LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

BA_Harrison 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.

lost-in-limbo 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."

Kristine Oh, I am confused, the way I read some of these comments here on IMDb, I was thinking that Dracula 2 was going to be a decent horror movie. I had recorded this film expecting at least a good story. But honestly, the reason why I can't enjoy Wes Craven's take on Dracula is because it seems like he has no clever way of telling this classic story. Dracula is one of history's most famous villains and Wes Craven has made him into nothing but a joke. I don't like the new characters, they're clichéd and boring not to mention that they're horrible actors. The effects, the characters and the story just didn't work with me. Not to mention that I don't know where the heck they got the idea that mustard seeds and rope weaken Dracula? Why not just squeeze a mustard bottle on him? Then I can take a hot dog and rub the mustard off Dracula's body with it and have some dinner. I can't take this stupid story seriously and I don't know how anyone really could.A small group of scientists hope to use Dracula's desiccated body to discover the secret of immortality. Elizabeth who examines the corpse, leads her to alert her boyfriend Lowell, who is suffering from an ultimately fatal degenerative sickness. Lowell claims a wealthy investor wants to fund their research into the mysterious corpse. They take the body away. On their heels is Father Uffizi, seemingly the Vatican's official vampire hunter. He has been given the task of not only killing Dracula, but granting him absolution. This will allow the vampire to rest in peace. What the Cardinal giving Uffizi this task may or may not know is that the priest was scratched by a vampire fang in a previous hunt. Each day he exposes himself to the sun. But one of the scientific team, Luke, doubts Dracula is a purely natural phenomenon. He surrounds the now-awake vampire with folkloric wards like mustard seeds and knots. Elizabeth, meanwhile, feels increasingly strange as the infection in her grows, as does her attraction/bond to Dracula.Well, like Dracula 2000, I just couldn't stand this film. Nothing about this story made sense and all the folklore that fascinates me about Dracula does not exist here. Now the movie could have worked a lot better if it dealt with a better director and different actors, not to mention that they shouldn't make the characters so clichéd, it could have been better. I also don't like the way they handled how you become a vampire, it seemed like the most small bite in the world, that doesn't even require your blood to be drained, just get a little nip and you're becoming a vampire. The "love" story that was incredibly random between Elizabeth and Dracula didn't make any sense, their connection didn't seem real at all. Uffizi is another character that didn't make any sense and once again the actor was just horrible. Nothing about this movie made me think that it could be good, I couldn't wait for it to be over and I don't get how anyone could think that this was a decent horror movie.1/10

Aura V To be honest, I expected so much worse. The sequel to Dracula 2000 was almost satisfying... Even though it's much more about the concept of vampirism then it's about Dracula.Dracula wasn't really important in this movie, most of the time he was dried of blood and ugly. But during the sex scene, you can see the beauty Stephen Billington brought to Dracula. Though it's short and insignificant, it's worth paying attention.Jason London's presence in the movie was almost fun, he's adorable, while his character was cute. Luke isn't a coward in my eyes, he is rather cautious. He reminds me of Shaggy (Scooby Doo), but he's much more courageous then him.I was surprised by their choice of filming locations. They filmed in my country and the selected mostly old places, like the Mogosoaia Castle (when Father Uffizi was walking in a flashback with another priest and they were discussing Dracula). They filmed in the old center of Bucharest, Lipscani (some of the streets shown)... And then it's that big white mansion it was also used for the filming of "Blood and Chocolate", but I have no idea what that is.All in all, "Dracula II: Ascension" was an interesting sequel, I'm glad they had the same director for all three movies.