Dracula III: Legacy

I am from Transylvania, Romania. Actually I live near Bran (30 minute by car), known as Dracula's Castle.

In the Factual Errors it is stated that: "it is also an Orthodox Christian country. In the scene where the main characters approach the castle, you can see a bunch of Catholic priests impaled. You would struggle to find that many Catholic priests in all of Eastern Europe, much less in Romania alone."

Totally incorrect! Because we are speaking about Transylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Principality_of_Transylvania) which was a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. The biggest number of catholic religion persons from Romania is in Transylvania. Actually is quite easy to find catholic priests in these parts of Romania.

Brasov, which is my city, has the Black Church, the biggest Gothic style Catholic Cathedral in Eastern Europe!

You don't have to know history to check what you are saying at www.wikipedia.com

Anyway, for those interested in the Dracula myth, you should read a bit more about the Medieval History of Transylvania...You would like more the myth of Dracula;and the castle is quite impressive;Personally, I would not dare to stay a night by myself in the Castle;not only because of Dracula;we have stronger demons in our culture that Dracula.

Myself I am more like a Werewolf type :-) In Transylvania we still have packs of wolves that attack at night the villages in long winter nights and we have the biggest population of bears in Europe; And a lot of old superstitions about demons that travel the country side at night, even nowadays;

If you ever visit Romania, enjoy Transylvania! It is the most beautiful part of Romania by far!

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.

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.

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/

Dracula is back for one last bite in this second sequel to Dracula 2000. Sadly, neither this nor the first sequel comes close to the original, possibly because of the actor playing Dracula in the original. This time around, Dracula is played by Rutger Hauer, and as much as I like Hauer, this is hardly his finest hour (that would be THE HITCHER and BLADE RUNNER). Rutger was just picking up a paycheck and getting to see Romania. Jason Scott Lee is a defrocked priest hot on Drac's trail, and Lee is all pop-eyed and frizzy-haired and high energy -- and about the only reason to watch this bloody but unnecessary romp. Shooting in an old castle or whatever it was in Romania didn't do anything toward guaranteeing a quality picture. I did sort of like the very ending, but see it for yourself and decide. Jason London is woefully miscast as a secondary hero to the proceedings. You want Dracuia, watch one of the Chris Lee Hammer flicks.