Review: Luc Besson’s DRACULA Is A Derivative Take On Bram Stoker’s Vampire
If you’re going to make yet another adaptation of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel, Dracula then at this stage, you’re going to have to try and attempt something a little different. We’ve had hundreds of versions of Stoker’s creation, going all the way back to F. W. Murnau’s Nosferatu in 1922 and filmmakers have tackled the character and the text from every conceivable angle – from comedy to Blaxploitation. There have been some great adaptations which add to the myth, but equally, there have been as many terrible films which are best left dead and buried.
I’ll admit that I was a little surprised when French filmmaker Luc Besson announced that he would be making his Dracula film and I thought that maybe he had an interesting take on the material. After all, even when Besson doesn’t quite hit the mark with the material, there’s always something in there to make it worth watching. And this is where I struggle with Dracula (aka Dracula: A Love Tale). It’s a pointless adaptation of Stoker’s novel that essentially plays like a remake of Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula – so much so that it’s almost embarrassing. But more on that later.
I’m not going to rehash the specifics of the plot, but it sees Caleb Landry Jones’ Dracula cross oceans of time (well, 400 years) to be reunited with his long-dead love Elisabeta (Zoë Bleu), who has now been reincarnated as Mina Murray in 1889 Paris. Well, I guess if Murnau can keep proceedings in his own country of Germany, then Besson can locate the action in the French capital.
Besson’s film hits all the usual Dracula story beats, adding a few remixes into the tale. Say goodbye to the fly-eating Renfield and hello to Matilda De Angelis as vampiric mistress of the night (and day) Maria, while his castle is – for no obvious reason – now guarded by a host of CG gargoyles.
For a film clocking in at over 2 hours, Dracula feels oddly rushed – it’s like we’re watching a truncated version of a much longer film. For example, at the climax of the film Dracula hot-tails it from Paris back to his Transylvanian castle; from one scene to the next, his pursuers are immediately outside its gates. I’m not asking for a four hour cut – but it might make a little more sense.
Anyway, going back to Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 screen adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula – the entire essence of Besson’s film is copied from that film. Caleb Landry Jones (who is very good, I have to say) is essentially riffing on Gary Oldman’s performance in that film and even the “old man Dracula” make-up is styled on Oldman’s look. The last decade or so has seen a reappraisal of Coppola’s film – but I was around when it first came out and it wasn’t particularly well received by critics. It’s not bad though – Keanu Reeves aside – but even his take on Jonathan Harker is better than the flaccid turn by Ewens Abid in this latest version.
Onto what works…
Visually there’s some nice production design – even if the over-lit lighting leaves a lot to be desired. The performances are excellent (Abid aside) and I praise Caleb Landry Jones, Zoë Bleu and Matilda De Angelis for delivering arch-camp, while also managing to keep things restrained. Meanwhile, Christoph Waltz turns in a delicious performance as a vampire-hunting priest who is not Van Helsing – but who clearly is Van Helsing in everything but name. Waltz seems to be having a ball here – and it’s a shame that he’s so under-utilised. There’s also a nice Danny Elfman score that adds a certain grandiosity to the film that gives it an additional bit of class. If anyone is going to give you a luscious gothic score, then it’s certainly going to be Elfman.
It may have some good elements, but Luc Besson’s Dracula is not delivering anything that we haven’t seen before. It’s not a total waste of time – but if I had to sum it all up in a sentence, I would say: they should just have called it Luc Besson’s Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula.
