Support Frock Flicks with a small donation! During Snark Week and beyond, we’re grateful for your monthly pledges for exclusive content via Patreon or your one-time contributions via Ko-fi or PayPal to offset the costs of running this site. You can even buy our T-shirts and merch. Think of this like supporting public media, but with swearing and no tax deductions!
As a goth, I’m contractually obligated to keep track of all new screen adaptions of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula. It’s one of the ur-texts of our subculture — without it, we wouldn’t have Bauhaus crooning “Bela Lugosi’s Dead,” after all! But one of the first screencaps I saw of this latest edition, Dracula (2025) aka Dracula, A Love Tale, was this…
Oh come on now. That’s an obvious ripoff of this…
Sure, slightly different wig shape and the robes are blue in the new movie, red in Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 version. But if you can’t see this as a blatant callback, you need your eyes checked.
The more I looked into this new movie by director/screenwriter Luc Besson (probably best known for The Fifth Element), the more I saw that the whole thing is just a wanna-be of the ’92 movie. In Besson’s version, a 15th-century warrior-prince’s wife dies, so he curses God, and this turns him into a vampire who wanders the centuries trying to find the reincarnation of his wife. Same gist as the 1992 movie, because Coppola invented the whole “Mina is Dracula’s reincarnated wife” love story. That isn’t in Stoker’s book at all!
The trailer confirms it:
Besson even goes on in the press saying this is a romance, not a horror movie, telling Deadline and others: “It’s a totally romantic approach. There’s a romantic side in Bram Stoker’s book that hasn’t been explored that much.” OK, maybe not “that much,” but in at least one other, very well-known movie, dude!
At one point in 2025, his movie was mocked for ripping off a different recent vampire movie‘s promo poster:
Talk about retreads.
This latest Dracula doesn’t come to U.S. theaters until February 2026, but we know the story, and between that trailer and these screencaps, let me tell you how much more you already know. Like how Prince Vlad starts out in fantasy armor:
In 1992, it was red and veiny looking, now it’s silver scales, but neither are historically accurate, I can tell you that much.
Oh, maybe this is a new Game of Thrones franchise spin-off?
Gotta get that Vlad-Tepes-heads-on-pikes thing going.
Been there, done that.
Dracula meets Mina in 1889 Paris instead of London (a change from the book and Coppola’s movie), but I’m still getting a copycat vibe.
Before Gary Oldman, Dracula had short hair like any other vaguely Victorian guy, sometimes with a wacky widow’s peak that hinted at his blood-drinking ways:
Then there’s Mina. Her basic blue bustle gown looks fine.
Obviously not as perfect as costume designer Eiko Ishioka‘s creations, but also going for the pale look.
I want to rip the cheezy daisy appliqués off her bodice so very much.
The newer movie does have some, uh, innovations. While the director copies the reincarnated wife idea, he and the costume designer Corinne Bruand seem to be confused or not give a fuck about what time period she’s from. The story says “15th century,” but the costumes say “Russian renfaire fantasy princess by way of AliExpress.”
I didn’t know face-eating French hoods were a thing, but now I do. She also gets a head necklace!
I admit I’m intrigued by the part where Dracula stops in at Versailles to test out a perfume he’s created that lures women to him. Guess he can’t get chicks any other way.
Does the perfume make him sniffle? Why so weepy, fella?
Some fun, if very wiggy-looking, wigs and a whole bunch of recycled costumes, but I might watch just for these scenes since this seems like the most original and entertaining bit.
Then there’s some stuff that just makes me go HUH? Like Dracula pulling a Scrooge McDuck with piles of gold coins as Egyptian mummies look on.
A subset of shitty historical portraits is shitty historical woodcuts, because no actual 15th- / 16th-century woodcut would have a face like that.
Also, there’s a mermaid! Why? Your guess is as good as mine.
Will you be watching this latest Dracula?
What is it about 2025 Mina’s dress that makes her legs look so short?
the apron swag is too long
I’m a purist regarding the novel and feel no one has done it right yet, although I think the Louis Jourdan version comes closest.
Happy to see someone else has seen the Louis Jordan version and I agree with you. So far it has come closer than any other to the Dracula I read.
Please make me the third member of this club, because that particular COUNT DRACULA is a personal favourite of mine.
It’s probably not the most outstanding in any single element, but is certainly stronger as a whole than just about any other DRACULA adaptation to date.
I remember watching this version when it was first broadcast on BBC. It ties with Francis Ford Copella’s film as being the most beautiful.
Finally someone who has seen the Louis Jourdan version
! It never seems to get mentioned, but it’s my favorite. I especially love Frank Finlay.
