Dracula III: Legacy

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

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.

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!

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.

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