Drácula III: el legado

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

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.

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/

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 sequel to Dracula II:Ascension,which is sort of a sequel to Dracula 2000,has much more story than either of the other tow.almost too much,in fact.it moves at a pretty slow pace,then,just when you think you can bear no more,something interesting happens to keep you watching.Two of the main characters from Dracula II are more fleshed out,and there is a wee bit of humour to lighten things up on one or two rare occasions.near the end,when i thought it was over,i was thinking how anti climatic it all was.but i realized it wasn't quite over,and the actual ending is brilliant.it begs for a sequel,which is not likely to happen.and yet,it's also a perfect conclusion.the ending(well,that and Rutger Hauer as Dracula--a stroke of genius)is what elevated the move for me.otherwise,i would have given this 2 or 3 stars less.as it stands,i give Dracula III:Legacy a 6/10