Luc Besson’s Dracula: A Love Tale (2025): A Bloodsucking Rip-Off or a Baffling “Homage”?
The year is 2026, and the cinematic landscape is buzzing with tales of vampires. While most of us are eager for fresh blood, Luc Besson’s new film, Dracula: A Love Tale (released in the UK as the audaciously titled Bram Stoker’s Dracula — wait, what!? Yeah, I know!), feels less like a new creation and more like a dusty, 3 decades-old script that’s been photocopied a few too many times.
Let’s cut to the chase: Besson’s 2025 Dracula isn’t just “inspired by” Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 masterpiece, Bram Stoker’s Dracula. It’s a blatant, scene-for-scene, plot-point-for-plot-point “borrowing” that has left many film fans (myself included) wondering if legal precedent simply ceased to exist. In music, a single note or chord progression can trigger a multi-million dollar lawsuit. In film, apparently, you can lift the entire soul of a famous movie and call it your own.
The Elephant in the Crypt: Coppola’s Original Inventions, Reanimated by Besson
Bram Stoker’s original 1897 novel is in the public domain, meaning anyone can adapt it. What Besson has done isn’t an adaptation of Stoker’s book; it’s an adaptation of Coppola’s specific, non-book narrative inventions.
Here are the key “Coppola-isms” that Besson shamelessly copies:
- The Reincarnation Romance: This is the big one. In Stoker’s novel, Mina Murray is merely a woman targeted by Dracula. There is zero mention of her being the reincarnated soul of his lost love. This entire “love across oceans of time” premise, complete with the tragic backstory of Vlad’s beloved Elisabeta, was a groundbreaking, original creation by screenwriter James V. Hart and Francis Ford Coppola. Besson’s film centers its entire narrative around this exact invention, only slightly tweaking Elisabeta’s method of death to dance around direct plagiarism. It’s the entire emotional core of both films, and one that belongs exclusively to Coppola and Hart.
- The Warrior-Priest Origin Prologue: Remember that stunning opening in Coppola’s film, with the crimson-soaked battlefields and Vlad renouncing God after Elisabeta’s tragic death? That visually iconic sequence, establishing Dracula as a betrayed warrior-prince, was another brilliant invention by the 1992 team. Besson’s 2025 film echoes this opening almost identically, using the same dramatic beats to establish his Dracula’s tortured origins.
- The “Dandy” Dracula in Tinted Spectacles: Gary Oldman’s iconic “Prince Vlad” in 1897 London, with his anachronistic blue-tinted glasses and top hat, became an instant classic visual. Fast forward to 2025, and Caleb Landry Jones’s Dracula is seen wandering Belle Époque Paris in — you guessed it — blue-tinted spectacles and a top hat. It’s an undeniable visual echo that transcends mere homage.
The Audacity of the UK Title: “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”
Perhaps the most egregious move is the UK distributor, Signature Entertainment, titling Besson’s film “Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” This is a title Coppola explicitly used in 1992 to distinguish his definitive version from other adaptations. To reuse it for a film that so clearly rips off the specific, non-book choices of the 1992 version is not just sleazy, it’s a deliberate attempt to confuse audiences and leverage the legacy of a superior film, from a Hollywood director as legendary as Cecil B DeMille or Alfred Hitchcock.
Why Isn’t Coppola Suing? The Public Domain Paradox
So, why isn’t the director of The Godfather sending a fleet of lawyers after Besson? The answer lies in the frustrating nuances of copyright law:
- Public Domain Shield: As the original novel is public domain, broad “ideas” (like a vampire seeking lost love) are incredibly difficult to copyright. Besson’s legal team has likely made just enough minor changes to avoid direct infringement on specific expressions of Coppola’s screenplay, even while blatantly copying the overall narrative framework and visual aesthetic.
- The “Big Director” Mentality: Francis Ford Coppola, now 86 and fully immersed in his self-funded epic Megalopolis, likely views such a lawsuit as beneath him. Directors of his stature often prefer to let the work speak for itself rather than engage in messy legal battles over imitation.
- Besson’s Reputation: Luc Besson’s career has been plagued by legal troubles and controversies, from accusations of plagiarism in earlier films (The Fifth Element) to personal scandals. Hollywood’s “Old Guard” — Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg, Scorsese — are a tight-knit group. Blatantly “borrowing” from one of their masterpieces ensures Besson remains firmly on the industry’s unofficial blacklist. He’s not getting invited to any of their cookouts, let’s just say.
The Verdict: It’s Not an Homage, It’s a Heist
Besson’s Dracula: A Love Tale is a stark reminder that in cinema, the line between “homage” and “heist” can be dangerously blurred, especially when the original work is in the public domain. It disrespects the creative genius of Francis Ford Coppola and James V. Hart, who crafted a definitive version that breathed new life into an old legend.
My advice to the marketing team (who apparently want “reaction videos”): most film fans who know their history, from the classics of 1939 to today, will instantly see this for what it is. A genuine “reaction” would simply be holding up the 1992 Blu-ray next to every scene. Perhaps it’s time for Besson to find an original story of his own, before he sucks all the originality out of cinema itself.
NYC GAL OUT ♡ Pod 
Leave a comment