IMDb > Dracula II: Ascension (2003) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Dracula II: Ascension
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Dracula II: Ascension (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
Index 68 reviews in total 

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Ahh, the refreshing taste of emetics

Author: valla5 from Dallas
17 August 2003

Oh sure, it won't win any awards, but b-movies never do. I'm not sure why the other users enjoyed the opening scene so much, but I enjoyed it for the incredibly bad stunts myself. I laughed out loud as the woman fell down the stairs, onto the landing, and kept falling down the rest of the stairs. Pure gold.

I also happen to know a little behind-the-scenes about this one. Do you know, it was not originally intended to be a straight-to-video release. It was originally scheduled to be released last October. I'm guessing the similarity to the popular Blade II sealed its fate. Do you know, they spent like 3 months or something filming in Romania? I'm not sure what for, considering the movie takes place in New Orleans. Why was Roy Scheider listed in the credits? His part was no more than a cameo. I was rather disappointed about that, because I really enjoy Roy Scheider.

But, for all intents and purposes, this is a rather good b-movie. There are expected, but fun, plot twists, and I never got bored. Well, maybe a little in the very beginning. It was a standard 5-man team of protagonists, a nicely evil Dracula, and a Blade-like vampire hunting priest. Note that I said nicely evil, and not deliciously evil. I will admit that it must be a great challenge for an actor to do most of his work with no lines and no movement (he spends most of the movie confined), but I really could have gone for a more evil Dracula.

I sincerely hope that people aren't renting direct-to-video movies with the idea that greatness lies within: it does not. What this movie does well is know its limitations. Special effects are only used when absolutely necessary, which makes them look much better than some of the really poor effects in Blade (the first one). It's fun, it's interesting, and it's got a good ending. Well worth renting.

Rating: Groovy

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

It's got potential

Author: heather7680
7 July 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Having seen Dracula 2000 and hating it, I was pleasantly surprised by Dracula II. I've read the other comments so I have a few of my own. Being a sequel, the beginning was a little choppy. Dracula 2000 should have been about Jason Scott Lee's character and history leading up to part 2. I liked the storyline of the students finding Dracula in a morgue and deciding to find the secret of undead life. Yes, they should have checked the blond's body for bite marks but they thought she died from the fall. Not to mention that she didn't rise up as fast as the girl with the cat did. I did like the twist with the teacher. I loved the guy playing Dracula. For everyone who hated that Drac was a blond - Dracula would be cutting edge and bleach his hair to blend in. Liked the guy who played him. Especially when he finally broke free.

Lee's character was cool but again - where is his story? Part III? I've been a fan of his for a while and it's nice to see him in this kind of role.

I've also liked Jason London. I hope his character can save Elizabeth and end up happily ever after in Part III. Of course he ran at the end. She had just changed over and I'm sure she was hungry. I would run too. Live to fight another day. I also liked the actress who played Elizabeth. She fit her role.

I watch vampire movies for the atmosphere and different angles on the story of Dracula and vampires not so much for the fear factor. I do agree that the pool setting was a little clinical. The mansion house had much more attitude. And can I just say a big thank you for none of the actors trying to put on a New Orleans accent. Being a native of New Orleans it's insulting to hear it (see The Big Easy for an example). I can't wait to see it wrapped up. Maybe we'll get to see the priest's story. If you liked this movie, I would also recommend the Subspecies trilogy.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Tries hard, must do better

5/10
Author: John Rankine (burglarbil@btopenworld.com) from Sutton, England
23 June 2003

I enjoyed 'Dracula 2000' despite it's faults and I thought the portrayal of the timeless count was very good but this was a poor sequel. After about 15 minutes I was commenting to my wife about how well filmed it was for a straight to video release but please, if you're going to do a vampire film try to please the thousands of undead fans out here in the real world. It was quite clever to include the folklore elements of vampires having to count seeds (done to good effect in The X Files) and undoing knots; but people turning into vampires within minutes of being bitten?! What happened to dying first, you know the draining all the blood and coming back as the undead bit? The obligatory black character Kenny injects himself with Drac's blood and turns into a vampire on the spot yet in Dracula 2000 Van Helsing has been doing that for years with no ill effect. I realise that this was a low budget movie but they must have cut their costs by not employing someone to cover continuity. That said, the production was good and it tried hard. Better luck next time. PS It was better than 'Dusk till dawn 2'

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Not bad,but easily forgettable.

4/10
Author: HumanoidOfFlesh from Chyby, Poland
24 August 2004

"Dracula II:Ascension" is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!"Dracula II:Ascension" is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like "Lips of Blood","The Brides of Dracula" or "Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural" to name only a few.4 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Dracula 2: Ascension- 7/10. Never really comes full-circle.

