Dracula III: Legacy (Video 2005) Poster

(2005 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
39 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
The King of all Vampires is...............
alicat427-112 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Dracula: Legacy is the third and final installment to Dracula series. I saw the first one and liked the whole storyline but it was poorly executed. I saw the second one..........I adored Stephen Billinton as Dracula. One of the finest Dracula acting jobs I've seen yet. But the second Dracula made no sense with the first one....so I didn't really like that one. Then for old times sake I thought to myself "why not!" So I rented the last one. I just recently spent 2 weeks in Romania and found the interpretation of Romania to be offensive. This country had it's revolution in 89 and is becoming much more powerful....it's finding it's place and regaining it's footing. In some area's it's very poor but it's not creepy. But, the Hollywood Romania will always be there so "c'est la vie!" There are some pros and cons to this movie. A pro is it's shot in the mother country that created spookiness. I have to say some Gypsy Clans are really creepy there. I really enjoyed Jason London as Luke. He is a very comedic actor but can relay very deep levels of emotion. I loved it in the end when he kills Elizabeth. Oh yes...Jason Scott Lee....oh Jason Scott Lee....why must you ruin every scene you're in. Lee seems liked a very nice man but he makes Orlando Bloom looked like an Academy Award Winner. The character it's self it pretty cool....don't get me wrong....he has some good points but overall weak performance. The character of Julie really bugged me at first. But Westcourt really proved herself in her death scene. Diane Neal was terrible in Dracula 2....but she really proves herself in Dracula 3 to be a good actress. She looked very sensual. Hauer was OK, he wasn't good and he wasn't bad. He seemed to babble a lot through this movie, from what I heard he improvised a lot of his lines..which would explain that. Also, I think my favorite character was that random guy that collected girls for Dracula to feed on. He was unintentionally really funny. He reminded me a lot of that child kidnapper from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I was really drawn to him for some strange reason. Now, I think one of my favorite scenes in this whole movie is strangely the vampire pit. It was so vulgar and primal that you just had to love it. I also liked that the writers touched immortality and it's toll. That Dracula once handsome and alluring, now takes a worn out and gaunt look. They could have shown and explained it much better though. And what was up with those stupid TVs??? It was so confusing.

Another scene I really liked was the circus vampires attacked Lee in the street. It was really creepy and cool. Then......I loved the ending. It really proved it's self in the end. Good and evil....black and white....and the grey lines in between were touched beautifully in the end. When I look back on this movie I think it was a pretty good straight to DVD kinda movie.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A good finale to the Dracula 2000 series
three_am7 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed the last installment of the Dracula 2000 series. The real Romania as the landscape for the story was awesome, it added to the sinister aspect of the plot. The Romanian actors in the movie were also a bonus (in the opening scene of the movie). There were a lot to like in this movie. I am proud that the entire series did not fall into vampire movie cliché. The series remain unique in this way.

I do understand this is a "B" flick movie (not worthy enough to be shown in theaters across the nation), but it is superb B flick.

I had reservations about Rutger Hauer playing Dracula simply because the actors used to portray the previous Draculas in the first two movies were hip and hot. But he did pretty well, he does a good villain.

My favorite scenes are the "suckfest" at Dracula's place, the opening scene, and the end scene.

This was a well done movie - the script, the directing, the acting. The Amercian actors did an excellent job. The Romanian actors stood out to me. I particularly like the ending of the story.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The King Is Dead... Long Live The King!
Peach_Braxton15 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The last installment in the Dracula 2000 series is definitely well worth the wait. We are finally spared the ultra-hip, too-pretty young characters who, one by one, turn into short-lived vampires. For once, we get right down to the nitty gritty... classic Dracula. Although I was disappointed that Stephen Billington was merely a flashback in this movie (Dracula's face keeps changing, so we are constantly being reminded), the final and least attractive Dracula shows us just how evil his nature truly is. Before he was seductive, inviting, and almost a sympathetic character. You couldn't help but feel sort of sorry for old Judas Iscariot being cursed by God for all eternity for simply fulfilling prophecy. But we don't feel sorry for him anymore, not when he has human minions kidnapping Romanian villagers for his private suckfest, or the fact that he keeps a pathetic "harem" of vampire women constantly feeding on local girls, of which he has thrust poor Elizabeth into.

