IMDb RATING
4.6/10
5.2K
YOUR RATING
In this haunting sequel to Wes Craven's Dracula 2000, a group of medical students discover the body of the infamous count.In this haunting sequel to Wes Craven's Dracula 2000, a group of medical students discover the body of the infamous count.In this haunting sequel to Wes Craven's Dracula 2000, a group of medical students discover the body of the infamous count.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 3 nominations total
Christopher Hunter
- Corello
- (as Chris Hunter)
Tom Kane
- Cartoon Voice
- (voice)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I love vampire films so naturally I had to see this one (Didn't care too much for Dracula 2000, though - I still gave it a try, though)..
It's a different movie, I'll give you that much. Don't misinterpret me as saying it's bad, but it's definately NOT - but it's just not what you'd expect.
Anyways, into vampire and horror pics you should still see it, nothing mindbreaking or anything like that, just good entertainment..
It's a different movie, I'll give you that much. Don't misinterpret me as saying it's bad, but it's definately NOT - but it's just not what you'd expect.
Anyways, into vampire and horror pics you should still see it, nothing mindbreaking or anything like that, just good entertainment..
"Dracula II:Ascension" is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!"Dracula II:Ascension" is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like "Lips of Blood","The Brides of Dracula" or "Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural" to name only a few.4 out of 10.
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.
the movie rocked. i cannot wait till the third one comes out. i was sort of saddened by the vampire who wasnt the same guy that was in the first one.. but over all i liked the movie. its full of action and mostly confuses u and there is some comedy, i dont know if they ment for it to be funny but i laughed acouple of times. i think all vampire fans should watch it. its the next subspecies.. thanks
Did you know
- TriviaDespite the cover saying Wes Craven Presents, Wes Craven had nothing to do with the production.
- GoofsDespite having full thickness burns over his entire body, Dracula's clothes are virtually untouched at the beginning of the movie.
- Quotes
Kenny: What have we got here? Have you come to give me a whippin, dad? Have I been that bad?
[charges Uffizi, who strangles him with his whip]
Kenny: I'm not what you think!
Father Uffizi: You're exactly what I think.
Kenny: Do you want my soul, Father? Do you want my soul? Is that it?
Father Uffizi: No, God gets your soul. I just want your head.
[decapitates Kenny]
- Crazy creditsThe vampire casts no reflection because its image is an affront to God.
- Cardinal Siqueros
- ConnectionsEdited into Dracula III: Legacy (2005)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Wes Craven Presents Dracula II: Ascension
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $3,200,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 25m(85 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content