Poster Description: Dracula looms in shadow at the top of the poster, wearing a top hat and a
high-collared cape. His castle is illuminated by a full moon. His younger,
human self stands to the left, holding the hilt of his sword. Christoph Waltz's
priest stares off into the distance, and below them Doctor Dumont holds up a
lamp. Elizabetha gazes at us, wearing a fur cape and an elaborate headdress,
while Maria snarls to her right, her red hair bundled high on her head. Dracula is written in bright red,
with the R and the L ending in canine tooth-like
angles. An army, lit by fire, stands on a snowy, blood-soaked hill.
A YouTube
trailer brought me to this film. You know me – I’ll lap up any Dracula
adaptation, and the fact that Christoph Waltz’s name sat proudly in the video's
heading caught my interest; surely he would play Dr Van Helsing? He has the
accent, the charisma, and the articulate nature – he would be perfect casting.
Nevertheless,
the trailer’s main image gave me pause: a weary man in make-up designed to make
him appear (unconvincingly) older, wearing a terrible salt-and-pepper wig.
Dracula pre-feast, no doubt. Then I recognised Luc Besson as the director and
recoiled. Why? While I love his 1997 film The Fifth Element for its iconic plot
and look—with Jean-Paul Gaultier as costume designer, it’s unsurprising—the
decision to make Mila Jovovich’s Leeloo kooky and innocent while also sexy and
a total badass warrior gave me the ick. Leeloo is essentially an oxymoronic
projection of stereotypical male desire.
I
considered this before watching a series of hilarious videos by YouTuber Alex
Salweiner. Turns out Besson made not one, but three Arthur and the Invisibles
films. I mention this because I’d forgotten how, despite being children’s
films, they’re weirdly horny. In Salweiner’s videos, he also brings up some
troubling information about Besson, most notably his working relationship with
Harvey Weinstein and his decision to marry a fifteen-year-old when he was in
his late twenties. More ick.
Back to
Dracula’s trailer: it came with French subtitles, and so I surmised this
adaptation would—quelle surprise—probably be distributed in France, and not in
the UK. So, I forgot about it. Fast forward a year and, while browsing Amazon
Prime for something to watch, I found – zut allors! - there was the latest Dracula film.
So, I decided to give it a go.
After the
death of his princess, a young prince (Caleb Landry Jones, X-Men: First Class)
denounces God. Condemned to live forever on the blood of humanity, he
desperately tries to find his love again throughout the centuries.
As the synopsis suggests, Luc Besson does his own thing with
Bram Stoker’s novel. There are countless versions of Dracula that do this with varying
levels of success, but one can’t help but notice that Besson’s has similarities
to a
certain gorgeous 1992 adaptation that is imprinted upon my heart and soul.
Upon my first viewing, I found myself begging, please,
let Dracula’s wife have a different name… but no. It’s still
Elizabetha.
Played by Zoë Bleu (in her biggest role to date, according to IMDb), Elizabetha is bolstered only by a gloriously impractical costume; other than that, she’s bland, a mere idea of love. Not even Danny Elfman’s score can trigger emotions, though the use of the music box motif for the couple’s love is nice. You do get the sense Besson asked Bleu to die demurely despite being caught in a bear trap.
As for
Dracula, Landry Jones is the youngest actor I’ve seen play him thus far. With a
deep, seductive voice, he nonetheless lacks the presence of Gary Oldman and
Christopher Lee. The audience is expected to empathise with Dracula and his
agenda of finding Elizabetha again, but even the scenes of them making love
fail to convey much emotion—even as Vlad’s soldiers physically drag him away
from her! We get a bit more of this when Vlad meets Mina (Bleu, now with brown
hair), though her realisation that she is Elizabetha is about as subtle as a
vampire bat to the face. As stirringly as they are edited, Mina/Elizabetha’s
flashbacks should have been shot from her perspective rather than as a lazy
rehash of scenes we had already seen at the start of the film. I wanted to root
for Vlad, in all his angsty glory, but we aren’t given enough material to do
so. Unlike Oldman’s anguish as Dracula, Landry Jones comes across as a sad,
gruff puppy in need of a cuddle.
What’s
more, costume designer Corinne Bruand clearly took notes from Francis Ford
Coppola’s Dracula. Though in different colours, Mina’s beautiful costume is the
same design as Winona Ryder’s pea-green gown, and Vlad still wears his long
white hair in a ridiculous style when Jonathan Harker meets him. I don’t know
why. It worked in Coppola’s version because the film established its tone early on,
but Besson’s version just looks cheap. Vlad’s bright silver armour looks like a
child’s costume project, particularly with its cumbersome dragon-headed helmet.
