Dracula II: Ascension

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..

So the original plot outline of Dracula 2000 comes to light in its sequel, Dracula II: Ascension. Gripe #1 – as indicated by my summary, it's an unbalanced trilogy. Meaning? You get one stand alone film (Dracula 2000), and one two-part film (Dracula 2: Ascension & Dracula 3: Legacy) which go nicely together, requires the other to complete the idea, but really leaves the first one kind of hanging by its stand-alone, self-contained, lonesome. For other such trilogies, see also Star Wars (New Hope through Jedi), Back to the Future, and Matrix.

Unfortunately, Dracula II takes the path of Dracula 2000 and tries to throw a few shockers at the audience, making the same mistake of its predecessor in thinking that shocks and plot twists can replace decent story telling. Even worse, Dracula 2000 used up all the good twists. Jason Scott Lee as a butt-kicking priest? Um . . . that might be cool, and Lee's pretty cool. A film that gives action a back seat in favor of ‘resurrecting' Dracula and letting him subtly use/influence the people around him? I'm down with that. But the film is directed by the same man who did Dracula 2000, and well, Dracula 2000 had a lot more elements that could make it work and, well, you know where this heading . . .

Then I found myself asking questions like, what exactly do those priests do to the vampire bodies in the morgue? What is Father Uffizi's lighter fluid (or holy water, whatever it was) going to do to Dracula's corpse that hanging him in sunlight isn't going to do? If they do something else (not shown) like behead the bodies, why bother burning them?

Or how ‘bout: why wasn't Uffizi mentioned in the original film? Where's the Van Helsing offspring? Why must the actors do that hideously fake and unintimidating vampire hiss? And while they're at it, why do the `so liberating, blah, blah, blah' boastful speech when they turn? Why is this film so cliché in its setup?

I'm all for suspending disbelief for the sake of enjoying a film, but there comes a point where the clichés and questions add up beyond what you're capable of ignoring.

Dracula II: Ascension has 2 big twists to its plot. One is expected, typical of films like this, and incredibly lame - I never would have guessed who was in league with who, let's come out of the closet while we're at it. The second twist is actually very well executed, and much harder to spot. It would've been really great if they just ended the film and the series on that note instead of revving up for the third film, but I get the feeling that without the third film the writers would have opted for a happier, family friendly, resolution.

Oh well, we'll see where Dracula III leads.

When I first rented this i thought that it was a sequel to the very predictable "Dracula 2000". The only highlight of that film is that the character was Judas Iscariot which gives the whole Dracula concept a much needed boost as usual Drac's Vlad the Imapaler or a direct descendant. This film has a very solid plot as the morgue attendants discover a burned up vamp in their morgue & upon realizing what they have the female character played by underrated actress DIANE Neal ( who is great on NBC's Law & Order: SVU) decides to perform an experiment for her crippled boyfriend Craig Sheffer (who overacts as usual. His only good movie is Nightbreed.) to use Dracula's blood, somehow expel the evil taint & restore him to being a fully-functioning walking & talking man again. Jason Scott Lee as the priestly vamp-hunter does an okay job though his presence in the film is not one of great importance. They could have not used him at all in this film & no one would have missed the character. Great work from B-movie actor Jason London, & pretty cool special effects especially the scene where Dracula (played pretty damn well by the sexy Brit actor Stephen Billington)bites the British investor in the face as he brags to Dracula " That's right! Make me immortal!" Dracula replies "Alright,but you won't enjoy being immortal!" And,proceeds to bite a huge chunk out of the man's face. tHEN AS THE MAN COMES BACK IN VAMPIRIC FORM HE HAS NO FACE SO his fangs are (and this is so cool!) growing out of the sides of his jaws and forehead & it's the craziest special effect I've ever seen in a vampire film.It could've been bloodier & was left open for a sequel but unfortunately the sequel is called Dracula 3000:

Dracula 2: Ascension (2003)

This movie had an interesting beginning, leaving off where Dracula 2000 ended with Dracula burning on the cross, but picked up different characters along the way, including two coroners who take the burnt body of Dracula at accidently bring him back to life while studying him. With a vampire-hunting priest (Jason Scott Lee) on their tracks, they must keep Dracula contained before he is unleashed and spreads more terror to the town of New Orleans. This movie was good, but towards the end, it didn't make much sense and didn't come full circle. It wasn't scary at all, but it had a bit of suspense and thrills. To enjoy this to it's full, you will probably have to be a hardcore Dracula fan. 7/10.

"Dracula II:Ascension" is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!"Dracula II:Ascension" is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like "Lips of Blood","The Brides of Dracula" or "Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural" to name only a few.4 out of 10.