Dracula III: Legacy

Well, if you enjoyed the 2003 movie "Dracula II: Ascension", then you certainly will also enjoy the 2005 third movie in the franchise titled "Dracula III: Legacy".

Writers Joel Soisson and Patrick Lussier continues on with the storyline from the 2003 movie, and this was done as a direct continuation. So I assume they shot parts II and III back-to-back. And that was definitely something that benefitted the movie's narrative, and added a good continuation of the storyline.

The acting in "Dracula III: Legacy" is fairly okay, and it was good to see cast members from the previous movie returning to the third movie and reprise their characters. Something I just don't get, was the change of the actor for Dracula a third time, now being Rutger Hauer for this third movie.

Visually then "Dracula III: Legacy" was an adequate enough movie.

Overall, a watchable movie on par with the 2003 second movie in the franchise, but not up to par with the 2000 first movie. But it was watchable and entertaining enough for what it turned out to be.

My rating of director Patrick Lussier's 2005 movie "Dracula III: Legacy" lands on a five out of ten stars.

Dracula III: Legacy starts immediately where Dracula II: Ascension left off, with Dracula and his new 'bride' Elizabeth (Diane Neal) fleeing the USA, Luke (Jason London) and Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) in hot pursuit, their journey taking them to Romania for a final confrontation with the legendary vamp (now played by Rutger Hauer) in his castle lair.

Filmed back-to-back with part II of the Craven/Lussier series, this chapter is naturally very similar in style and tone, a slick, contemporary blend of action, gore, and humour. Luke and Uffizi's Romanian road-trip is perhaps not as loaded with vamp action as I would have liked (they seem to have just as many problems with the local humans as they do with bloodsuckers), and its a long while before we get to see Hauer as Drac, but there is enough fun throughout to make this a satisfying end to the series.

The pairing of Lee and London works particularly well, the latter ably playing comedy sidekick to Lee's bad-ass priest/vampire killer with a troubled soul, and some welcome girl-power comes in the form of Alexandra Wescourt, who plays feisty news reporter Julia Hughes. Rutger Hauer is always cool in my book (and he has previous experience at playing a vampire), but as much as I enjoyed his performance, he does look a bit too 'weathered' here to be playing Dracula (what's with the messy stubble?), especially considering that Stephen Billington and Gerard Butler played the character in the earlier films.

For me, the best thing about the film is the gore, which includes a juicy 'spear in the eye' gag, a macabre display of impaled priests, a bit of face melting with holy water, Father Uffizi whipping off heads and limbs right, left and centre, and in my favourite moment—an attack by a pair of creepy circus vampires—the cutting in half of a female acrobat and the ingenious staking of a clown on stilts.

6.5 out of 10 (rounded up to 7 for the cool ending, which I won't spoil by describing here).

Dimension films made a few Dracula sequels following their solid 2000 effort starring Gerard Butler, most of which are meh. Dracula III: Legacy, however, has the ace-in-the-hole asset of having legendary cult thespian Rutger Hauer in the titular vampire role, and that alone makes it noteworthy. Even though the guy doesn't even show up until the third act, and isn't around for long, he's magnetic as the dark prince of bloodsuckers and not to be missed when rallying up the lengthy list of actors who have played the role. The film itself is grade A-cheese and hardly ever feels like a Dracula story, as well as being fairly incomprehensible in relation to the other handful of films in the franchise. I've got a weakness for Dimension horror films though, and they're particularly slick brand of schlock. Jason London, who we all wistfully remember as Randall Pink Floyd in Richard Linklater's Dazed & Confused, is some random vampire hunter, off trekking into the Eastern European alps with martial arts actor Jason Scott Lee to find the Vamp of all Vamps. They do find him, in the form of Hauer's entertaining fiend skulking around a derelict castle and... that's pretty much it. For Hauer fans, load up Final Cut Pro and edit a breezy short film with just his wicked good scenes. For fans of B Movie silliness, have a few beers first. Everyone else, keep on browsing the blockbuster shelf. Oh yeah, and Roy Scheider is in it too, and I've completely forgotten who he plays.

This is not a great movie by any means but it still is certainly a good and entertaining watch. No matter how weak and silly the movie seems at times, you'll still enjoy watching it.

This is pretty much a direct sequel to "Dracula II: Ascension", even though its being set at different locations and follows a different story. It still focuses on the same characters and is connected to the events of the second movie. But oh well, you don't necessarily need to see "Dracula II: Ascension", in order to understand this movie.

Like must cheap straight-to-video horror flicks made these days, it got shot in Romania. However when your movie is about Dracula this is of course also not an unlikely place to set your movie in. For more than halve of the movie it still doesn't look like it's going to be a Dracula movie though, since the character gets introduced quite late into the story, as if they could not afford to have Rutger Hauer on the set for more than a week or so.

But let me tell you that Rutger Hauer still really leaves a lasting impression with his role. I was quite surprised at how great he was. The two other big names of the movie are Jason Scott Lee and Roy Scheider, though none of them were of course quite the best or biggest names the movie industry had to offer.

The story is of course nothing to special but it's all being still quite good and I liked its approach. All the movies out of the series always have been a modern take on the Dracula legacy and it's perhaps in this movie that this approach works out the best and most refreshing.

It's still a quite weakly directed, cheap looking B-horror flick, with some not to impressive actors but it's a good and entertaining little guilty pleasure to watch.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

One of the biggest cinematic disappointments of last year was BLADE: TRINITY, the final chapter in the BLADE trilogy. It wasn't a bad film by any means, but it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been considering it featured Dracula, the baddest vampire of all time. Dracula III: LEGACY is more like what BLADE: TRINITY should have been: a fast-paced, rousing action flick full of well written character and fleshed out plot lines. One really has to hand it to Joel Soisson and Patrick Lussier for their good screen writing. One also has to admire Patrick Lussier's directing. While his directing in Dracula 2000 and Dracula II: ASCENSION was admirable, his directing here made me a fan. He's a man who definitely knows how to direct a vampire film. This baby oozes with style not seen in a vampire flick since 1998's VAMPIRES, one of my top ten favorite vampire pictures of all time. Like VAMPIRES, 'LEGACY' is filled with cool gory bits, well done special effects, and a kick-ass main character (played by Jason Scott Lee). I really don't have any complaints about Dracula III: LEGACY. It's not a perfect film, but it is a fun ride and possibly the best direct-to-video movie ever. I understand why Dimension didn't give it a theatrical release. It wouldn't make sense to give this a theatrical release when Dracula II: ASCENSION went direct-to-video although it certainly did deserve a theatrical release. Because both Dracula II: ASCENSION and Dracula III: LEGACY went direct-to-video, I don't think that they will ever find the audience that they deserve to. My rating: 7/10