We meet
Dracula again 400 years later, alongside Jonathan (Ewens Abid, Andor).
Strangely, Jonathan doesn’t get a surname in the credits, but he is still
Mina’s fiancé, so one assumes he’s still Harker. While the years have not been
kind to Dracula, the make-up and prosthetics on Landry Jones’s face look
convincing. I particularly liked the decision to make the frown lines between
his eyes so deep; however, the rubbery appearance of his neck is somewhat
distracting. Also, instead of the three brides tormenting Jonathan, we get
stone gargoyles brought to life. Here, the tone of the film shifts towards
Besson’s more zany sense of humour. Dracula toying with Jonathan, his unnerving
laugh, and their sarcastic interactions overall made me wonder whether I was taking
it all too seriously. Regardless, the revelation of what the gargoyles were
left me reeling in horror.
It’s when
Besson diverts from Bram Stoker’s novel that the film gets more exciting. The
first scene following the prologue is set in an insane asylum. It isn’t there
to introduce the erstwhile Renfield, though; instead, Doctor Dumont (Guillaume
de Tonquédec) brings the audience and a priest down to the basement. The priest
doesn’t get a name, but he is played by Christoph Waltz (Frankenstein), so
you’ll hang on his every word, even if it’s a lot of vampire lore or religious
waffle. Besson could have given him a name, all the same! Father Van Helsing is
such a cool concept: a priest grappling with his faith, science, and the way
vampirism throws it all to the wind. Sigh.
So, who is
in the asylum basement? A woman with red hair, dressed in a beautiful wedding
gown. Except her name isn’t Lucy! I know, I’m shocked too. She is Maria, played
by Matilda De Angelis (Citadel: Diana). The whole scene has a heavy task,
introducing her, the priest, and the vampire lore. I particularly love the
cinematography as the camera hovers above Maria. She sits in the dark amongst
the skirts of her dress like a cherry atop a meringue, and De Angelis steals
the film in her role. Switching between tearful desperation and girlish glee,
Maria is both unsettling and compelling as a character. It’s a shame she and
Dracula get so little interaction because she effectively reunites Mina with
him. De Angelis gives Maria the kind of chaotic energy I’ve only really seen in
Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn, and I loved it.
However, we
have another, alarming Besson idea in a perfume created by Dracula to lure in
women. There’s a montage of giggling ladies from across the centuries—the
ruffed collars of Tudor England, the powdered wigs of the French court, and so
on—dancing to a choreographed routine, which is cute. However, like a lot of
Besson’s ideas, it gets weird when Dracula enters a monastery. Through the
power of his perfume, somehow, nuns get flung across the room with cries of
shock and pleasure. They even build a kind of nun pyramid, grappling for
Dracula as though he’s their new messiah. The cinematography makes it look like
a Renaissance painting, but Caleb Landry Jones is having too much fun, sticking
his tongue out like the aforementioned puppy.
To conclude,
I find myself conflicted. Caleb Landry Jones lacks the charisma needed for a
memorable Dracula, but he has a sexy voice. Christoph Waltz is an inspired
choice as the Van Helsing archetype we never quite get, and Matilda De Angelis
is great fun to watch. Zoë Bleu, meanwhile, is bland. While I respect that
Besson loves Bram Stoker’s Dracula enough to pay homage to it in his own
work—heck, I would too in his shoes—it still comes across as lazy and
unoriginal, especially with Dracula’s backstory and costume choices. In that
sense, it doesn’t hold a candle to Francis Ford Coppola’s lush vision, despite
a budget as tight as a Victorian corset. Luc Besson's Dracula is disappointing, but watchable.
My
Verdict: 2 STARS
OUT OF 5
You can
watch Alex Salweiner's first video about Arthur and the Invisibles here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qds-s0RIy0
My
Sources:
Dracula poster – https://mybloodyreviews.com/luc-bessons-dracula-2025-review/
Dracula trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w05UztF-3xY
Caleb
Landry Jones’ filmography - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2655177/?ref_=tt_ov_3_1
Zoe Bleu’s
filmography - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3396904/?ref_=tt_cst_t_3
Ewens
Abid’s filmography - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12491832/?ref_=tt_cst_t_6
Dracula costume designer - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31434030/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cst_sm & https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0115366/?ref_=ttfc_fcr_12_1
Who wrote the screenplay? Oh, Besson, too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(2025_French_film)
Who plays Doctor Dumont? - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0211956/?ref_=tt_cst_t_4
Who plays Maria?/ Matilda de Angelis’ filmography - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7006860/?ref_=tt_cst_t_5
Comments
Post a Comment