Author: movies2u from United States
16 January 2004

Dracula 2: Ascension (2003)

This movie had an interesting beginning, leaving off where Dracula 2000 ended with Dracula burning on the cross, but picked up different characters along the way, including two coroners who take the burnt body of Dracula at accidently bring him back to life while studying him. With a vampire-hunting priest (Jason Scott Lee) on their tracks, they must keep Dracula contained before he is unleashed and spreads more terror to the town of New Orleans. This movie was good, but towards the end, it didn't make much sense and didn't come full circle. It wasn't scary at all, but it had a bit of suspense and thrills. To enjoy this to it's full, you will probably have to be a hardcore Dracula fan. 7/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Vampire medical school

Author: Dr. Gore (drgore@hotmail.com) from Los Angeles, California
18 June 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

Dracula goes to med school. A bunch of college goofballs run across a corpse which may be a vampire. So of course the most logical thing to do is to sell it to the highest bidder. But being junior league scientists, they want to run some diagnostics on him. Eventually they discover he IS a vampire. Good thing too since the movie is called "Dracula II". I'd have felt ripped-off if he wasn't. Then the movie pauses for 40 minutes or so as Dracula studies for his doctorate at Vampire University. It picks up at the end with some cool bloodsucking fighting.

First of all, where do the filmmakers get the nerve to call this movie "Dracula II"? Let me point out the obvious by mentioning that there have been dozens of Dracula movies before this. "Dracula 56" sounds right. Why not just call it "Dracula 2003"? Then you could have a Dracula movie for every year. Also, I don't remember anybody in this movie actually calling the vampire Dracula.

Anyway, "Dracula II" (!!) putters along. It starts off on the right foot with a Blade-like priest doing his thing against some hot bloodsuckers. Then it pauses for a good portion as Dracula completes his medical degree in vampire hemoglobin. The movie finally comes to life in the last twenty minutes as the priest meets his immortal enemy. It had some good gore and some decent fights. I just wish Dracula had been more of a force of evil in this movie and less an undead specimen for science.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

WHERE'S THE HORROR? (minor spoilers)

Author: rma01
27 March 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okay, now what is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear of a movie about Dracula? A slick European vampire with a typical Transylvanian accent wreaking silent havoc somewhere, right? Wrong!Because Dracula is blond, and with a thick English accent.

Just one question - what's the point of a chained Dracula?

Who's this Father Uffizi, or whatever, where does he come from, where is his character explained? I heard this movie is a sequel to Dracula 2000, but I haven't seen it so I don't know if this Father Uffizi is a crossover character from that movie. But it sure would have helped if we got some info about him in this movie. He just shows up and kills the vampires, in the nick of time too. So clichéd.

This movie could have been made into a cooler feature had more attention been paid to key elements. Like, there are loads of glitches in this movie, and not just the usual ones found in every vampire movie. The cast would have worked much better with more substantial material. Sadly, all that this movie does is to hash up all the typical elements of any vampire movie, with no logic to explain it all and in the end displays nothing new. It's just made for the sake of being made. I wasn't scared at any point of the movie, not even slightly, which is pretty ironical for a movie that has horror as its genre.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

problems I had with this movie (spoilers)

Author: elsbels619 from St Louis
18 March 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Ok, I'm coming at this from a weird angle: I never saw Dracula 2000. But I still had issues with this movie. First, if at the beginning of the movie, after he kills the vampire twins, Uffizi purges himself of the vampire blood by being in sunlight, shouldn't Lizzie be able to do that early on, before the blood in her finger spreads? Second, after seeing blonde Tanya get bitten by Dracula, wouldn't her friends be smart enough to do something to prevent her from coming back? (different vampire stories have different methods of doing this). Third, who exactly IS Fr. Uffizi? His character wasn't really explained, he just shows up and kills the vampires (in just the nick of time too). He was kinda cool though, especially with his Indiana Jones-esque whip. And why is Luke the only smart one, who (attempts) to protect from Dracula? I also had issues with the fact that Eric just happens to have UV lights set up in an abandoned pool. Why couldn't they have just stayed in Lowell's conveniently decrepit country manse? It would've made for a cooler movie

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A true 5.0 movie...

5/10
Author: movieman-138 from PA
18 June 2003

First off dracula is locked up 60 mins out of the total 85 of this film. It is interesting how he is locked away etc etc for about the first 20-25 minutes but the movie can not hold up on its own after that and goes downhill. There are scenes worth watching in the movie but overall a disappointment. That being said if there is a third dracula I may rent it just to see how bad a movie can get from the orginal. I recommend renting jason goes to hell instead or almost any other horror movie you THINK may be worth renting because this is a disappointment period.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Average horror film

5/10
Author: catfish-er from Orlando, Florida
3 November 2009

I saw WES CRAVEN'S Dracula II (ASCENSION) on Showtime the other night; and, I found it to be is a fairly unique take on the vampire mythology. That is, until I saw Blood of the Vampire on AMC; and, realized that a "scientific" approach to vampirism isn't that original.

First, I have to admit that I have not seen DACULA 2000, so I may be a bit lost. However, I did like the opening sequence as an introduction to Father Uffizi. I found him a compelling and credible character; and, think the part was well-acted by Jason Scott Lee.

The rest of in the cast are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average. The psychotic, controlling, wheel-chair bound homosexual / bisexual) mad scientist, played by Craig Sheffer could not have been a worse foil to our vampire hunter. And, his "reveal" at the end is just the film makers' ridiculous attempt to tie up loose ends.

WES CRAVEN'S Dracula II (ASCENSION) is only an average horror film, which shows many flaws.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history