The best part is definitely Jason Scott Lee as ex-Father Uffizi, the mortal vampire killer infected with the Nosferatu virus. His character actually gets a love interest, an EBC reporter played by Alexandra Westcourt. Their flirtation is rather cute, almost like puppy love, especially when Uffizi cracks his rock-hard face to smile at her. The relationship between Luke and Elizabeth at the end is just as touching. Although Lizzie is now a vampire, she is amazed at how devoted Luke has been to her throughout the whole ordeal.

All in all, an excellent film. Far too good to be a direct-to-video/cable movie.
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
About the Factual errors of Dracula III: Legacy (2005)
alexicatdg5 February 2007
I am from Transylvania, Romania. Actually I live near Bran (30 minute by car), known as Dracula's Castle.

In the Factual Errors it is stated that: "it is also an Orthodox Christian country. In the scene where the main characters approach the castle, you can see a bunch of Catholic priests impaled. You would struggle to find that many Catholic priests in all of Eastern Europe, much less in Romania alone."

Totally incorrect! Because we are speaking about Transylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Principality_of_Transylvania) which was a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. The biggest number of catholic religion persons from Romania is in Transylvania. Actually is quite easy to find catholic priests in these parts of Romania.

Brasov, which is my city, has the Black Church, the biggest Gothic style Catholic Cathedral in Eastern Europe!

You don't have to know history to check what you are saying at www.wikipedia.com

Anyway, for those interested in the Dracula myth, you should read a bit more about the Medieval History of Transylvania...You would like more the myth of Dracula;and the castle is quite impressive;Personally, I would not dare to stay a night by myself in the Castle;not only because of Dracula;we have stronger demons in our culture that Dracula.

Myself I am more like a Werewolf type :-) In Transylvania we still have packs of wolves that attack at night the villages in long winter nights and we have the biggest population of bears in Europe; And a lot of old superstitions about demons that travel the country side at night, even nowadays;

If you ever visit Romania, enjoy Transylvania! It is the most beautiful part of Romania by far!
29 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Reasonable Sequel of "Dracula II: Ascension"
claudio_carvalho29 April 2006
Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) and Luke (Jason London) travels through a Romania destroyed by the civil war and the vampires. Luke is trying to save Elizabeth (Diane Neal) from the claws of Dracula, and Uffizi to terminate with the vampires. Along their journey, they meet the British television journalist Julia Hughes (Alexandra Westcourt) covering the war, and the trio follow together facing dangerous situations with the rebels and the vampires.

"Dracula III: Legacy" is a reasonable sequel of "Dracula II: Ascension". The cinematography is beautiful, the special effects work well, but the facial expressions of the ham actor Jason London almost spoil the film. In the end, this forgettable movie entertains. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Drácula 3: O Legado Final" ("Dracula 3: The Final Legacy")
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Jason Scott Lee and Jason London in blood war affected Romania!
aura77231 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I've just seen "Dracula III: Legacy" on my computer and I absolutely liked it. I don't understand why they gave this movie such a bad rating.

The effects are good, the fighting scenes are convincing. Jason Scott Lee and Jason London actually made a really good team. I'm really hoping for a sequel.

The filming locations in Romania were good also, they had a good guide, they choose perfect places to represent a Romania affected by a vampire war. They showed mostly old castles and small villages, not so civilized or modern as the rest of Romania. The Mogosoaia Castle was again shown, with a more beautiful view. (The place were Father Uffizi talked to his superior and gave up his priesthood). The path to the Dambovicioara Cave was nice, I'm proud I have been there only a few weeks back.

In this movie, Dracula was old and hideous, that's the only part I have hated. They should have choose a younger and good-looking actor.

I also love the fact that the three movies are different from one another. The first was Van Helsing themed and then they made up another character, Father Uffizi. Interesting character that he is. The second movie was about humans discovering the concept of vampirism and the third was about vampires on lose in Romania.

