Drácula 2: A Ascensão

Oh sure, it won't win any awards, but b-movies never do. I'm not sure why the other users enjoyed the opening scene so much, but I enjoyed it for the incredibly bad stunts myself. I laughed out loud as the woman fell down the stairs, onto the landing, and kept falling down the rest of the stairs. Pure gold.

I also happen to know a little behind-the-scenes about this one. Do you know, it was not originally intended to be a straight-to-video release. It was originally scheduled to be released last October. I'm guessing the similarity to the popular Blade II sealed its fate. Do you know, they spent like 3 months or something filming in Romania? I'm not sure what for, considering the movie takes place in New Orleans. Why was Roy Scheider listed in the credits? His part was no more than a cameo. I was rather disappointed about that, because I really enjoy Roy Scheider.

But, for all intents and purposes, this is a rather good b-movie. There are expected, but fun, plot twists, and I never got bored. Well, maybe a little in the very beginning. It was a standard 5-man team of protagonists, a nicely evil Dracula, and a Blade-like vampire hunting priest. Note that I said nicely evil, and not deliciously evil. I will admit that it must be a great challenge for an actor to do most of his work with no lines and no movement (he spends most of the movie confined), but I really could have gone for a more evil Dracula.

I sincerely hope that people aren't renting direct-to-video movies with the idea that greatness lies within: it does not. What this movie does well is know its limitations. Special effects are only used when absolutely necessary, which makes them look much better than some of the really poor effects in Blade (the first one). It's fun, it's interesting, and it's got a good ending. Well worth renting.

Rating: Groovy

So the original plot outline of Dracula 2000 comes to light in its sequel, Dracula II: Ascension. Gripe #1 – as indicated by my summary, it's an unbalanced trilogy. Meaning? You get one stand alone film (Dracula 2000), and one two-part film (Dracula 2: Ascension & Dracula 3: Legacy) which go nicely together, requires the other to complete the idea, but really leaves the first one kind of hanging by its stand-alone, self-contained, lonesome. For other such trilogies, see also Star Wars (New Hope through Jedi), Back to the Future, and Matrix.

Unfortunately, Dracula II takes the path of Dracula 2000 and tries to throw a few shockers at the audience, making the same mistake of its predecessor in thinking that shocks and plot twists can replace decent story telling. Even worse, Dracula 2000 used up all the good twists. Jason Scott Lee as a butt-kicking priest? Um . . . that might be cool, and Lee's pretty cool. A film that gives action a back seat in favor of ‘resurrecting' Dracula and letting him subtly use/influence the people around him? I'm down with that. But the film is directed by the same man who did Dracula 2000, and well, Dracula 2000 had a lot more elements that could make it work and, well, you know where this heading . . .

Then I found myself asking questions like, what exactly do those priests do to the vampire bodies in the morgue? What is Father Uffizi's lighter fluid (or holy water, whatever it was) going to do to Dracula's corpse that hanging him in sunlight isn't going to do? If they do something else (not shown) like behead the bodies, why bother burning them?

Or how ‘bout: why wasn't Uffizi mentioned in the original film? Where's the Van Helsing offspring? Why must the actors do that hideously fake and unintimidating vampire hiss? And while they're at it, why do the `so liberating, blah, blah, blah' boastful speech when they turn? Why is this film so cliché in its setup?

I'm all for suspending disbelief for the sake of enjoying a film, but there comes a point where the clichés and questions add up beyond what you're capable of ignoring.

Dracula II: Ascension has 2 big twists to its plot. One is expected, typical of films like this, and incredibly lame - I never would have guessed who was in league with who, let's come out of the closet while we're at it. The second twist is actually very well executed, and much harder to spot. It would've been really great if they just ended the film and the series on that note instead of revving up for the third film, but I get the feeling that without the third film the writers would have opted for a happier, family friendly, resolution.

Oh well, we'll see where Dracula III leads.

When I first rented this i thought that it was a sequel to the very predictable "Dracula 2000". The only highlight of that film is that the character was Judas Iscariot which gives the whole Dracula concept a much needed boost as usual Drac's Vlad the Imapaler or a direct descendant. This film has a very solid plot as the morgue attendants discover a burned up vamp in their morgue & upon realizing what they have the female character played by underrated actress DIANE Neal ( who is great on NBC's Law & Order: SVU) decides to perform an experiment for her crippled boyfriend Craig Sheffer (who overacts as usual. His only good movie is Nightbreed.) to use Dracula's blood, somehow expel the evil taint & restore him to being a fully-functioning walking & talking man again. Jason Scott Lee as the priestly vamp-hunter does an okay job though his presence in the film is not one of great importance. They could have not used him at all in this film & no one would have missed the character. Great work from B-movie actor Jason London, & pretty cool special effects especially the scene where Dracula (played pretty damn well by the sexy Brit actor Stephen Billington)bites the British investor in the face as he brags to Dracula " That's right! Make me immortal!" Dracula replies "Alright,but you won't enjoy being immortal!" And,proceeds to bite a huge chunk out of the man's face. tHEN AS THE MAN COMES BACK IN VAMPIRIC FORM HE HAS NO FACE SO his fangs are (and this is so cool!) growing out of the sides of his jaws and forehead & it's the craziest special effect I've ever seen in a vampire film.It could've been bloodier & was left open for a sequel but unfortunately the sequel is called Dracula 3000:

I enjoyed 'Dracula 2000' despite it's faults and I thought the portrayal of the timeless count was very good but this was a poor sequel. After about 15 minutes I was commenting to my wife about how well filmed it was for a straight to video release but please, if you're going to do a vampire film try to please the thousands of undead fans out here in the real world. It was quite clever to include the folklore elements of vampires having to count seeds (done to good effect in The X Files) and undoing knots; but people turning into vampires within minutes of being bitten?! What happened to dying first, you know the draining all the blood and coming back as the undead bit? The obligatory black character Kenny injects himself with Drac's blood and turns into a vampire on the spot yet in Dracula 2000 Van Helsing has been doing that for years with no ill effect. I realise that this was a low budget movie but they must have cut their costs by not employing someone to cover continuity. That said, the production was good and it tried hard. Better luck next time. PS It was better than 'Dusk till dawn 2'

Sequel to Dracula 2000 stars Jason London as Luke, a med student who finds the body of a vampire that turns out to be Dracula. Naturally all hell breaks loose and one giant set up for a third movie begins. Since the whole movie plays like one giant set up, it's hard to find much to say about the flick. Did I enjoy it? To some degree. It had some cool scenes (especially the finale, good stuff) and the actors did the best they could with the material, but for the most part, the movie was a major disappointment since I really enjoyed Dracula 2000. Despite my disappointment with this sequel, I will see the third picture when it comes out. I'm giving it 6/10 since it's really not a bad movie, just a disappointing one.