Customer Reviews

Dracula 2: Ascension [VHS]

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

Not only do you need to know that this direct to video movie is a sequel to "Dracula 2000," but that it is now the middle part of a trilogy that concludes this year with "Dracula III: The Legacy." Otherwise when you get to the "to be continued" ending you might feel cheated that you are left hanging just as things are starting to get interesting. But then for most of "Dracula II: Ascension" it is not really clear why this 2003 film is a sequel to what is now the original in all this.

In director Patrick Lussier's "Dracula 2000" the new twist on the story of Dracula is that we finally learn the real reason why the vampire loathes Christian symbols. It turns out that Dracula is really Judas Iscariot (you have to admit, it is an audacious idea even if it is rather ludicrous). However, this great revelation has almost nothing to do with this story except for a few seconds towards the end. This makes sense because except for Dracula's crisp corpse in the morgue most of this film has no reason to be tied to the first film. Throughout the important thing is that these characters have stumbled across a real live vampire, so to speak, and the fact that this is the burned body of Dracula is as inconsequential as the idea he is really Judas as well.

So, Dracula's body shows up in the morgue and as Elizabeth Blaine (Diane Neal) and Luke (Jason London) do the autopsy they come up with the crazy idea that this is the body of a vampire. Then something happens to convince them that they are correct in their suspicions, an idea that is reinforced when they suddenly get a phone call out of the blue from a mysterious stranger named Luke (John Light) offering $3 for the body. Luke is interested in the money, but Elizabeth sees an opportunity for the vampire's blood to save her boyfriend Lowell (Craig Sheffer), who suffers from a degenerative condition. Lowell brings along a pair of graduate assistants, Kenny (Khary Payton) and Tanya (Brande Roderick, Miss April 2000 for "Playboy"), so that the can help investigate the scientific properties of vampire blood and, of course, eventually be the vampire's victims.

Meanwhile, Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee), an imposing vampire killer with a bullwhip and a wicked looking scythe, is going around decapitating the undead. Dracula is next on his hit list, but his superior, Cardinal Siqueros (Roy Scheider) makes a point of telling Uffizi that he should not only be killing vampires but trying to save their souls. Even though Uffizi is a priest, this idea has never occurred to him before, but you know about the hierarchical structure of the Catholic church, so this will come into play in the film's end game.

The idea of scientists playing Dr. Frankenstein with Dracula has its moments, although of course such efforts are doomed to fail. At the same time "Dracula II" goes back to the ancient Eastern European superstitions that vampires have to untie knots and count scattered seed, a curious juxtaposition with the modern science and Judas elements of the story. This also sets up some strange comic relief at the film's climactic moment, although I like the idea of which character of this strange little lot shows the most courage and intelligence in the face of a hungry vampire.

Another addition to the vampire idea Dracula insists that he has had many incarnations. In addition to Vlad Tepes the names of Gilles de Rais and Caligula are thrown around. This works with the idea that every time Dracula comes back he looks differently, which explains why the character was played by Gerald Butler in the original, Stephen Billington in this one, and is going to be Rutger Hauer in the finale (you can catch a glimpse of him in a flashforward during the flashbacks). In other words, what could be an interesting idea with historical resonance, exploiting the whole Judas idea, ends up being an explanation for the casting in this trilogy.

There is a lot going on here in this film, although it is a mixed bag of hits and misses (and we have no idea why the title is "Ascension"). Lussier filmed both "Dracula II" and "Dracula III" at the same time, and in the finale Uffizi and a sidekick will travel to war torn Romania (where these movies were filmed) to try and finish off the vampire once and for all. Perhaps the best thing I can say for this film is that I am interested in seeing how this all plays out.

With the success of "Dracula 2000" it was surprising when Dimension Films chose to release the sequel "Dracula 2: Ascension" not to theaters, but Direct-to-DVD. Since it was the same director from the first film, Wes Craven was producing once again, and the cast was comprised of good actors (not necessarily A-list, but neither was the first films' stars), the decision just didn't seem to make much sense. Now, I'm not sure if the decision to go Direct-to-DVD effected the storyline, or if the script had already been written to be one big script, spread out over two sequels. Either way, it seemed odd, and I have to say I was skeptical about even watching "Dracula 2: Ascension" (though the two sequels were shot back-to-back, due to legal trouble for Dimension Films, "Dracula 2: Ascension" was released over a year before "Dracula 3: Legacy"). But, after watching "Dracula 2000" again, I decided I should at least give the second film a chance, after all with the same director and producer it should at least be as good a movie as the first. I must say, I was pleasantly surprised by "Dracula 2: Ascension", it had a good, solid story, with strong acting (Dracula was played by a different person, in fact none of the original cast returned for the sequels), and continued to build on the new origins of this modern-day Dracula.