I don’t understand- why bother making a movie that’s a copy of another movie? This reminds me of the 1998 version of Psycho with Vince Vaughn; it was a shot-for-shot remake. (shrugs in confusion). Thanks for another great Snark Week! :)
Obv, the executives at Disney disagree with you, doing live action – in some scenes shot for shot remakes of animated classics. Audiences want more of the same, but “different.” If people didn’t watch, we wouldn’t be seeing this stuff churned out.
Ugh, & it’s so tiresome! The ‘let’s use existing IP bec. we don’t want to take risks, we think we can make money only if ppl know the story already.’ MEH.
FWIW– Francis Ford Coppola wasn’t the first to do the “Dracula seeks reincarnation of his lost wife” plot element.
It had been previously done in the CBS TV-movie DRACULA (1973) starring Jack Palance, though in this version it’s Lucy rather than Mina who’s the reincarnation. Richard Matheson scripted, and it was produced and directed by Dan Curtis– who had previously used this trope in the late ’60s for vampire Barnabas Collins on the soap opera DARK SHADOWS.
DRACULA was also released in Europe as a theatrical feature, and was also titled BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA at some point, possibly when it hit VHS.
So it all just makes Besson’s forthcoming version even MORE “been-there-done-that… and much better” when you know the full pedigree.
GREAT Snark Week posts this year, BTW!!
Richard Matheson wrote the novel “Bid Time Return,” which later became the film “Somewhere in Time.” I had no idea he was involved, but Dan Curtis, “Dark Shadows,” Barnabas and Josette. Wow – it makes sense. Talk about memories. I do recall the updated series with Ben Cross as Barnabas, thinking that it was better executed than the original.
Yeah, but in all fairness– the original 1966-1971 “soap opera” version had a miniscule budget and was taped as a one-take live performance that had to air as shot, mistakes and all.
Flawed as it may have been, that low-tech presentation of the original DS was– ironically– one of its most endearing qualities.
I was coming here to say exactly this, tysm! Coppola’s version definitely popularized the trope, but he too was following in the footsteps of those who came before him, and it’s really Dan Curtis who tied this trope to vampires in general and Dracula specifically.
(Curtis himself probably borrowed the reincarnated lover plotline from the 1932 The Mummy, which didn’t involve vampires but was otherwise very much the same trope…)
I’d forgotten about the Louis Jordan version. I know I saw it and liked it at the time. As far as, “It’s a totally romantic approach. There’s a romantic side in Bram Stoker’s book that hasn’t been explored that much.” Frank Langella’s entire characterization was built around the Count’s seductive, and some would argue romantic side, both on the stage and the screen. Images of him carrying Kate Nelligan through the woods, or her curled up next to him in the coffin are still imprinted on me since the age of 19. The subtext of a being who lives for centuries, the loneliness of outliving everyone and everything he once loved. I especially remember the film line, “I will make her my queen.” The character sees Lucy as his equal (Lucy was the object of his desire in the ’79 version; Mina was simply his first seduction/victim in Dr Seward’s household). Frank’s epic blow dry aside, this has been my favorite version for decades. I read the novel in college, read up on the associated folklore, and so on, and I suppose each generation’s iteration is a reflection of culture in the moment. ’79 was reflective of one-night stand culture fueled through discos in the days prior to AIDS. Although some folklore/contemporary cultural scholar might have a field day with what society has to say about vampires in our day and age. I’m going to believe the Besson rip-off got green lighted due to the need for platforms to continually churn out ever more content for fragmented audiences, and if there’s a shorthand through visual familiarity to draw eyeballs in, so much the better. There were elements of the Coppola film that I liked, can’t understand how Lugosi was ever seen as attractive or seductive, and Christopher Lee? Ick. I did get to work on costumes for a stage production of Dracula, and being in SoCal, we were able to rent some 20th Century Fox costume stock, including Keanu Reeves and Anthony Hopkins costumes from the film. Let’s just say I was nervous doing the alterations. Think I’ll pass on this latest iteration.
I watched this recently and was soooo disappointed. It does feel like a big rip off and a lot of the development of characters and relationships is very odd and patchy. Not a fan of the actor playing Dracula either.
If I were a film director I’d want to make an effort to make my own version (preferably one that’s actually close to the book!) but what do I know. Looking forward to hearing what you think when you finally watch it.
Luc Besson is all kinds of problematic (for starters he likes to marry ’em YOUNG), so happy to give this one a miss for multiple reasons!
THIS! I was disturbed when I read about his various behaviors through the years, yuck. I extend my ick to the actor playing Dracula, since it’s their second or third collaboration. I wouldn’t watch it even if it wasn’t a complete and obvious rip off of a far better movie, but it is, which makes the decision so easy 😉
I mean…I guess they changed 10% from the Coppola adaptation so fair game?
I think I could hate-watch it and then cleanse my palate adterward with Coppola’s film.