All in all, I am content with this "Dracula 2000" sequels.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
brilliant ending,plus Rutger Hauer as Dracula, elevate this movie
disdressed122 January 2009
this sequel to Dracula II:Ascension,which is sort of a sequel to Dracula 2000,has much more story than either of the other tow.almost too much,in fact.it moves at a pretty slow pace,then,just when you think you can bear no more,something interesting happens to keep you watching.Two of the main characters from Dracula II are more fleshed out,and there is a wee bit of humour to lighten things up on one or two rare occasions.near the end,when i thought it was over,i was thinking how anti climatic it all was.but i realized it wasn't quite over,and the actual ending is brilliant.it begs for a sequel,which is not likely to happen.and yet,it's also a perfect conclusion.the ending(well,that and Rutger Hauer as Dracula--a stroke of genius)is what elevated the move for me.otherwise,i would have given this 2 or 3 stars less.as it stands,i give Dracula III:Legacy a 6/10
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Possibly the best direct-to-video movie ever!
jellyneckr13 July 2005
One of the biggest cinematic disappointments of last year was BLADE: TRINITY, the final chapter in the BLADE trilogy. It wasn't a bad film by any means, but it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been considering it featured Dracula, the baddest vampire of all time. Dracula III: LEGACY is more like what BLADE: TRINITY should have been: a fast-paced, rousing action flick full of well written character and fleshed out plot lines. One really has to hand it to Joel Soisson and Patrick Lussier for their good screen writing. One also has to admire Patrick Lussier's directing. While his directing in Dracula 2000 and Dracula II: ASCENSION was admirable, his directing here made me a fan. He's a man who definitely knows how to direct a vampire film. This baby oozes with style not seen in a vampire flick since 1998's VAMPIRES, one of my top ten favorite vampire pictures of all time. Like VAMPIRES, 'LEGACY' is filled with cool gory bits, well done special effects, and a kick-ass main character (played by Jason Scott Lee). I really don't have any complaints about Dracula III: LEGACY. It's not a perfect film, but it is a fun ride and possibly the best direct-to-video movie ever. I understand why Dimension didn't give it a theatrical release. It wouldn't make sense to give this a theatrical release when Dracula II: ASCENSION went direct-to-video although it certainly did deserve a theatrical release. Because both Dracula II: ASCENSION and Dracula III: LEGACY went direct-to-video, I don't think that they will ever find the audience that they deserve to. My rating: 7/10
23 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Worst of the Film Series
Rainey-Dawn23 June 2014
Jason Scott Lee is back as the weapon's master Father Uffizi in hopes to put a final end to the vampires once and for all.

The third installment of the Dracula 200 series, Dracula III: Legacy, is not as good as Dracula II: Ascension (which I liked the best of the series) but much better than other horror films I have seen in my time.

This movie is not bad if you catch it one late night or on a boring afternoon. It has it's moments of action and thrills - mainly from Jason Scott Lee - but the story is lagging a bit in my opinion. I would not watch this movie with expectations of it being a bad or a good film... instead watch it with no expectations and you may be surprised.

5/10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Again and again the same vampire trash
kneiss128 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has Rudger Hauer and Roy Scheider. Sounds like an amazing cast, doesn't it? Sadly both of them only show up for 2 minutes. This movies cast is nothing but mediocre.

While the 2nd part had some new variations about the vampire theme, this movie has nothing new. Everything has been there before (and better). Again and again the same vampire-trash story. Evil super-mighty vampire shows up, and is killed by good half-vampire (or half-demon or something else simliar silly). Do people really like this? I despise it. There is so much potential in the vampire material, yet, most filmmakers lack creativity.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Some useful details
koditzadispater28 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I am a Romanian guy (although I do not live in Transilvania or near Bran :)) and I live in Bucharest. Even if living in my country is not like living in Germany or UK or USA, we are not beggars... this movie is nothing but bad taste: bad directing (if you look close you will see the same old car filmed twice - for example), bad script and above all... bad acting. I do not even know what is the most disgusting thing: the offense brought to Romania and to its people or the stupidity of the story. Of course, they go hand in hand, but what can we expect from this kind of movie/actors/stuff. And for who wonders: I found the movie on a friend's DVD containing other important stuff and only curiosity led me to the end of this movie. As I said, a strong 1, because I can not note it bellow...
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
As i saw a comment above this movie is outrageous.
alex_bladeus10 November 2005
I'm amazed , one of the worst movies ever. Rutger plays like he drink-ed to much in the night clubs of Bucharest , the main actor is just another Blade , a vampire who is also a day walker. But Romania in a civil war , with rebels , with desert and , let's take the hypothetical scenario and believe it. Rebeles with crossbows armed ? I understand that the filming is more cheap in Ro but to play this bad and to mock the history and present of a country in a lousy movie? I wonder how much this film costed. The original things and new in it , were the vampire turned from a circus , a new weapon for the vampire slayer also combined with a bad whip.