"Dracula 2: Ascension" picks up pretty much where "Dracula 2000" left off. Dracula appeared to have been killed, however, appearances can be deceiving, as Dracula is once again alive and well. This time though his freedom will be short lived as he is captured by a team of scientists who are attempting to find the key to immortality, a secret that is locked within Dracula's blood. On the trail of Dracula and the team of scientists, is a priest/vampire hunter, named Father Uffizzi (Jason Scott Lee), that has been assigned by the Catholic Church to destroy Dracula and his legion of vampires. When Uffizzi catches up with the scientists he discovers that Dracula was more than they could handle. Now with most of the team dead, except for two members, one that has been turned into a vampire, the other named Luke (Jason London), joins forces with Father Uffizzi, to destroy Dracula and attempt to save his friend from the vampirism that has taken hold.

"Dracula 2: Ascension" was an entertaining sequel, yet somewhat disappointing due to the fact that the story for this film flows directly into the third movie making both films feel like one big movie. Unlike "Dracula 2000" which could stand alone as a complete movie, "Dracula 2: Ascension" requires the audience to see "Dracula 3: Legacy" to get some form of satisfactory ending. After watching "Dracula 2: Ascension", I felt like I did after the first two `Lord of the Rings' films, they were great movies, yet they never had satisfactory endings until the final movie. Same here, this was a good movie, but it sucked that I had to wait over a year to get the conclusion of the new story arc that had begun in "Dracula 2: Ascension".

The gripe about the 2 sequels being so inter-linked aside, this really was an enjoyable film and a satisfying continuation of "Dracula 2000". The cast, though comprised mostly of unknowns, was for the most part strong, and the story when combined with the third film is really intriguing. If you liked "Dracula 2000" or are a fan of vampire or monster movies, then I highly recommend this series of films.

"Dracula 2: Ascension" is rated R for violence and language.

I know this was a really bad movie to many people, but I can't bring myself to erase it from my Tivo, and there are so many things I love about it that I had to give it 5 stars.

The first thing you need to know about this movie is that it isn't much of a sequel. All it really keeps from Dracula 2000 is the mythology around the creation of Dracula. To me, the whole Judas as Dracula thing is a fascinating idea because the blood drinking of Christians (and giving eternal life through drinking blood) is a delicious bending of holy communion. Dracula 2000 ends with Dracula locked up in Van Helsing's vault, but you just have to forget that and figure he was left hanging upside down on the cross at the end of 2000 (maybe the filmmakers were making this up as they went along).

The second thing, is that the actor playing Dracula has changed, which was fine with me because I thought Scott Billington was both scarier and more attractive in a menacing way than Gerard Butler. The movie makes a clumsy attempt to explain this by saying each time Dracula regenerates, he changes form, but their reasoning doesn't really work unless you discount Dracula 2000, (where he always looked the same in flashbacks.)

Many people have complained that Dracula is tied to a cadaver chair for most of the movie, and he is, but Billington managed to make that work with his facial expressions--you could almost see what was going on in Dracula's head. I actually liked it that Dracula wasn't all powerful through most of the movie--it seems like his ascension should take time and be at some cost, so seeing him suffer as a lab rat was somehow "right" with me.

So what did I love about this movie? For starters, I enjoyed the way the mythology of Dracula II didn't stick to the hum drum and boring staples of vampire movies. I liked the premise of a group trying to profit off of a vampire's blood; the group dynamics and how they fell apart were fascinating to watch, if not always realistic (I will admit a few plot twists were totally unbelievable, but I was willing to just go with it). Mostly though, I love this movie because it has one of the best death scenes ever in it--one that was gruesome but funny, and oddly satisfying since the guy who got it was such a jerk. Also, I have to admit that I really liked the ending. I don't want to spoil it, but suffice it to say that I am pretty sick of Van Helsing-finally-stakes-the-vampire plots, and this one was different.

I have to admit that my taste in movies is a little oddball (two other vampire movies that I recently enjoyed were Immortality and Blood, indies that strayed from the traditional vampire mythos.) I wouldn't recommend this movie to everyone, but for people who like vampires, schlock, and something a little different, this movie would be a good bet.

I'm one of those people fascinated with vampire lore and vampire movies as a result. Dracula 2000 brought an original idea into being, and caught my attention.
When Dracula II was released, I didn't hesitate to rent it and watch it. Again, I was pleased with the results, another mostly original idea. I mean, there are only so many ways you can spin a vampire story. I definitely recommend Dracula II and the upcoming Dracula III.

The reviewer who sees this as "hate-inspiring" is taking this a little too seriously. As a previous reviewer pointed out, supernatural beings in folklore are often endowed with some kind of activity they thrive upon be it counting things, drinking blood, eating people, hoarding gold, fixing shoes, etcetera. I don't think Dracula II was trying to pick on people with any kind of illness at all. The pale skin is often a trait of vampires because it's symbolic of them being "dark" and "unholy" creatures. That doesn't mean the makers of this film were saying anything about people who have health issues. Dracula II is a solid *fantasy* sequel that should be appreciated on that level.

