Rating: 
Summary: Where's the ascension?
Review: Dracula II: Ascension is another addition to a long line of poorly-made Dracula movies with the attachment of several elements. Over time, Dracula has been physically depicted in numerous ways. Traditionally, Dracula is a pale-skinned man with short and slick black hair. In his various forms, however, Dracula's hair length has increased and become wavy or decreased to baldness. In Dracula II - which is actually the sequel to Dracula 2000 and does not utilize its sequel's depiction - the vampire is given a complete makeover. Somewhere during the burning of his crucified body, he has apparently contracted a second disease: albinism. Though his eyes are still hypnotically multi-hued, Dracula's ultimate Aryan and melanin-drained form is completely unnecessary and unhelpful to the story. The explanation offered in the story is that Dracula's physical appearance changes with each regeneration. To any discerning viewer, however, this is obviously a poor excuse to throw an underappreciated genetic disease into the mix, thus increasing his status as a villain. Furthermore, Dracula II reveals that the vampire is cursed with the compulsion to count every grain of sand he comes across and untie every knot he finds. These requirements he meets with supernatural ability when they become hindrances, but Dracula is bound to perform nonetheless.As an oculocutaneous albino with an obsessive-compulsive disorder, I am supremely insulted to find Dracula himself added to the list of villainous characters with these unfavorably-depicted conditions. Like a vampire, I too am cursed by an aversion to direct sunlight, and I too must fulfill reoccurring impulses that may seem illogical. In the formulation of vampire mythology, it is likely that individuals with such conditions were exaggerated to absurdly mythic proportions, but that is not something I want to experience in modern times. Are people as superstitious today as a millennium ago, or have we achieved something better than childish scapegoatism? The MPAA rating for this movie is R for violence, language, and sexuality, but maybe enforcing prejudices should be granted its own category. I give this movie one star for encouraging barbaric and senseless hatred among fellow men. If you have ever known an albino - oculocutaneous or otherwise - or obsessive-compulsive, support me in condemning such hate-inspiring filth.
Rating: 
Summary: The Best Way To Do A Sequel
Review: Dracula II: Ascension is one of the best vampire movies I have ever seen.
It takes place after the Mardi Gras celebration that is at the end of Dracula 2000. A couple of medical students find a burning body hanging from a cross at dawn. While performing the autopsy, the character of Elizabeth cuts her finger on one of Dracula's teeth, specifically one of his fangs. She thinks nothing of it as she cleans the wound with some alcohol and puts a bandage on it. When she and the character of Luke realise just what they are dealing with, they take the body of the vampire and smuggle it out of the morgue while substituting another burn victim to pose as the vampire body. A priest/vampire hunter from The Vatican is on the trail of Luke and Elizabeth as they race to the abandoned home of their teacher's parents. The teacher, Lowell, and Elizabeth are a couple at the begining of the movie and by the end, because of the bite on her finger, Elizabeth turns vampire and stays with Dracula. Meanwhile, Lowell, Kenny (another student), Eric (Lowell's old college buddy) and nearly everyone else has turned vampire and found themselves victims of the vampire hunter from The Vatican. This movie also falls back on some of the old legends that have to do with the Dracul family of Romania and another famous vampire of that time: Elizabeth Bathory. A definite must see movie for any vampire or Wes Craven fan.
Rating:
Summary: You've got to be kidding me
Review: Dracula II: Ascension was on tv one night so i decided to give it a whirl because i am such a big fan of Dracula and vampires. I didn't expect much of the movie because i don't think that a sequel is appropriate for this story, because it is great in and of itself. There is nothing that needs to be added to the story. I know that it is the sequel to Dracula 2000, so i really shouldn't have expected much from it. Dracula 2000 would have made an excellent movie if it had stuck to the original Dracula story by Bram Stoker, because it is such a great story and it would have been awesome to see the story in take place during modern times. This film shouldn't even have the name dracula in it because it strayed so far from the story. This movie further proves my point that it is hard to find a good vampire movie.
