Rating: 
Summary: Dracula 2002 (or, that title would have made more sense)...
Review: "Dracula II," sequel to Dimension's holiday bomb "Dracula 2000," is the second installment in a planned trilogy about the king of all vampires (who also happens to be Judas, betrayer of Christ in the film's mythos), and despite its straight-to-video origins, it's actually a decent foray into the blood and fangs genre. Now, that doesn't mean it's for everyone, much like its (superior but flawed) predecessor, but if you are into vampire films with a sense of humor, this may fit the bill. The plotline revolves around a band of medical school students who discover the severely immolated corpse of Dracula, and decide to sell it for a hefty sum to a mysterious figure who telephones them early on. Why do horror films always exhibit main characters with really, really bad ideas? At any rate, it all goes wrong in short order. Dissension in the group, betrayal, a priestly vampire hunter, and Dracula himself all serve to make things a little bumpy for the conspirators. The film's greatest strength lies in its rather macabre sense of humor, and provides an interesting take on Bram Stoker's beast. Unfortunately, there are more holes in the plotline than in a vampire-ravaged throat. Characters behave inconsistently at best. On top of that, if you're a fan of "Dracula 2000," don't expect this one to feel much like a follow-up, as the only returning character is Dracula himself (and he's had a major facelift). This is true despite returning director/writer Patrick Lussier and co-writer Joel Soisson. And, as one might expect in this instance, the original is superior, if only to a small extent. The ideas aren't very original, but "Dracula II" is more entertaining than it should be. If you like vampire films, especially those which provide a healthy dose of camp, then by all means give this a look - and keep an eye open for "Dracula III." After all, "Dracula II" all but ends with a "to be continued..."
Rating: 
Summary: Half-hearted attempt
Review: "Dracula II" is at the best of times a cheap movie, and at the worst, a horrible quasi-sequel. It disregards a lot of information put forth by the first Dracula movie, "Dracula 2000", and for what purpose, one can only guess. The movie's namesake - now equipped with bleach-blonde hair for some reason - spends almost the entirety of the movie strapped to a chair, and while the movie has minimal "scary movie moments", they don't make up for the utter lack of feeling you have for any of the characters. The plotline is ill-explained and swiss cheese for the most part, and the weak ending leaves you feeling rather cheated out of your money. I'd say save your money either renting or buying this film and find another, almost certainly better, vampire flick.
Rating:
Summary: Golly Goats Batman! You [Are Weak]!
Review: ... There were so many problems I have with this movie... Like for starters, does someone want to explain WHY the sequel had NOTHING in common with the original, other then the fact that Drac was in it? How can you be a sequel if you don't--sequel?? And why was Dracula tied up the whole ... movie? I mean gosh, it was bad enough they made him look [bad], ... but did you have to render the poor boy helpless? And what LAUNGAUGE was he specking anyway? ... Cause I promise, with the exception of maybe five sentences, I couldn't understand a word he said. Shouldn't there have been subtitles at the bottom of the screen for stuff like that? And I do believe, besides Dracula, not one vampire lasted more then five minutes out of the whole movie. ... But just so you won't turn your nose up at the entire movie: It really was sort of fun. The priest (aka the Vampire Slayer) was really tight, what with the no nonesense additute and the way he used his weapons. He practically dominated when it came to the few fight scenes, which becuase of the statement above, didn't last that long. I gotta say, the twist and turns in the storyline were awsome as well, but not to spoil the fun, I won't say what they are. And although Dracula looked rather...eewwsh...in the movie, there was this ONE SHINING MOMENT where he got to see him without all the dried blood, and wounds, and a little more color on his face...and MAN WAS HE HOT. ... And okay, so Dracula AGAIN doesn't talk that much and yeah, so most of his conversations are in some off laungauge I'm to lazy to go translate: any of the moments he DID speak and that were understandable english words were either too cute or quite funny: he had a ... type of sarcasm, what with the smirking and laughing at other's misfortune... And the damsel this time, although slightly 'stupid' is more entertaining to watch then Van Helsing's daughter in the first flick. So pretty much, although there are some bad points, the good points which accure WHILE the points maybe/maybe not happening are good enough to make this movie watchable...that and to me, it's better then the first. More gore...more fun...actually more exciting to watch, just the priest alone made that possible...and although he was tied up most of the movie (well actually, the entire movie except the ending) ... And so you ask: Why then, the 3 stars? For this, and this reason alone: THE ENDING. I'm just going to warn you as of now: DO NOT WATCH THE ENDING. It will ONLY make you irriated and highly upset unless the 3rd installment is already out by the time you've seen it. TRUST ME. The ending alone is enough to make me give this 1 star, but due to the movie's superiority, and the fact that the scenes for the ending are a hoot...I'll give it 3 stars. All and all, this is watch worthy if you are:
1. A Wes Craven fan. 2. A Dracula/Vampier Movie Fan 3. Saw Dracula 2000 and wants to the sequel. (Note: The only reference it makes to D2000 is at the beginning with him still burning on the cross...which contridicts the ending to D2000 seeing as it seemed V. H.'s daughter put him back in the coffin and sealed him away.) 4. Really have a lot a time on your hands and just happen to see the case in your local Blockbuster and think it looks rahter interesting.... And on that note, I hope you enjoyed: but I do suggest you RENTING the movie first BEFORE you spend you good hard earned money to buy it... Happy Hunting and Enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Cool
Review: After reading some of the reviews I was not
gonna buy Dracula II.But when I was at a store
I could t resist to buy it.It was really a cool
movie.It had some scary scenes and some action
scenes as well a great story behind it.What
can I say,Wes craven has always made great movies
and will continue making them.So go and buy it.
Rating:
Summary: Bad Sequel.