For those who know i must say one thing. Don't watch .. this ain't worth s**t .
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A good guilty pleasure.
Boba_Fett113810 April 2010
This is not a great movie by any means but it still is certainly a good and entertaining watch. No matter how weak and silly the movie seems at times, you'll still enjoy watching it.

This is pretty much a direct sequel to "Dracula II: Ascension", even though its being set at different locations and follows a different story. It still focuses on the same characters and is connected to the events of the second movie. But oh well, you don't necessarily need to see "Dracula II: Ascension", in order to understand this movie.

Like must cheap straight-to-video horror flicks made these days, it got shot in Romania. However when your movie is about Dracula this is of course also not an unlikely place to set your movie in. For more than halve of the movie it still doesn't look like it's going to be a Dracula movie though, since the character gets introduced quite late into the story, as if they could not afford to have Rutger Hauer on the set for more than a week or so.

But let me tell you that Rutger Hauer still really leaves a lasting impression with his role. I was quite surprised at how great he was. The two other big names of the movie are Jason Scott Lee and Roy Scheider, though none of them were of course quite the best or biggest names the movie industry had to offer.

The story is of course nothing to special but it's all being still quite good and I liked its approach. All the movies out of the series always have been a modern take on the Dracula legacy and it's perhaps in this movie that this approach works out the best and most refreshing.

It's still a quite weakly directed, cheap looking B-horror flick, with some not to impressive actors but it's a good and entertaining little guilty pleasure to watch.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Awesome Finale to the series!!
matt-spease13 July 2005
This film is a great final chapter to the Dracula 2000 series. Jason Scott Lee is as good as ever as Uffizi, Jason London is cool as hell as Luke, Rutger Hauer proves that Buffy The Vampire Slayer was not his best and is great as Dracula (although I still would have loved to see Gerard Butler return from Dracula 2000). Diane Neal is sexy as hell as Elizabeth, but one wishes she was more willing to do nudity for the final orgy. Alexandra Westcourt was very good as Julie and has a super chemistry with Jason Scott Lee that makes him more human. Patrick Lussier's direction was as great as ever, I'd love to see his take on The Crow mythology :) The additional characters were also great in this film, the two vampires during the opening and the two procurers in particular were awesomely performed! All in all, it is a perfect ending to the series with lots of action, nudity, and gore to please many :)
10 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
don't watch this movie
pocpocestimort29 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
this is another brilliant movie from the "Golden Shi* Collection". Same boring story told over and over again. the action of the film is rather dull and boring, it does not come with something new and, what pis*ed me off the most, puts Romania in a bad light. We are not a country of blood thirsty animals, we are poor but not as it is shown in the movie, we are not savages! What we are is a country full of history, with beautiful landscapes, and a lot of stupid people who would sell their own country for some American currency. anyway, i derailed, that is an 1 for this movie! :)oh, by the way i read in the guidelines that i have to write about the title: i hate it!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Time killer
ctomvelu-12 November 2008
Dracula is back for one last bite in this second sequel to Dracula 2000. Sadly, neither this nor the first sequel comes close to the original, possibly because of the actor playing Dracula in the original. This time around, Dracula is played by Rutger Hauer, and as much as I like Hauer, this is hardly his finest hour (that would be THE HITCHER and BLADE RUNNER). Rutger was just picking up a paycheck and getting to see Romania. Jason Scott Lee is a defrocked priest hot on Drac's trail, and Lee is all pop-eyed and frizzy-haired and high energy -- and about the only reason to watch this bloody but unnecessary romp. Shooting in an old castle or whatever it was in Romania didn't do anything toward guaranteeing a quality picture. I did sort of like the very ending, but see it for yourself and decide. Jason London is woefully miscast as a secondary hero to the proceedings. You want Dracuia, watch one of the Chris Lee Hammer flicks.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Watchable but the weakest of the series.
hu67515 October 2008
The renegade priest/vampire slayer (Jason Scott Lee) was nearly killed by a vampire. Years has passed... the priest and his loyal partner (Jason London) kill vampires for a living just into they find Dracula (Now played by the underrated Rutger Hauer) & destroyed him... once and for all.

