Rating: 
Summary: Vampires!
Review: I don't know where to begin really...the movie was great. The visuals are incredible; The movie is beautiful to look at. The shots are well crafted, the sets are misty and dark and stony, and the shadowy flowy effects make the vampires and the priests both look almost like they're gliding. The beginning especially...so very very cool. I hadn't seen the first one but the story of this movie still stood on it's own...and was fairly self explanatory. The movie was nice and fast-paced...didn't waste any time. And though I don't want to spoil anything, there's a very amusing scene about seeds. Normal garden seeds. Although I still wish we got more of a showdown between the vampire Dracula and the priest Uffizi...but we have to save that for a third movie now don't we? Speaking of Uffizi though...wish we did have more of him. He should get his own movie-no wait-TV show! Vampire Slayer Uffizi. With Buffy gone, the fans clamor for a new vampire fighting show. Anywho, being the vampire lover that I am, I really loved the movie and thought it stood up well to the many vampire entertainments that came before it.
Rating: 
Summary: Lussier does it again!
Review: I know nothing about Pat Lussier except that he directed Dracula 2000 and this sequel. I checked this one out after seeing 2000 and loving it. Part 2 is exquisite. The main complaints will be the lower budget, the open ending, and a ton of stuff that some people just can't grasp even if it was spelled out. I "got" this flick, am thrilled that the open ending means another Drac tale, and could care less about the lower budget. It still looks impressive for direct to video and "eye candy" isn't that important to me. Heart is improtant to me. This flick has plenty of it. Imagination is important to me. Lussier has plenty of that. I was thrilled when I discovered there was a sequel to Drac 2000 and even more thrilled watching it. Great movie!
Rating:
Summary: A guilty pleasure that was far better than Dracula 2000
Review: I know this was a really bad movie to many people, but I can't bring myself to erase it from my Tivo, and there are so many things I love about it that I had to give it 5 stars.
The first thing you need to know about this movie is that it isn't much of a sequel. All it really keeps from Dracula 2000 is the mythology around the creation of Dracula. To me, the whole Judas as Dracula thing is a fascinating idea because the blood drinking of Christians (and giving eternal life through drinking blood) is a delicious bending of holy communion. Dracula 2000 ends with Dracula locked up in Van Helsing's vault, but you just have to forget that and figure he was left hanging upside down on the cross at the end of 2000 (maybe the filmmakers were making this up as they went along).
The second thing, is that the actor playing Dracula has changed, which was fine with me because I thought Scott Billington was both scarier and more attractive in a menacing way than Gerard Butler. The movie makes a clumsy attempt to explain this by saying each time Dracula regenerates, he changes form, but their reasoning doesn't really work unless you discount Dracula 2000, (where he always looked the same in flashbacks.)
Many people have complained that Dracula is tied to a cadaver chair for most of the movie, and he is, but Billington managed to make that work with his facial expressions--you could almost see what was going on in Dracula's head. I actually liked it that Dracula wasn't all powerful through most of the movie--it seems like his ascension should take time and be at some cost, so seeing him suffer as a lab rat was somehow "right" with me.
So what did I love about this movie? For starters, I enjoyed the way the mythology of Dracula II didn't stick to the hum drum and boring staples of vampire movies. I liked the premise of a group trying to profit off of a vampire's blood; the group dynamics and how they fell apart were fascinating to watch, if not always realistic (I will admit a few plot twists were totally unbelievable, but I was willing to just go with it). Mostly though, I love this movie because it has one of the best death scenes ever in it--one that was gruesome but funny, and oddly satisfying since the guy who got it was such a jerk. Also, I have to admit that I really liked the ending. I don't want to spoil it, but suffice it to say that I am pretty sick of Van Helsing-finally-stakes-the-vampire plots, and this one was different.
I have to admit that my taste in movies is a little oddball (two other vampire movies that I recently enjoyed were Immortality and Blood, indies that strayed from the traditional vampire mythos.) I wouldn't recommend this movie to everyone, but for people who like vampires, schlock, and something a little different, this movie would be a good bet.
Rating:
Summary: don't take it soo seriously folks
Review: I really enjoyed Dracula 2. I was quite surprised to see it being given a low rating for various reasons including it being insensitive to albinos. The idea that vampires are sensitive to light, or weaker in the light, is not intended to be an attack on albinos. It's meant to make them scary because creatures of the night who hunt their prey in the dark are great stuff for scary stories. These type of night creatures can see in the dark. Humans can't. Humans have always been afraid of the unknown and of what might be lurking in the dark. Vampires also have a more human appearance and a more vampiric appearance. The more vampiric appearance looks more corpse like and bloodless. This is in no way an attack on albinos. Vampires (like other magical creatures in legends) also have cumpulsions that drive them. It could be drinking human blood, making or repairing shoes, exchanging money for human teeth, counting things, collecting treasure, eating people, etcetera, but it has to be something extreme since magical creatures in these extreme stories are often extreme characters in some way. Having these type of ideas featured in a modern film is in no way an attack on people with compulsive disorder. Maybe folks who live in the country should be offended that Leatherface does too? Here's an idea: why don't we just enjoy movies like Dracula 2 and not try to be soo serious about them? Sounds good to me.