The actors casted as Dracula in this series have been superb!Some Gerard Butler fans may not be pleased with this one (he's not in it) but I liked Dracula II and I'm a big fan of Butler's work in Dracula 2000. He is a fine actor and he made a dashing Dracula. This time Dracula II gives us Stephen Billington in the role of Dracula and MY GOD IS HE CREEPY! I'd never heard of Butler before Dracula 2000 and never heard of Billington until Dracula II. Both are GREAT in these things. Where do they find these types of DYNAMIC actors? Both have brought new blood to the role and the way these movies are written allows for different actors to bring such different and dynamic interpretations of the character to each movie. I like that. The concept that Dracula has been various people through the ages (Gilles de Rais to name just one)makes these films a little different from other Dracula films. Jason Scott Lee is another example of dynamic casting and I look forward to learning more about him in the next one. Can't wait 'til the third chapter of the trilogy.

"Dracula II," sequel to Dimension's holiday bomb "Dracula 2000," is the second installment in a planned trilogy about the king of all vampires (who also happens to be Judas, betrayer of Christ in the film's mythos), and despite its straight-to-video origins, it's actually a decent foray into the blood and fangs genre. Now, that doesn't mean it's for everyone, much like its (superior but flawed) predecessor, but if you are into vampire films with a sense of humor, this may fit the bill.

The plotline revolves around a band of medical school students who discover the severely immolated corpse of Dracula, and decide to sell it for a hefty sum to a mysterious figure who telephones them early on. Why do horror films always exhibit main characters with really, really bad ideas? At any rate, it all goes wrong in short order. Dissension in the group, betrayal, a priestly vampire hunter, and Dracula himself all serve to make things a little bumpy for the conspirators.

The film's greatest strength lies in its rather macabre sense of humor, and provides an interesting take on Bram Stoker's beast. Unfortunately, there are more holes in the plotline than in a vampire-ravaged throat. Characters behave inconsistently at best. On top of that, if you're a fan of "Dracula 2000," don't expect this one to feel much like a follow-up, as the only returning character is Dracula himself (and he's had a major facelift). This is true despite returning director/writer Patrick Lussier and co-writer Joel Soisson. And, as one might expect in this instance, the original is superior, if only to a small extent.

The ideas aren't very original, but "Dracula II" is more entertaining than it should be. If you like vampire films, especially those which provide a healthy dose of camp, then by all means give this a look - and keep an eye open for "Dracula III." After all, "Dracula II" all but ends with a "to be continued..."

I saw 'Dracula 2000' (which this movie is the sequel to) and absolutely loved it, so naturally I rushed out to buy this movie, thinking it would be just as good. Boy, was I disappointed! Sadly, this had none of the dramatic tension and unpredictable plot twists of its predecessor. Instead, it was mostly predictable, clicheed and dull. No wonder none of the cast members from the previous movie wanted to sign up to do this one!

To give the cast of this movie credit, they tried hard. Craig Sheffer camped it up nicely as the evil professor, and Jason Scott Lee was impressive in the fight scenes. But given the script they had to work with, it was clearly an uphill battle. There were a few surprises in the script (like bringing up some little known but interesting facts about vampire folklore) but for the most part it was predictable and formulaic, right down to the location where it was filmed--I mean, it was set in an old, deserted gothic mansion. You don't get more clicheed than that in a vampire movie, unless it's actually shot in Transylvania!

I don't think I'll be bothering with seeing the sequel to this movie, the third in the series. My guess is that it'll be worthy of a 'straight to video' tag.

After viewing a screener copy of 'Dracula: Ascension' (sequel to Dracula 2000), I decided to get on my computer and preorder a copy of the DVD (which I've heard should have at least an entertaining commentary track, among it's extras!).

The film is a direct sequel to 'Dracula 2000' and pretty much takes up where the other film left off, with Dracula hung burning from a cross. There is a switch of burned bodies at the morgue and before long the blood-sucker is back alive and kicking. What follows is an escalating series of action packed scenes that seem to draw the characters closer and closer to their ultimate demise. I was never left waiting for the action to start back up. The whole thing ends in a super cliff-hanger that leaves you awaiting the release of Dracula: Legacy. (Part 3, which I believe was filmed at the same time as Part 2, on location in Romania. The land of Vampires!).

There is ample blood-shed and severed heads, supplied once again by Gary Tunnicliffe (FX guy from Dracula 2000!). Jason Scott Lee puts in a good turn as an awsome priest/vampire hunter, loaded up with cool weapons. At last a return of the 'vampire hunters' of the past, yet this one has a twist (Perhaps we'll see more of him in part 3)! The rest of the cast puts in some pretty good performances with a few stand out supporting roles (John Light as 'the Money' or comedy relief, Khary Peyton as 'normal guy' turned psycho and Steve Billington as a really creepy Dracula). Also, look for a cameo by Roy Schieder! (Too bad it could'nt have been more than a cameo...)

This movie was well made and carefully crafted by many of the same people who did the original Dracula 2000. I can't help but feel that if only the budget were higher, then perhaps this film could have expanded on and fleshed out many of its ideas and perhaps have been a 5 star film. Even then, I'm not sure why this one never made it to theaters. Don't miss it, especially if you are a fan of Dracula 2000!

Dracula II is the middle part of a three part story and must be taken as such to be completely enjoyed. I was very entertained by this. One of the best direct to video films I've seen and I will be looking forward to part 3 of the story.