Dracula III: Legacy

Jason Scott Lee is back as the weapon's master Father Uffizi in hopes to put a final end to the vampires once and for all.

The third installment of the Dracula 200 series, Dracula III: Legacy, is not as good as Dracula II: Ascension (which I liked the best of the series) but much better than other horror films I have seen in my time.

This movie is not bad if you catch it one late night or on a boring afternoon. It has it's moments of action and thrills - mainly from Jason Scott Lee - but the story is lagging a bit in my opinion. I would not watch this movie with expectations of it being a bad or a good film... instead watch it with no expectations and you may be surprised.

5/10

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

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).

I really hated the second film in this trilogy but this third one, LEGACY, isn't bad. It feels refreshing that they've taken a couple of the second film's characters - Jason Scott Lee and Jason London - and plonked them right into Eastern Europe, where they take in the scenery and get involved in local politics. Oh, and eventually meet up with Rutger Hauer's Dracula, as camp and hammy as you'd expect. It's cheap and cheesy for sure but surprisingly cheerful with it, with a lot of low rent vampire action and special effects to take your mind off the inanities of the scripting. A pure B-movie, in other words.