written by Luc Besson
produced by: Virginie Besson-Silla
directed by: Luc Besson
rated: R (for violence, some gore, and sexuality)
runtime: 129 min.
U.S. release date: February 6, 2026

In a recent interview, Luc Besson admitted that he isn’t a fan of the horror genre and mainly set out to make a love story that transcends 400 years. In that case, he would’ve been better off writing and directing something along those lines that couldn’t be associated with the countless big-screen adaptations of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. There are estimated to be over 200 of them since 1921. As it stands, the controversial filmmaker seems slightly obsessed with Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 version, whose title “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” suggests it is a faithful literary adaptation, at a time when audiences’ last frame of reference for the material is Robert Eggers’s “Nosferatu” from 2024. All of this may raise the question, “Why do we have yet another Dracula movie?”

For his iteration, Besson reunites with actor Caleb Landry Jones, the lead of his 2023 action thriller, “Dogman”, whose complexion is so pasty white he could easily pass for a vampire without the help of any makeup. Nevertheless, this movie aims to establish a sexier, or at least hornier, Prince Vlad Dracula (Jones), as it kicks off with the titular character playfully romping in his bedroom with his love, Elisabeta (Zoë Bleu). There isn’t a surface that these two horndogs haven’t had sex on or against. Unfortunately, their carnal activities are interrupted by the call to arms in 15th-century Transylvania, Romania, when the prince is summoned to put on armor and defend his land against an Ottoman invasion. Forced to flee the castle on horseback, Elisabeta is killed, dying in the arms of Vlad, who takes his rage and guilt out on God. Filled with rage, he fatally skewers the Cardinal (Haymon Maria Buttinger), renounces his faith, and vows to be reunited with his one true love, albeit while destined to live as an immortal vampire that feeds on the blood of the living.

Fast-forward four centuries, and Vlad has spent his life searching all over the world for the reincarnation of Elisabeta with no success. During this time, he has procured a date rape drug, an elixir created that summons women, luring them into a life of vampirism, and hoping that it’ll work when he’s reunited with his love. Now isn’t that a romantic plan? A guy loves his girl so much that he wants to commit her to a forever life of sucking blood.

Enter Jonathan Harker (Ewens Abid), a young lawyer who is assigned to visit an old castle in Transylvania owned by Count Dracula to negotiate the sale of a property in 1889 Paris. Harker should’ve brought a basket of moisturizer as a gift to his host because the Count looks uncomfortably chapped and cracked. The Count shows no interest in signing legal papers and instead strings up Harker into an upside-down snack. But, before he takes a bite out of his visitor, Harker appeals to the Count’s vanity and asks him to share his story. There’s nothing more that a self-absorbed, lonely hermit likes more than to talk about themselves.

Meanwhile, back in Paris, we meet The Priest (Christoph Walz, delivering another snarky performance) – maybe Besson thought Abraham Van Helsing would be too obvious – who specializes more in the occult than the Holy Trinity. By order of the Vatican, he teams up with a local scientist, Dumont (Guillaume de Tonquédec), to investigate the strange behavior of Maria (Matilda De Angelis), a young fang-toothed vixen engaged to Henry Spencer (David Shields) and currently locked up in an insane asylum (a mashup of Lucy and Renfield). Is anyone not engaged in Paris?

Determined to find the source of her condition, the Priest forms a posse and makes their way to Romania to pay a visit to Dracula, who’s still telling young Mr. Harker his biography. It turns out the quickest way to stop Dracula from going on and on about his life story would be for Harker to share a locket photograph of his fiancée, Mina (also played by Zoë Bleu), who bears a striking resemblance to Elisabeta. Dracula becomes obsessed and quickly makes his way to Paris to pursue Mina, convinced she will be swept off her feet and they will live happily ever after once again.

No one can argue that Besson isn’t doing something different with this iteration of Dracula, but that doesn’t mean these differences make for a good Dracula movie. The character is never shown turning into a bat or a wolf, nor do we see him shrink back from sunlight or a cross. He’s definitely more concerned with depicting a horndog love story and wastes no time from the start, showing Jones and Bleu behaving like jackrabbits, as cinematographer Colin Wandersman works overtime, swirling above, around, and under the couple. What makes the story silly early on is how Vlad blames God for Elisabeta’s death, when he’s the one who accidentally kills her. It was a tactical mistake that left the titular character stewing in his shame and regret for centuries. If he missed her so much, he could’ve just died and joined her, rather than spending an eternity as a brokenhearted bloodsucker who develops an awful skin condition.

When the movie jumps ahead four centuries, the story becomes too focused on the Priest’s detective-like methods, allowing Waltz another excuse to do Yet Another Waltz character. Smug, snarky, and verbose. He’s once again portraying the most intelligent character in the room, who doggedly pursues answers to his suspicions. None of the characters’ sleuthing and clue-gathering amounts to much excitement in Besson’s story.

The biggest problem with “Dracula” is how unconvincing Landry Jones is in the role. His makeup is unconvincing, and he comes up short in intensity, especially compared to Oldman’s compelling portrayal. One can’t help but think of Gary Oldman, considering how compelling his Dracula was. You felt that character’s pain and anguish, whereas Landry Jones just comes across as “Acting”. His efforts are too noticeable and ultimately come up short. It’s quite distracting to see how close to Coppola’s and Oldman’s iteration of the character. At least Eggers took a totally different approach with his Dracula.

Bleu’s Mina isn’t introduced until roughly the 80-minute mark, which finds Besson scrambling to generate a love story between the monster and his wife’s doppelganger in a hurry, and that doesn’t add to the feature’s sense of obsession or character devotion. It’s too late in the story to feel this rushed.

There’s also a choice to add multiple gargoyle creatures, who act as servants and defenders of Dracula’s castle. It’s a choice, an effort to do something different. Again, comparisons with the depiction of Coppola’s and Eggers’ atmospheric castle are inevitable. These little CGI characters don’t add an evil or spooky presence to the castle’s vibe, which is absolutely necessary. Instead, whenever they’re in the frame, the film feels either cartoonish or like a video game. It seems like a little thing, but it’s actually kind of embarrassing.

Without a doubt, Besson definitely has a vision for his iteration of Stoker’s work, but it feels more like labor than a labor of love. No amount of lavish costuming and a sense of scale can make up for a fumbled story and miscasting, as Landry Jones and Bleu are unable to generate the kind of explosive chemistry the subject matter needs. Ultimately, “Dracula” is a flashy yet ultimately empty endeavor, making it difficult to get excited about yet another take on a tale that’s been done to death. If this were a good “Dracula” movie, it would be released before Halloween, rather than a week before Valentine’s Day (here in the States), since, regardless of the love story, its tragedy is still horrific…or at least, it should be.

RATING: **