Rating: 
Summary: A an average sequel to a less than average movie.
Review: Dracula II: Ascension, meets many B-movie sequel standards. Is the plot only slightly related to the first movie? Check. The story picks up where the first left off, and seems to have no real connection to the original. A mention of the how Drac was found and a brief flashback sequence are all that tie this film to the first. The plot itself is weak, with none of the characters (except Lee and to a lesser extent Jason London as Luke) are interesting or even likeable. Is there a B-movie star just there for the paycheck? Double check! Roy Scheider sleeps through a cameo and Jason Scott Lee outclasses his fellow cast members with ease. Lee is the entire reason to see this film but even he can't save it from mediocrity. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this sequel is the fact that Drac looks nothing like he did in Dracula 2000. At all. There is some passing mention about how he can change forms with each incarnation, but I didn't realize that he was in the same classs as Dr. Who, James Bond, and Darrin Stephens. And then there's the ending. The ending of a film can make or break it. I'd love to tell you about how the ending was, but I'm afraid there isn't one. Sure, there's a final scene before the credit roll, but it isn't an ending. It is, however, a rather open ended link to the third film (unreleased as of this writing). Perhaps when the third film rolls around and they can be watched in conjunction, the overall "watchableness" of the film will increase. Overall, the film is a jumble. Some homage is paid to the classical vampire myths, and it's perhaps the smartest moments of the film. But the overall plot, characters, and lack of any real connection to the first movie, make this a weak film and a weaker sequel. Despite this, there was promise in this film, enough that I will see the third movie, in hopes that the promise will be fulfilled.
Rating:
Summary: Dracula II: The Ascension bites the dust
Review: Dracula is back after being burnt to a cripsy critter in Dracula 2000 and this time he is tied up by a group of people. Seems like Gerard Butler made a wise choice in not doing this movie and it seems like Dracula stold his hairdo from Billy Idol while in the process, and Stephen Billington is in his shoes. People say Billington did a much better job at Dracula then Butler but that's a load of crock. All Billington did was get chained up and spew corny one liners. A wasted cast includes a stiff Jason Scott Lee (Soldier) who stands in one position, Diane Neal (Tv's Law and Order SVU), a groggy Craig Sheffer (Fire In The Sky) doing wheelchair wheelies, Brande Roderick (Starsky & Hutch), Roy Scheider (Jaws) in a pointless bit, John Light and Jason London (Spent). The beginning was a horrible start and it just billed up to needless frothy conclusion with some crumby acting and bad writing. Patrick Lussier does not do it again because he cant capture what he did in the first one. Soon Dracula will have his own soap opera, musical and he'll form a garage band.
Rating:
Summary: This "Dracula" lacks bite.
Review: First off, let me say that I loved Dracula 2000. I saw it twice in the theater and bought it as soon as it was released on DVD, so when I heard that the D2K team of Patrick Lussier (director) and Joel Soisson (screenwriter) were filming a sequel I was anxious for the result. As luck would have it we got an advance screener copy of Dracula II: Ascension where I work, so here's my review: The first sign of trouble was when they contradicted the end of the first movie within 15 minutes of the new film. Dracula's remains are not taken back to London by Lucy Van Helsing, but left hanging from the cross. His body is then taken to a local morgue where the attendants too quickly learn and too readilly accept the fact that it is a vampire corpse. The film goes downhill from there. There's mediocre acting from some of the cast, who only have uninteresting stock characters to work with anyway and Dracula himself is reduced to little more than a prop for the story. The script is devoid of any originality or suspense that was present in D2K and even the look of the film itself is bland and colorless with the majority of the movie shot in 1) the morgue, 2)an abandoned mansion, and 3) and abandoned indoor swimming pool. I know this was a made-for-video sequel, but low budget doesn't have to mean low quality (check out the excellent Canadian-made werewolf film "Ginger Snaps" if you need proof.) If you need a Dracula fix then re-watch Dracula 2000 or if you must see this one then find it for rental.