Directed by Patrick Lussier (Dracula 2000, Dracula 2:Ascension, My Bloody Valentine "2009") made an watchable but very flawed and disappointing sequel to the two previous movies, which the director was loyal enough to stay with the series. Lee gives an somewhat improving performance after the second film but he still looks lost at times. Hauer's role as Dracula is disappointingly short... sadly. Still, Lussier manages to have good locations and fine production values but it is not enough to cover the weak areas of the screenplay.

DVD has an good anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an decent Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an audio commentary by the filmmakers, deleted scene, alternate ending and more. "Dracula 3" is OK as entertainment but the filmmakers should have known better and it was shot as the same time as "Dracula 2". Horror fans might like this but they will find themselves bored in a couple of sequences. Super 35. (** 1/2 out of *****).
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A solid way to end the series.
BA_Harrison21 September 2012
Dracula III: Legacy starts immediately where Dracula II: Ascension left off, with Dracula and his new 'bride' Elizabeth (Diane Neal) fleeing the USA, Luke (Jason London) and Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) in hot pursuit, their journey taking them to Romania for a final confrontation with the legendary vamp (now played by Rutger Hauer) in his castle lair.

Filmed back-to-back with part II of the Craven/Lussier series, this chapter is naturally very similar in style and tone, a slick, contemporary blend of action, gore, and humour. Luke and Uffizi's Romanian road-trip is perhaps not as loaded with vamp action as I would have liked (they seem to have just as many problems with the local humans as they do with bloodsuckers), and its a long while before we get to see Hauer as Drac, but there is enough fun throughout to make this a satisfying end to the series.

The pairing of Lee and London works particularly well, the latter ably playing comedy sidekick to Lee's bad-ass priest/vampire killer with a troubled soul, and some welcome girl-power comes in the form of Alexandra Wescourt, who plays feisty news reporter Julia Hughes. Rutger Hauer is always cool in my book (and he has previous experience at playing a vampire), but as much as I enjoyed his performance, he does look a bit too 'weathered' here to be playing Dracula (what's with the messy stubble?), especially considering that Stephen Billington and Gerard Butler played the character in the earlier films.

For me, the best thing about the film is the gore, which includes a juicy 'spear in the eye' gag, a macabre display of impaled priests, a bit of face melting with holy water, Father Uffizi whipping off heads and limbs right, left and centre, and in my favourite moment—an attack by a pair of creepy circus vampires—the cutting in half of a female acrobat and the ingenious staking of a clown on stilts.

6.5 out of 10 (rounded up to 7 for the cool ending, which I won't spoil by describing here).
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One Of The Best Films I've Seen...
gerrardwaylover-127 May 2008
I've got to admit i wasn't sure if i was going to like this film because they had yet again changed the actor for Dracula. I was though pleasantly surprised not only was it a good film but Dracula was amazing.I was glad to see that they had kept most of the same cast as they all are amazingly talented actors and actresses.I was glad to see DG (I cant spell his actual name) back and as brooding as ever, he is defiantly my favourite character in the film and has been ever since i saw ascension. It Made Me Laugh and It Made Me Cry. Which to be honest is exactly what i have come to expect from these films. This film is exactly what Blade Trinity should have been instead of the crap that it has become.

