Rating: 
Summary: enjoyable sequel
Review: The actors casted as Dracula in this series have been superb!Some Gerard Butler fans may not be pleased with this one (he's not in it) but I liked Dracula II and I'm a big fan of Butler's work in Dracula 2000. He is a fine actor and he made a dashing Dracula. This time Dracula II gives us Stephen Billington in the role of Dracula and MY GOD IS HE CREEPY! I'd never heard of Butler before Dracula 2000 and never heard of Billington until Dracula II. Both are GREAT in these things. Where do they find these types of DYNAMIC actors? Both have brought new blood to the role and the way these movies are written allows for different actors to bring such different and dynamic interpretations of the character to each movie. I like that. The concept that Dracula has been various people through the ages (Gilles de Rais to name just one)makes these films a little different from other Dracula films. Jason Scott Lee is another example of dynamic casting and I look forward to learning more about him in the next one. Can't wait 'til the third chapter of the trilogy.
Rating: 
Summary: JASON SCOTT LEE THE ONLY HIGH SPOT.
Review: THE ONLY GOOD THING ABOUT THIS FILM IS JASON SCOTT LEE
AS THE VAMPIER KILLER. JASON SCOTT LEE IS SO COOL IN THIS
FILM, IT'S TO BAD DRACULA HIMSELF IS SO WEAK LOOKING IN
THIS FILM AND BORING. THIS FILM COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT BETTER.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as the First!
Review: This film was ok. I have my likes and dislikes.
Dislikes: Not as much action as the 1st, they use some of that plasma gore and it looked fake when they used it towards the end, it doesn't measure up to pt 1, Dracula was tied up for 60% of the film, and there are no returning characters from the 1st!
Likes: I loved the Kick-BUTT beggining! Kool vampire make-up, this was just an average vampire movie!
It is worth a watch.
Rating:
Summary: BLOODY MESS
Review: This is a painfully inferior sequel to DRACULA 2000, which featured a marvelous performance by Gerard Butler as the doomed vampire. With this, we get a kung fu priest, played with as little emotion as possible by Jason Scott Lee; we get a wacko professor played with constrained malice by Craig Sheffer; a Dracula with no pizzazz, no power, only albino-like features; and a supporting cast of actors seemingly pulled from other bad b movies. Shame on writers Joel Sassoon and Patrick Lussier for forgetting what made their previous effort worthwhile: a good cast and some fresh innovations on the vampire legend. This one with its notion that vampires must untie all knots and count pebbles is so far out, it's goofy.
I won't venture into the third of this series, which features of all people RUTGER HAUER as the vampire. This is one where there should have been no sequels!!!
Rating:
Summary: UNFAIR - Only HALF a film
Review: This is not really a bad film, but I can not give it more than 3 stars as it is only HALF the story. It suddenly ends without a resolution to the main plot. In listening to the director's comment track, he states that they shot "Dracula 3:Lagacy" at the same time and simply cut the original film into 2 parts. This is completely UNFAIR. Now anyone interested in the film will have to wait, probably a year, to find out what happens and learn why some things occured and who people really are in the this film. Evidently we will find out who the "priest" really is - true vampire or one taking the "cure" of sunlight.It does help if a viewer has watched "Dracula 2000" as there are scenes that build on things from that film. Perhaps, if this film had told the complete story, it would deserve a higher rating, but I will have to wait until after seeing the FULL story.
Rating:
Summary: The Best way to Ruin the First
Review: This is ridiculous making a sequel to Dracula 2000 "which i gave 4 stars". That one was awesome but a sequel. This [is] just [bad], i have no reason to even bother picking it up. Just a waste of good money. If you hate this one watch the first and you might like it!!
Rating: 
Summary: Wes Craven makes junk
Review: This piece of garbage is an argument for negative stars, one star is too good for it. The first film was stupid, this film is worse. Wes Craven is a goof.
Rating:
Summary: Vampires always return
Review: This sequel concentrates on the human curiosity, not the fear or ambition to hunt vampires. It begins with the usual controversy between the supernatural and reiligion, then it quickly drifts into the scientific perspective of how vampires function. This element gives the movie a better edge than the first one, and a much better story. The vampire gore is very basic and redundant which is not easy to make unique since there have been and will be many more vampire films. It's entertainting and keeps you somewhat interested, the actors are obviously fresh in their field (except for Roy Scheider who makes a cameo) and the director is still learning how to tell a story on film. Overall, it is better than the original and it makes you root for the monster this time...who's to say the vampire is always the monster? Humans have evil in them also, watch the movie and see for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Better than the First
Review: This sequel to the dissapointing "Dracula 2000" is in some ways a better movie. Jason Scott Lee as a Blade like vampire slaying priest is cool. If you blink you'll miss Roy Scheider. The film has some interesting twists as a group of medical students try to use vampire blood to develop a healing syrum - of course everything goes wrong.
Rating:
Summary: Wes Craven messed this one up bad
Review: Wes Craven comes back with Dracula 2, suprizing, he can't even make a crafty title. So anyways, everyone writes that this movie picked up where the other left off well it doesn't. It compleatly ruins the ending of Dracula 2000, it has none of the same charators, and the Dracula in this movie doesn't have any action, you think the movie is getting to a good part finally and then it ENDS!! This is definatly one of Wes's worst movies. Don't get me wrong, I love vampire movies, I've seen loads of them, and this is one of the worst sequels i have ever watched. I can't understand why this one ... so bad, Wes made tons of good sequels, but this isn't one of them. I'm very dissapointed.
| 
