Drácula III: el legado

Dimension films made a few Dracula sequels following their solid 2000 effort starring Gerard Butler, most of which are meh. Dracula III: Legacy, however, has the ace-in-the-hole asset of having legendary cult thespian Rutger Hauer in the titular vampire role, and that alone makes it noteworthy. Even though the guy doesn't even show up until the third act, and isn't around for long, he's magnetic as the dark prince of bloodsuckers and not to be missed when rallying up the lengthy list of actors who have played the role. The film itself is grade A-cheese and hardly ever feels like a Dracula story, as well as being fairly incomprehensible in relation to the other handful of films in the franchise. I've got a weakness for Dimension horror films though, and they're particularly slick brand of schlock. Jason London, who we all wistfully remember as Randall Pink Floyd in Richard Linklater's Dazed & Confused, is some random vampire hunter, off trekking into the Eastern European alps with martial arts actor Jason Scott Lee to find the Vamp of all Vamps. They do find him, in the form of Hauer's entertaining fiend skulking around a derelict castle and... that's pretty much it. For Hauer fans, load up Final Cut Pro and edit a breezy short film with just his wicked good scenes. For fans of B Movie silliness, have a few beers first. Everyone else, keep on browsing the blockbuster shelf. Oh yeah, and Roy Scheider is in it too, and I've completely forgotten who he plays.

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

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/

Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) and Luke (Jason London) travels through a Romania destroyed by the civil war and the vampires. Luke is trying to save Elizabeth (Diane Neal) from the claws of Dracula, and Uffizi to terminate with the vampires. Along their journey, they meet the British television journalist Julia Hughes (Alexandra Westcourt) covering the war, and the trio follow together facing dangerous situations with the rebels and the vampires.

"Dracula III: Legacy" is a reasonable sequel of "Dracula II: Ascension". The cinematography is beautiful, the special effects work well, but the facial expressions of the ham actor Jason London almost spoil the film. In the end, this forgettable movie entertains. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Drácula 3: O Legado Final" ("Dracula 3: The Final Legacy")

I am from Transylvania, Romania. Actually I live near Bran (30 minute by car), known as Dracula's Castle.

In the Factual Errors it is stated that: "it is also an Orthodox Christian country. In the scene where the main characters approach the castle, you can see a bunch of Catholic priests impaled. You would struggle to find that many Catholic priests in all of Eastern Europe, much less in Romania alone."

Totally incorrect! Because we are speaking about Transylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Principality_of_Transylvania) which was a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. The biggest number of catholic religion persons from Romania is in Transylvania. Actually is quite easy to find catholic priests in these parts of Romania.

Brasov, which is my city, has the Black Church, the biggest Gothic style Catholic Cathedral in Eastern Europe!

You don't have to know history to check what you are saying at www.wikipedia.com

Anyway, for those interested in the Dracula myth, you should read a bit more about the Medieval History of Transylvania...You would like more the myth of Dracula;and the castle is quite impressive;Personally, I would not dare to stay a night by myself in the Castle;not only because of Dracula;we have stronger demons in our culture that Dracula.

Myself I am more like a Werewolf type :-) In Transylvania we still have packs of wolves that attack at night the villages in long winter nights and we have the biggest population of bears in Europe; And a lot of old superstitions about demons that travel the country side at night, even nowadays;

If you ever visit Romania, enjoy Transylvania! It is the most beautiful part of Romania by far!