Rating:
Summary: Dracula Ascension [!!]
Review: I saw a vid-store screener of this and other than the just okay transfer (hopefully the DVD will be better), this flick gets a big thumbs up. It picks up exactly where the Dracoolya 2000 finished, actually even a couple of months before that even started, but that's just the prologue. Seems Simon and Mary didn't actually lock the right body up in Daddy's dungeon because there was a swaperoo in the old morgue. Some medical students figure out that there's something not right with the crispy bacon on their slab and swipe it hoping to cash in on immortality. [to bad] for them of course - but it's a horror movie so they don't figure that out until it's way too late. The acting's pretty good with only a couple of actors feeling like they're in a direct to vid movie. Jason Scott Lee was completely cool as this vampire hunting priest. Whips and cool ...blades, the perfect image adjustment for the Vatican. Jason London was solid and this Brit actor, John Light was hysterical. From cool to coward with the fall of a slipper. Dracula, although he's never called that in the movie, is played by Stephen Billington not Gerard Butler (I guess they couldn't afford him after Reign of Fire). Billington's in Braveheart, but I don't know where. This guy's great, not the slasher Drac that Butler was in 2000, more of a Regan/Lecter Drac. Creepy. There's some new lore which I'd never heard of but I guess is true as I found it on the web. Unfortunately the movie doesn't really end, just stops. A cliffhanger. I guess that's cause Dracula 3 was filmed at the same time. I can't wait.
Rating: 
Summary: better than the first, up till the ending
Review: I thought this was a pretty new twist on a vampire flick, also was gory enough, and interesting enough,
but my biggest beef was the ending: Its way to abrupt!! The good guy is on his way to fight the bad guy and the damn movie just ends????????? WTF? I felt jipped!
Rating:
Summary: A Must See
Review: I was happy to see this movie on the local channels. More happy after watching the movie. To see a movie finally where the vampires aren't all killed is a welcomed relief from the mainstream, kill em and stake em bit. Talk about major yawn and boring! This movie is different. Also loved the bits of vampire lore, about the untying knots and counting the seeds. This goes back to ancient medival beliefs and is a refreshing change from the commonly overused garlic, crucifixs and holy though that is used in here too. Get the movie and you won't be sorry.
Rating: 
Summary: I recommend "Bram Stokers Dracula" from 1992
Review: No comments on this poor film that Wes Craven so graciously put his name on.
Rating:
Summary: More a prequel to Dracula II than a sequel to Dracula 2000
Review: Not only do you need to know that this direct to video movie is a sequel to "Dracula 2000," but that it is now the middle part of a trilogy that concludes this year with "Dracula III: The Legacy." Otherwise when you get to the "to be continued" ending you might feel cheated that you are left hanging just as things are starting to get interesting. But then for most of "Dracula II: Ascension" it is not really clear why this 2003 film is a sequel to what is now the original in all this. In director Patrick Lussier's "Dracula 2000" the new twist on the story of Dracula is that we finally learn the real reason why the vampire loathes Christian symbols. It turns out that Dracula is really Judas Iscariot (you have to admit, it is an audacious idea even if it is rather ludicrous). However, this great revelation has almost nothing to do with this story except for a few seconds towards the end. This makes sense because except for Dracula's crisp corpse in the morgue most of this film has no reason to be tied to the first film. Throughout the important thing is that these characters have stumbled across a real live vampire, so to speak, and the fact that this is the burned body of Dracula is as inconsequential as the idea he is really Judas as well. So, Dracula's body shows up in the morgue and as Elizabeth Blaine (Diane Neal) and Luke (Jason London) do the autopsy they come up with the crazy idea that this is the body of a vampire. Then something happens to convince them that they are correct in their suspicions, an idea that is reinforced when they suddenly get a phone call out of the blue from a mysterious stranger named Luke (John Light) offering $3 for the body. Luke is interested in the money, but Elizabeth sees an opportunity for the vampire's blood to save her boyfriend Lowell (Craig Sheffer), who suffers from a degenerative condition. Lowell brings along a pair of graduate assistants, Kenny (Khary Payton) and Tanya (Brande Roderick, Miss April 2000 for "Playboy"), so that the can help investigate the scientific properties of vampire blood and, of course, eventually be the vampire's victims. Meanwhile, Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee), an imposing vampire killer with a bullwhip and a wicked looking scythe, is going around decapitating the undead. Dracula is next on his hit list, but his superior, Cardinal Siqueros (Roy Scheider) makes a point of telling Uffizi that he should not only be killing vampires but trying to save their souls. Even though Uffizi is a priest, this idea has never occurred to him before, but you know about the hierarchical structure of the Catholic church, so this will come into play in the film's end game. The idea of scientists playing Dr. Frankenstein with Dracula has its moments, although of course such efforts are doomed to fail. At the same time "Dracula II" goes back to the ancient Eastern European superstitions that vampires have to untie knots and count scattered seed, a curious juxtaposition with the modern science and Judas elements of the story. This also sets up some strange comic relief at the film's climactic moment, although I like the idea of which character of this strange little lot shows the most courage and intelligence in the face of a hungry vampire. Another addition to the vampire idea Dracula insists that he has had many incarnations. In addition to Vlad Tepes the names of Gilles de Rais and Caligula are thrown around. This works with the idea that every time Dracula comes back he looks differently, which explains why the character was played by Gerald Butler in the original, Stephen Billington in this one, and is going to be Rutger Hauer in the finale (you can catch a glimpse of him in a flashforward during the flashbacks). In other words, what could be an interesting idea with historical resonance, exploiting the whole Judas idea, ends up being an explanation for the casting in this trilogy. There is a lot going on here in this film, although it is a mixed bag of hits and misses (and we have no idea why the title is "Ascension"). Lussier filmed both "Dracula II" and "Dracula III" at the same time, and in the finale Uffizi and a sidekick will travel to war torn Romania (where these movies were filmed) to try and finish off the vampire once and for all. Perhaps the best thing I can say for this film is that I am interested in seeing how this all plays out.