I highly recommend it to any fan of vampire films. It is well worth watching :).
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Hahaha
marulez4 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is a joke... First of all it has nothing to do with Dracula. Dracula was the nickname of one and only person in this world! Not to a lot of vampires like it was said in this movie... Dracula was the nickname of Voievod Vlad Tepes (Voevod Vlad The Impaller). And Vlad was only one person. So i guess in the next Dracula movie the new Vlad Tepes will gonna be an Asian... hahaha!! I didn't knew we Romanians are asians... Ohhh by the way! Who is gonna see this movie will think that Romania is a primitive African tribe or something. I MEAN OHHH MY GOD!!! I don't know who give them permission to make fun of Romania (my country) in such way!!! If its up to this movie we don't even have electricity or cars... Jesus Christ... The acting is also a stink and you can see that the sword of the so called "Dracula" (that has nothing to do with the real Dracula at all) is made out of plastic or something weak. You can clearly see that the sword is not made from metal. You can notice that part when "Dracula" puts his "sword" on Uffizi's neck and say "You can still save her you know, have all you've been denied, but are you worthy?" Look at the sword how it creases/bows. Its completely elastic. LOL Well I hope the next Dracula movie will revive Vlad The Impaller somehow and regain some sense and fame.. and most of all i hope they will stop mocking Romania like that!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Passable straight-to-video horror
Coventry12 March 2006
After the events in "Ascension", Dracula returns to home sweet home Romania with the beautiful Elizabeth being one of his new bloodsucking brides. The country is torn apart by war, Dracuala's minions are everywhere and yet Father Uffizi and his comic relief sidekick Luke are determined to reach the vampire's castle and to destroy him once and for all. Uffizi has become so obsessed with his mission that he even stepped back as a priest. Patrick Lussier somewhat pleasantly surprised horror fans with his original "Dracula 2000", but why the hell did he ruin this by making two unrelated and entirely redundant sequels? "Legacy" has little to offer, apart from some nice gore and an ingenious sequence featuring circus-vampires on stilts. Admittedly, that was pretty cool to look at. The rest of the movie is an unexciting mess with bad acting performances and a severe lack of continuity. The set pieces and filming locations appear to nice, but the lousy camera-work and under-exposure makes it impossible to be sure. Throughout the whole movie, everybody is driveling about how almighty Dracula is, but when he finally makes an appearance (in the shape of B-movie veteran Rutger Hauer), he turns out to be a lame philosopher who prefers to plea instead of to kill. Yawn!
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dracula is NOT Judas!
CountVladDracula18 June 2011
This seriously hurts the Dracula myth. Dracula is NOT Judas. The very Dracula novel will tell you that he 'must be the Dracula who fought the Turks'. That's Vlad the Impaler, born 1431 and died 1476. NOT Judas. And I find the attempt to justify Dracula's limitations to tie them to the Judas story to be flawed at best. Okay, so he was paid in silver when he betrayed Jesus so he hates silver, he hates the sun because he tried to kill himself at dusk... O...kay... and he hates crosses because of Jesus being crucified (long held guilt?). So how do we explain his aversion to Garlic? They had Italian at the last supper? Also I do NOT like the idea that Jesus would condemn anyone to be a vampire. Jesus forgave Judas. And why would he come to save humanity only to unleash the world's worst vampire on the Earth. That's a Messiah who gave us Count Dracula?! Some Messiah unleashing a monster on us. Thanks a lot! This is a poor sequel from a film (Dracula 2000) that was weak to begin with. Still Rutger Hauer is a good actor though.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rutger is worth the silliness
NateWatchesCoolMovies29 December 2017
Dimension films made a few Dracula sequels following their solid 2000 effort starring Gerard Butler, most of which are meh. Dracula III: Legacy, however, has the ace-in-the-hole asset of having legendary cult thespian Rutger Hauer in the titular vampire role, and that alone makes it noteworthy. Even though the guy doesn't even show up until the third act, and isn't around for long, he's magnetic as the dark prince of bloodsuckers and not to be missed when rallying up the lengthy list of actors who have played the role. The film itself is grade A-cheese and hardly ever feels like a Dracula story, as well as being fairly incomprehensible in relation to the other handful of films in the franchise. I've got a weakness for Dimension horror films though, and they're particularly slick brand of schlock. Jason London, who we all wistfully remember as Randall Pink Floyd in Richard Linklater's Dazed & Confused, is some random vampire hunter, off trekking into the Eastern European alps with martial arts actor Jason Scott Lee to find the Vamp of all Vamps. They do find him, in the form of Hauer's entertaining fiend skulking around a derelict castle and... that's pretty much it. For Hauer fans, load up Final Cut Pro and edit a breezy short film with just his wicked good scenes. For fans of B Movie silliness, have a few beers first. Everyone else, keep on browsing the blockbuster shelf. Oh yeah, and Roy Scheider is in it too, and I've completely forgotten who he plays.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great ending to the series
kannibalcorpsegrinder8 April 2017
Still determined to rid the world of vampires, a banished priest and his assistant travel to Romania during the middle of a Civil War and when they meet with a reporter and reveal that they are tracking Dracula the three team up to stop him before he can unleash a new era of evil.