I still hope some day we’ll get a modern yet faithful adaptation of a book, with badass Mina, Jonathan+Mina power couple, and with Dracula being a super creepy, supernatural old dude, not a romantic misunderstood antihero (barf), who couldn’t process grief like a normal person so he went on a killing spree for centuries, only to be saved by the power of True Love and a Pure Woman. Give me a break
Amen!! We can only hope.
I also want to see the satirical elements of the novel addressed.
Someday, someday we will get the “Now listen, audience, we have had some fun with various wolf-related terrors, but please note that most wolves are only big or bad when misused by centuries old sorcerous corpses” sequence from the novel – complete with Bersiker giving that reporter the fright of his life as a palate cleanser as part of the end credits (Alas, probably not this year).
I also remain deeply, deeply sad that Mr Mel Brooks clearly forgot to read the book and missed little comic beats like Doctor Seward (Determined to make it plain that he only runs a lunatic asylum) very plainly stating his belief that a missing corpse did not run away with herself.
VAN HELSING: “That is good logic, as far as it goes.”
I watched this Dracula movie and I loved it. I love the ending twist on the story. I love the love he had for her. IDC about all the stupid details you need to pick at, this movie was beautiful and emotional and I absolutely loved it.
Your first Snark Week, huh?
Soooo somehow never seen the 1992 version then huh? Gary Oldman, I can understand why women are preternaturally drawn to his Dracula. Caleb Landry-Jones is the dorky guy who falls for the vampire (Byzantium) not the immortal compelling power Dracula needs to be.
I watched this film after it had been raved about on tumblr, and honestly I was shocked at how dreadful it was! A blatant rip-off of the 1992 film, for one thing, but also …the supposed ‘love story’ element was barely there? The film starts off with Dracula and his wife having lots of sexytimes, but it never SHOWED me why they love each other. For a movie that’s all about trying to find the reincarnation of his dead wife, you’d think at least he would have some REASON behind his obsession other than just ‘she’s beautiful and my wife’. I’m honestly gobsmacked how many people seem to just fall all over this film, and when you add the awful history of the director himself, it just becomes even more creepy and gross.
My full horrified reaction here:
https://www.tumblr.com/swiftsnowmane/804455595415633920/dracula-a-love-tale-a-negative-review?source=share
“Some fun, if very wiggy-looking, wigs and a whole bunch of recycled costumes, but I might watch just for these scenes since this seems like the most original and entertaining bit.
Believe me, in a movie filled with dumb shit, that scene was the worst. It was so out of place, so painfully unfunny, just a waste of time.
This is also a movie that claims France and Romania share a border…
Bummer! I saw a clip from that scene that was mildly entertaining (well, more so than the actual trailer), & the costumes look OK.
Which is, I would argue, a key indication you’re not meant to take it entirely seriously – this film thinks it’s a horror comedy but is, in fact, a comedy.
At least as much of a one as WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS (Albeit in a slightly different style).
The Versailles scene looks like fun and original, but the rest — so much rip off! I’ll take the 1992 version any day! Or at least Frank Langella, Bela Lugosi, or Christopher Lee! I can wait until this version is free on Pluto TV!
Sigh… Yet another movie indulging in the unholy trinity of modern Dracula tropes: Vlad the Impaler origin story, reincarnated dead wife, and Mina/Dracula romance. All of these have been done to death already, and none of them can be found in the original novel. I’m all for putting a unique twist on the story, but if I hear another writer/director talk about how they’re doing something new and innovative by having Mina fall in love with a sexy Dracula I’m going to lose my damn mind. I especially hate what all these adaptations do to Mina, who is my favorite character in the book and has a surprising amount of agency for a woman written by a man in the Victorian era. Sadly, no adaptation has managed to get her right yet (even the most accurate adaptation the 1977 BBC version, though at least she stays faithful to Jonathan in that one and Dracula is fully a monster), and somehow every writer of film, TV, and unauthorized sequel novels since the 70s has gotten it into their heads that the only way to make her “strong” and “empowered” is to have her fall in love with Dracula.
Ironically, Besson is correct that there is a romantic element in the novel that goes criminally overlooked: it’s the truly wonderful love story between certified power couple Jonathan and Mina! You’d think that after the huge popularity of Dracula Daily got more young people interested in the novel and turned them into diehard shippers of genius badass Mina and wife guy (complimentary) Jonathan that SOME filmmaker would take notice, but alas.
I also had to have my Goth Card stamped. OMG who/what doesn’t Besson rip off? Coppola, Braveheart, Labyrinth or at least the Henson Workshop, GDT, Wes Anderson just without the smoking & the whip pans, Perfume story of a Murderer, The Cell, The Devils, Orlando, Terry Gillian movies, Brotherhood of the Wolf, Neil Jordan, John Woo minus the doves or Tarantino perhaps and I am still working on the list without rewatching. It was bonkers but so was the 5th Element this just didn’t have the hyperactivity. Besson is problematic, no argument.