Review: After seeing Dracula 2000, and what it stood out as a classy, retelling of the tale of Draula, with a completely new folklore for the famed "Prince of Darkness", This sequel is nothing short of bad, the only link to the original movie is attempted to take up where the original ended (other than a stolen video clip here and there, espeically the 2 second recollection of Judas hanging from the tree).
While Dracula 2000 might have created a new Dracula legend, in a new ultra modern gothic/punk underworld scene. Bringing the old into the new age. This movie does nothing but attempt to capitalize on the fame of the first one. Lame connection with the first, poor storyline, and probably made on a budget that was less than buying coffee for the cast.
The bringing in of Jason Lee, into the storyline, while it might be good in another story, left many questions, how did he and the church get involved if Dracula was imprisioned in a steel coffin by Van Hensing, for hundreds of years, and the treat of vampires had become nothing but a myth.
Come on, a better sequel could have been made, if they really wanted to. The first movie (Dracula 2K) was a complete story, this one, this one leaves you craving for something better.
Rating: 
Summary: Dracula: Ascension
Review: After viewing a screener copy of 'Dracula: Ascension' (sequel to Dracula 2000), I decided to get on my computer and preorder a copy of the DVD (which I've heard should have at least an entertaining commentary track, among it's extras!). The film is a direct sequel to 'Dracula 2000' and pretty much takes up where the other film left off, with Dracula hung burning from a cross. There is a switch of burned bodies at the morgue and before long the blood-sucker is back alive and kicking. What follows is an escalating series of action packed scenes that seem to draw the characters closer and closer to their ultimate demise. I was never left waiting for the action to start back up. The whole thing ends in a super cliff-hanger that leaves you awaiting the release of Dracula: Legacy. (Part 3, which I believe was filmed at the same time as Part 2, on location in Romania. The land of Vampires!). There is ample blood-shed and severed heads, supplied once again by Gary Tunnicliffe (FX guy from Dracula 2000!). Jason Scott Lee puts in a good turn as an awsome priest/vampire hunter, loaded up with cool weapons. At last a return of the 'vampire hunters' of the past, yet this one has a twist (Perhaps we'll see more of him in part 3)! The rest of the cast puts in some pretty good performances with a few stand out supporting roles (John Light as 'the Money' or comedy relief, Khary Peyton as 'normal guy' turned psycho and Steve Billington as a really creepy Dracula). Also, look for a cameo by Roy Schieder! (Too bad it could'nt have been more than a cameo...) This movie was well made and carefully crafted by many of the same people who did the original Dracula 2000. I can't help but feel that if only the budget were higher, then perhaps this film could have expanded on and fleshed out many of its ideas and perhaps have been a 5 star film. Even then, I'm not sure why this one never made it to theaters. Don't miss it, especially if you are a fan of Dracula 2000!
Rating:
Summary: Decent for strait to video.
Review: Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story." Jason London is funny as, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend. And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note.
Rating:
Summary: Dreadful Dracula 2000 Sequel; No 'Wes Craven' Horror
Review: Dimention Films gives a direct sequel to "Dracula 2000" (or "2001" depending on the place you live in), and this "Dracula II: Ascention" was shot in Romania, back-to-back, with another sequel "Dracula III: Legacy" (the title at the time of writing this). Maybe I have to wait for this "III" before reviewing "II," but as far as this one is concerned, I was hugely disappointed with the result. The plot starts where exactly the original left, so if you have not seen it, you might have some trouble. But the premise is simple: it's about one heavily burnt dead body, and medical students ala "Flatliners," led by Professor Lowell (Craig Sheffer). Perhaps you do not want to know more about it, so I only add that Jason Scott Lee appears as the star of the film, but his role is a bit surprisng one. And Roy Scheider is nothing but a cameo (and miscast). You also see Jason London, Stephen Billington, and Diane Neal. The story is nothing original, especially when you saw the first one, so I won't write about it. I only point out that I had tough time following the plot. The film is not good at presenting the chracaters' motives or the situation they are in. In short, what they want to do is not clear from the beginning, and the outcome of the set-pieces are too obvious. Moreover, the film fails to use the good location of the place, for many of the events happen inside the house such as disused swimmingpool. The director Patrick Lussier takes too much time to reach the final battle, and the fighting itself is not convincingly done. Maybe I am too harsh about it, but I hope the next one is better than that. At least, some of the actors who did better jobs (you will know it in the film) seem to be coming back. Let's hope they are as good as Omar Epps in "Dracula 2000."
Rating:
Summary: Dracual II recaptures the magic of the original!
Review: Dracula II has an obviously lower budget and a cliffhanger ending that will earn it some unfair criticisms. I don't judge people or movies strictly by how much cash they have and what impressed the hell out of me is how Patrick Lussier's vision of Dracula shines through regardless of the budget limitations of this direct to video sequel. There have been far too many Dracula films that failed to bring anything engaging to the character's mythos but this director has brought something new to the table TWICE. That's no easy feat. The cliff-hanger ending has me on the edge of my seat and that's not bad at all for a direct to video sequel. What this one lacks in money it makes up for with a tighter story. The commentary is a hell of a lot of fun too. These help to earn this already excellent flick the highest rating I can give. The maker of these films has one hell of a story to tell and I'm eager to see where he's taking us. If it turns out to be a dead-end I'll be the first one to put the man down BUT until then I'll give the devil his due. I'm hooked! I was hooked by part one and now two and I'm curious as hell about part three....
Rating:
Summary: the middle chapter of a trilogy
Review: Dracula II is the middle part of a three part story and must be taken as such to be completely enjoyed. I was very entertained by this. One of the best direct to video films I've seen and I will be looking forward to part 3 of the story.
| 