This wasn't all that bad of a sequel. One of the more enjoyable aspects of this one is that this one increased one of the main problems in the second one and went for full-on action. The pace in here is really relentless and hardly ever lets up, as it starts off with the confrontation in the train yard or the encounter with the rebels in the woods while the middle scenes in the abandoned city and the prison scenes are all fantastic scenes as there's a great collection of action scene after action scene with very little time in between. The fight with the vampire on stilts stands out a little more than usual due to its inventiveness, and that it leads into the stellar sequence in the church utilizing the knowledge of fighting with the creatures makes for a great scene. The final half here, from the battle with the vampires attacking the rebel base which leads to the slaughter of the troops and leads into the discovery of the vampire hideout which is where the big brawls take place where the massacre in the pit and getting trapped inside the castle with the den of the creatures as he tries to rescue her. As well, there's even a solid sword-fight and some heart evolved in the big resolution to it all which gives this a strong finish and features plenty of action along the way. That fast pace is it's greatest asset, and the inclusion of some solid gore and sleaze as well as the odd occasional humorous line here and there which is greatly appreciated, these here make this a very enjoyable offering. There's really only one complaint about this one, and that's the lack of Dracula on display. The fact that the movie was about him should've made him a central figure, but the only screen-time is a couple of short scenes near the end. It really could've been about any vampire count and not really changed it all that much. He really should've been on-screen more. That's the only big thing to find fault within here. However, the finale does feel a little rushed and a if it didn't need to play out as it does since there are about four or five different versions of the ending it could've gone with and it threw them all in order to pad out the running time, but otherwise the biggest issue is the lack of actual on-screen title character.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Nudity.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Average straight-to-DVD horror flick.
poolandrews31 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Dracula III: Legacy starts as part Vampire, part man all Vampire hunter Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) & his new sidekick Luke (Jason London) manage to learn that Dracula (Rutger Hauer) has returned to his homeland of Romania, Father Uffizi wants to destroy him once & for all while Luke wants to rescue Elizabeth (Diane Neal). They arrive in Romania & quickly discover that Dracula is using rebels to collect victims for him & his Vampires & using the civil war as a cover, it's up to Father Uffizi & Luke to stop him once & for all...

Co-written & directed by Patrick Lussier this is the straight-to-DVD sequel of Dracula 2000 (2000) & Dracula II: Ascension (2003) which this was shot back-to-back with. For some reason the title character of Dracula is played by different actors in all three films, Gerard Butler in the first, Stephen Billington in the second & Rutger Hauer here in the third without any real explanation given for it. Anyway the script by Lussier & Joel Soisson brings the Vampire legend bang up to date & places Dracula in a modern war torn Romania using the chaos caused by fighting rebels & the like as cover for his Vampiric activities which is a novel idea I suppose but one which not much is made of. The film moves along at a decent pace, there's a few good set-pieces & the like but I never felt particularly emotionally involved with anything or anyone, I was just sat there waiting for the next Vampire to show up rather than being enthralled by the story. Dracula III: Legacy is a reasonable film, it passes the time harmlessly enough but I just felt it was a little bit too 'middle of the road' as it were & ultimately a bit forgettable.

Director Lussier does a decent job, there's some nice camera angles & well lit scenes but apart from the occasion sporadic piece of stylish film-making it's pretty routine. The gore levels are a little low, there's some melted faces, some dead mutilated bodies, arms & head whipped off & a few largely bloodless staking, some priests impaled on huge stakes & little else. There's a bit of nudity as well but not enough to get excited about. Dracula III: Legacy (Legacy by the way is a word the makers have seemingly plucked out of the air at random because it 'sounded' cool) is maybe the one & only time in cinematic history that someone is attacked by a Vampire walking on stilts! I wouldn't say it's overly scary or exciting but it does have a bit of mood to it.

With a supposed budget of about $3,200,000 this was shot at the same time as Dracula II: Ascension in 2002 but remained unreleased until 2005. Actually shot on location in Bucharest in Romania this looks nice enough with decent production values. The acting is alright but no-one is going to win any awards, Roy Scheider turns up in a (very) small role.

Dracula III: Legacy is a perfectly entertaining way to pass 90 odd minutes without ever really getting one worked up too much, I liked it but didn't love it & doubt I would ever want to see it again & I will probably have forgotten all about it by the end of the week.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed