Dracula II: Ascension (2003)

Great Film overall

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

This sequel to "Dracula 2000" follows a new bunch of characters as Draculas' charred corpse is brought into a morgue. Medical students Elizabeth (Diane Neal) and Luke (Jason London) are fascinated because they realize that this thing on the slab was an honest-to-God vampire. They're also quick to jump on a strangers' offer of $30 million for the body, so they sneak it out of there, and with two others in tow, take it to an isolated location to do all sorts of experiments. Dracula is naturally brought back to "life", and is now played by Stephen Billington. In search of the famed blood sucker is a vampire hunter named Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee), who's been sent by the Vatican.This whole story is patently absurd, hinging on the absolute stupidity of our protagonists (also including Craig Sheffer as a wheelchair bound professor). You end up rooting for Dracula to snuff them all out. Add to that some highly variable acting. Some performances are passable, some just plain terrible. Veteran actor Roy Scheider is wasted in a very brief cameo as the Cardinal. Lees' performance is actually pretty good, and it deserves to be in a better movie. Some people may find it interesting to check out the early performance by the extremely prolific voice over artist Khary Payton, who more recently has been playing Ezekiel on 'The Walking Dead'.Some things in the movies' favour are a decent forward pace, a sufficient amount of gore, amusing effects (such as a face munched off), and impressive widescreen photography.The script by Joel Soisson and director Patrick Lussier comes complete with some twists near the end. The "conclusion" is obviously merely serving to set up the next sequel.Five out of 10.

In Dracula II: Ascension, the short-awaited sequel that horror fans didn't demand, producer Wes Craven and director Patrick Lussier have created another slick, contemporary vampire tale that once again plays fast and loose with the Dracula legend; thankfully, neither goofy Gerard Butler nor thoroughly irritating Jonny Lee Miller return for Part II, and matters are dealt with in a far less pensive manner than before, making the film a more enjoyable effort overall than the rather disappointing Dracula 2000.Having been burnt to a crisp by the sun at the end of the first film, the legendary vamp's charred corpse is delivered to a morgue where a group of medical students soon realise that the latest body on their slab belongs to no mere mortal. Believing that they can use the vampire's remains to advance medical science, and offered a huge sum of money by a total stranger to do just that, they smuggle Drac out of the building and take him to a deserted mansion to begin their experiments. Meanwhile, dedicated Vatican-approved vampire slayer Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) searches for the missing vamp with the intention of destroying him forever...Some decent gore, including several neat be-headings and a bloke having his faced chewed off; a few interesting pieces of vampire lore rarely seen in the movies; solid acting, with a cool turn by Stephen Billington as Dracula, who seems to be channelling Tom Cruise's Lestat for his performance; and cheap but effective scares that'll make you feel rather stupid for having jumped: Dracula II is pure popcorn fun with zero pretensions, and is all the better for it.6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.

This straight to video, low-budget follow up to the hip, modern-day "Dracula 2000" continues on from where the last film finished, although it has new characters and story path. In some ways I found it better, even a touch of creativity in its idea. A priest/vampire hunter tracks down the corpse of Dracula to a morgue, but before he can destroy the burnt remains, a coroner and med student steal the body when they are offered money for it. However their own agendas come to the foray when they bring Dracula back to life. Directed by Patrick Lussier, who did "2000" and then the following sequel "Legacy". What he crafts is slick, if on the shallow side but he uses the Romania backdrop to great affect instilling a Gothic ambiance. Most of the moody action takes place in one area, giving a taut strangle-hold as Dracula is kept captive for most part and those around him try to figure out what to do. Interested in his immortality, they try to harness this ability through his blood in the hope it could be a cure for sickness/ or disabilities (in which why Craig Sheffer's character has a special interest) but in doing so they need to take away the evil. Or they would become one of the un- dead. Or maybe the un-dead is tempting? The story is characterised by these traditional character arches to only build up plot twists, especially when plans come crashing down. Now throw in Jason Lee Scott's character, quite ambiguous but edgy and imposing in sight. The sub-plots involving this priest do draw you in, but little is explained. Now the technical side, the stunt work was dazzling (like the opening involving Scott and Jennifer Kroll) and the action was bloody in a relentless charge. It tries to play it for laughs and kicks. Doesn't entirely come off though. The performances are decent. Diane Neal is ravishing, but potent in the lead. Jason London has a twitchy quality, but is likable. Craig Shaffer's portrayal is kind of predictable, where John Light does a better job. As for Dracula, Stephen Billington doesn't get all that much to do but his presence and visual manners acquit themselves well. As for the ending, it sets-up for the next instalment; "Legacy"."Picked a bad day to become a vampire."

This seriously hurts the Dracula myth. Dracula is NOT Judas. The very Dracula novel will tell you that he 'must be the Dracula who fought the Turks'. That's Vlad the Impaler, born 1431 and died 1476. NOT Judas. And I find the attempt to justify Dracula's limitations to tie them to the Judas story to be flawed at best. Okay, so he was paid in silver when he betrayed Jesus so he hates silver, he hates the sun because he tried to kill himself at dust... O...kay... and he hates crosses because of Jesus being crucified (long held guilt?). So how do we explain his aversion to Garlic? They had Italian at the last supper? Also I do NOT like the idea that Jesus would condemn anyone to be a vampire. Jesus forgave Judas. And why would he come to save humanity only to unleash the world's worst vampire on the Earth. That's a Messiah who gave us Count Dracula?! Some Messiah unleashing a monster on us. Thanks a lot! The plot of this film is painfully predictable and there are far more interesting films about a vampire in medical captivity. If you want to see that sort of plot a better low budget movie would be Demon Under Glass. At least that one was intelligently done.