Rating: 
Summary: o.k. by me
Review: I actually liked this movie to a certain degree. The basic story is a crippled doctor and his staff are trying to use the power of re-generation in Draculas blood to cure the doctor. They bring Dracula back and have a certain amonut of control over him it would seem. Good action scenecs and the Vampire hunter Priest is very good. I would make a movie of this charcter alone I think. Of course Dracula gains the upper hand in an odd way as the group all want his power but not his evil. Sad to say they all get both which leads to trouble. The ending is so abrupt and confusing it almost ruined the entire movie for me. What does it mean?? It may have been tossed in to lead to the third movie. Aside from that it is not to bad.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing!
Review: I am somewhat of a vampire buff and I must say this film was more than just impressive it was outstanding.I was horribly disapointed in the first movie.I thought everything about it was awful but this one blew my mind!First of all the actor playing Dracula had a seductive lure to him unlike the first and when charm comes into play hes got more than most of the people ive seen playing Dracula yet.As for the ending finally I got what I wanted, The vampire won! This was more than surprising but in a good sense, I mean how many people have ever saw a vampire win in a horror movie?Well as for me this is the first and I have to say this is a MUST have for anyone who loves the classic or in this case modern vamp film.
Rating:
Summary: Dracula: Defanged and Loathing It
Review: I apologize, as Wes Craven's Dracula 2000 isn't on my list of favorite movies, but it certainly was a cut above many B vampire movies. It had attitude, a gory finesse, and was chock full of adrenaline to get your blood pumping. It wasn't the best, nor was it the worst, and you could almost take it seriously as a contributor to the vampire genre. Unfortunately in this straight-to-video sequel, Dracula (Judas Iscariot, cursed for eternity) is left for most of the movie in chains and is merely a device with which to move a mediocre script with a mediocre cast along. The film offers little in the way of suspense, with actors with no foundation acting in random ways. The script could have been compiled by a program on computer taking various vampire scripts, frankenstein, and other scream flicks in equal consideration. The editing also was poorly done with jarring shifts from scene to scene, as if no segue or cross fade was ever considered. It is truly a laughable effort. But, in this respect, I had a fun time watching it. I'm sure most people interested in this movie know what kind of movie they're getting into with Wes Craven--we're not looking for Oscar worthy anything, and if you sit back and laugh at it and not take it seriously, you can have a great time poking fun at it with your friends. The hunter character played by Jason Scott Lee was decent, and with more thorough development, could possibly carry his own movie. Unfortunately for us, we will have to wait for the third (and hopefully better made) installment of this series to see how it plays out. I'm not sure if I will be interested by then, though. My best advice is this: If you're considering purchasing this one, rent it first.
Rating:
Summary: umh...Unless #3 comes out....
Review: I bought this movie despite the bad and medium reviews.
Did I enjoy it? Yes indeed. Did it annoy me? Yes indeed.
I enjoyed it because it was a great vampire flick on it's own right. THe vampire hunting prient with his no BS attitude was a blast. So what annoyed me? I am a big fan of Dracula 2000, and this movie left plot holes so big that arnold could drive his Hummer through them!
well here are some:
1) Dracula was tied up all the time, no seduction of other human beings, no battles, no nothing. This is supposed to be the almighty dracula! 2) At the end of Dracula 2000, a couple (the daughter of the slayer and his apprentice) become so called "good" vampires. Wouldn't they take precautions to take dracula's body off the flamming cross and store it far away from people so that this never happens again? Apparently not. 3) Don't these 2 individuals (from dracula 2000) get wind of what happens and come to save the day? 4) The ending...I hope there is a sequel cause I really want to find out much more about the priest, about dracula's past (how exactly did he become what he is), and I would like to have some absolution finaly! Will dracula be killed or not? -- If not can we please get a Simon Belmont or Richter Belmont (or whatever other Belmont there is) in the house to kick this vamp's rear end?
| 
