Horror following a group of medical students who come across the body of the world's most notorious vampire, Dracula (Stephen Billington). When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the ...
See full summary »
In the near future, Uffizi and Luke travel to the remote reaches of war torn Romania to rescue Elizabeth and finish the vampire once and for all. Along the way, they encounter TV news journalist and a corps of rebels trying to fight the vampire uprising which plagues their country.
Jason Scott Lee,
All the kids in a town over night become feverish and have convulsions. The next day they start to become evil, change their names for those of kids killed long ago, and then start killing ... See full summary »
Jamie Renée Smith,
Horror following a group of medical students who come across the body of the world's most notorious vampire, Dracula (Stephen Billington). 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't refuse. But as the lure of riches collides with unimaginable terror, the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican.Written by
Despite the cover saying Wes Craven Presents, Wes Craven had nothing to do with the production. See more »
The net that has been thrown onto Dracula when he's in the pool repeatedly moves up and down. See more »
Dead! Very dead!
You killed him?
[Luke aims his spear at Eric]
No! No, somebody beat me to it. And that same son of a bitch is coming for us!
Just one guy?
One guy? One guy?
Yes, one guy! And here's the kicker... he's a bloody priest!
[...] See more »
The vampire casts no reflection because its image is an affront to God.
So the original plot outline of Dracula 2000 comes to light in its sequel, Dracula II: Ascension. Gripe #1 as indicated by my summary, it's an unbalanced trilogy. Meaning? You get one stand alone film (Dracula 2000), and one two-part film (Dracula 2: Ascension & Dracula 3: Legacy) which go nicely together, requires the other to complete the idea, but really leaves the first one kind of hanging by its stand-alone, self-contained, lonesome. For other such trilogies, see also Star Wars (New Hope through Jedi), Back to the Future, and Matrix.
Unfortunately, Dracula II takes the path of Dracula 2000 and tries to throw a few shockers at the audience, making the same mistake of its predecessor in thinking that shocks and plot twists can replace decent story telling. Even worse, Dracula 2000 used up all the good twists. Jason Scott Lee as a butt-kicking priest? Um . . . that might be cool, and Lee's pretty cool. A film that gives action a back seat in favor of resurrecting' Dracula and letting him subtly use/influence the people around him? I'm down with that. But the film is directed by the same man who did Dracula 2000, and well, Dracula 2000 had a lot more elements that could make it work and, well, you know where this heading . . .
Then I found myself asking questions like, what exactly do those priests do to the vampire bodies in the morgue? What is Father Uffizi's lighter fluid (or holy water, whatever it was) going to do to Dracula's corpse that hanging him in sunlight isn't going to do? If they do something else (not shown) like behead the bodies, why bother burning them?
Or how bout: why wasn't Uffizi mentioned in the original film? Where's the Van Helsing offspring? Why must the actors do that hideously fake and unintimidating vampire hiss? And while they're at it, why do the `so liberating, blah, blah, blah' boastful speech when they turn? Why is this film so cliché in its setup?
I'm all for suspending disbelief for the sake of enjoying a film, but there comes a point where the clichés and questions add up beyond what you're capable of ignoring.
Dracula II: Ascension has 2 big twists to its plot. One is expected, typical of films like this, and incredibly lame - I never would have guessed who was in league with who, let's come out of the closet while we're at it. The second twist is actually very well executed, and much harder to spot. It would've been really great if they just ended the film and the series on that note instead of revving up for the third film, but I get the feeling that without the third film the writers would have opted for a happier, family friendly, resolution.
Oh well, we'll see where Dracula III leads.
5 of 9 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this