Dracula II: Ascension

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

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.

This is a sequel of sorts to "Dracula 2000", and the opening moments will be somewhat confusing to those who haven't seen that movie first. D2K had one original idea going for it (Dracula was actually Judas Iscariot, consumed by his own guilt in his betrayal of Jesus, and who hanged himself), and in the end of D2K, Dracula is both hung from a giant cross AND burned by the rising sun, the combination of which is supposed to be enough finally put the King Of Vampires to rest once and for all.

So D2:Ascension opens up with a paramedic team pulling the fried remains of Dracula in from his hanging gibbet. Apparently the heroes of D2K couldn't be bothered to actually either a) finally dispose of his body or b) explain to the authorities that the 'corpse' might still be dangerous, which strikes me as REMARKABLY irresponsible of them. But anyway, the cleanup crew who pulls in the body only sees Dracula's remains as those of another anonymous John Doe, and ship the remains off to the nearest morgue. By an INCREDIBLE coincidence, the young lady in charge happens to be part of a group of medical students (and a professor) who are on the lookout for vampire remains. She becomes suspicious that these remains might be those of an actual vampire, and the group carts the remains off to a lonely mansion to soak Drac's corpse in a bathtub full of blood (don't worry, it's plasma from the hospital). Drac revives, and hijinks and hilarity ensue.

I give the creators credit for adding a few interesting twists and details to the standard vampire tale. The idea of a group of researchers trying to hold a creature as insanely powerful and dangerous as the King Of Vampires while they try to isolate the factors that grant him power and immortality is potentially quite good. The group dynamics are also interesting, with internal dissension and betrayals tearing the group apart almost from the beginning. And some of the little touches - the 'sun gun', the use of seeds and knots and chains soaked in liquid silver, the idea of the vampire blood itself as a viral infectious agent - are fun to play with. The plot also throws in Jason Lee as a half-vampire priest who is trying to rid the earth of all vampires, especially Drac. Lee is a great ham, and his presence in the movie is a good excuse to do be-headings and fisticuffs and glares filled with Jesuitical outrage, etc.

But in the end, the whole thing falls short. I really don't have a problem with the cast, but no one here has half the acting firepower of Christopher Lee OR Christopher Plummer. (Of course, that's true of most movies!) The guy who plays the revived version of Dracula seems to have a bit more charisma this time around than Butler's D2K version, (or maybe it is just that the plot has him acting in ways that are a bit less cliché than the normal run of vampire movies.) but it's still an pretty subdued performance. The movie suffers a bit from lack of internal consistency and cohesion about how the whole vampire infection things is supposed to work. And all but two of the group members turn out to be hateful creeps (except for a member who gets killed early on), which murks up the 'good versus evil' theme common to most horror movies.

But there is ONE great moment moment near the end of the film where Dracula finally escapes his bonds and confining measures with contemptuous ease and bites the face off one of his captors ("Go ahead - I'll still live forever!" "But will you *WANT* to?!?" C-H-O-M-P!!!) that reinforces the fact that messing with the Prince Of Darkness under ANY circumstances is like trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

So in the end, is this movie worth watching? Yes, in fact, I prefer it to D2K for the sheer novelty of the plot. Is it a great movie? No, because there is no actor here who does more than a competent job, and the screenplay doesn't live up to the promise of the premise.

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..

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'