elisabeta (Played by Zoë Bleu). A very good attempt at introducing the character, but in all honesty, it is the weakest segment of the film. Instead of any meaningful method of conveying the couple’s undying devotion to one another, there is a montage and a sex scene.
Other than that? Not much. Vlad fights Ottomans in his goofy dragon helmet, Turks kill his wife, then good ol’ Vlad denounces God for working in mysterious ways and not giving his wife back to him. I don’t even know if I could call it a sex scene now that I really think about it… but no matter. Once the plot fast-forwards to 1889, the real meat of the film is on display. We’re introduced to Christoph Waltz, who plays the story’s priest, and the doctors, who are all on the tail of the mysterious blood sucking monster. The story’s solicitor, Jonathan Harker, meets with Dracula, accidentally lets Dracula get a look at his Fiancée, Mina, whom he believes to be the reincarnation of his long-dead wife, prompting him to make for France. Beat for beat, the story of Dracula is very strong.
A side note — the costume for Dracula in his film was quite amusing. Jones wears a getup that is very similar to the outfit in Gary Oldman’s rendition of Dracula in the 1992 film “Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” That was a detail I noticed straight away. They even included his goofy haircut. Well, actually, it’s more like some Padme hairdo as you’d see in Phantom Menace (Shoutout to all you Star Wars fans, am I right? All… All five of you). As usual, the film looked great, but can we really call that an accomplishment? Most independent, garbage films nowadays look about as good as most big-budget films from the last decade, so it should go without question that most of these films look good.
I will say it was pleasant to see the religious side of the story treated with relative respect. It’s very rare that I see a film depicting Christianity in a way that isn’t a joke, belittled or significantly watered down, especially because it’s a pretty critical element to the story of Dracula.
It is truly something to congratulate a filmmaker like Luc Besson when they can do simple things like Dracula well. Too bad we can’t really say the same for Frankenstein and his bride, and we can only hold out hope for that new Mummy movie. Now I know, it’s no “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” and it’s no “Dracula Goes Surfing”, but for what it’s worth, this movie certainly has teeth and is worthy of your hard-earned dollars.
No, really, give them all of your money, right now! Maybe if we’re really lucky, they’ll finally do a remake of “Dracula vs. Frankenstein!”