Rating:
Summary: More a prequel to Dracula II than a sequel to Dracula 2000
Review: Not only do you need to know that this direct to video movie is a sequel to "Dracula 2000," but that it is now the middle part of a trilogy that concludes this year with "Dracula III: The Legacy." Otherwise when you get to the "to be continued" ending you might feel cheated that you are left hanging just as things are starting to get interesting. But then for most of "Dracula II: Ascension" it is not really clear why this 2003 film is a sequel to what is now the original in all this. In director Patrick Lussier's "Dracula 2000" the new twist on the story of Dracula is that we finally learn the real reason why the vampire loathes Christian symbols. It turns out that Dracula is really Judas Iscariot (you have to admit, it is an audacious idea even if it is rather ludicrous). However, this great revelation has almost nothing to do with this story except for a few seconds towards the end. This makes sense because except for Dracula's crisp corpse in the morgue most of this film has no reason to be tied to the first film. Throughout the important thing is that these characters have stumbled across a real live vampire, so to speak, and the fact that this is the burned body of Dracula is as inconsequential as the idea he is really Judas as well. So, Dracula's body shows up in the morgue and as Elizabeth Blaine (Diane Neal) and Luke (Jason London) do the autopsy they come up with the crazy idea that this is the body of a vampire. Then something happens to convince them that they are correct in their suspicions, an idea that is reinforced when they suddenly get a phone call out of the blue from a mysterious stranger named Luke (John Light) offering $3 for the body. Luke is interested in the money, but Elizabeth sees an opportunity for the vampire's blood to save her boyfriend Lowell (Craig Sheffer), who suffers from a degenerative condition. Lowell brings along a pair of graduate assistants, Kenny (Khary Payton) and Tanya (Brande Roderick, Miss April 2000 for "Playboy"), so that the can help investigate the scientific properties of vampire blood and, of course, eventually be the vampire's victims. Meanwhile, Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee), an imposing vampire killer with a bullwhip and a wicked looking scythe, is going around decapitating the undead. Dracula is next on his hit list, but his superior, Cardinal Siqueros (Roy Scheider) makes a point of telling Uffizi that he should not only be killing vampires but trying to save their souls. Even though Uffizi is a priest, this idea has never occurred to him before, but you know about the hierarchical structure of the Catholic church, so this will come into play in the film's end game. The idea of scientists playing Dr. Frankenstein with Dracula has its moments, although of course such efforts are doomed to fail. At the same time "Dracula II" goes back to the ancient Eastern European superstitions that vampires have to untie knots and count scattered seed, a curious juxtaposition with the modern science and Judas elements of the story. This also sets up some strange comic relief at the film's climactic moment, although I like the idea of which character of this strange little lot shows the most courage and intelligence in the face of a hungry vampire. Another addition to the vampire idea Dracula insists that he has had many incarnations. In addition to Vlad Tepes the names of Gilles de Rais and Caligula are thrown around. This works with the idea that every time Dracula comes back he looks differently, which explains why the character was played by Gerald Butler in the original, Stephen Billington in this one, and is going to be Rutger Hauer in the finale (you can catch a glimpse of him in a flashforward during the flashbacks). In other words, what could be an interesting idea with historical resonance, exploiting the whole Judas idea, ends up being an explanation for the casting in this trilogy. There is a lot going on here in this film, although it is a mixed bag of hits and misses (and we have no idea why the title is "Ascension"). Lussier filmed both "Dracula II" and "Dracula III" at the same time, and in the finale Uffizi and a sidekick will travel to war torn Romania (where these movies were filmed) to try and finish off the vampire once and for all. Perhaps the best thing I can say for this film is that I am interested in seeing how this all plays out.
|
