Customer Reviews

Dracula 3 - Legacy

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Move over Blade, there is a new vampire franchise in town. Tired of slick, over-produced horror movies like Underworld? Look no further. Dracula III: Legacy is the latest installment in a surprisingly durable franchise. Director Patrick Lussier has been quietly picking up the slack from a now dormant John Carpenter by making straightforward, atmospheric B-horror movies.

Jason Scott Lee is surprisingly effective as a driven vampire hunter. Armed with a nasty looking scythe, he is a very efficient (and cool) killer of the undead. He wouldn't be out of place in a Carpenter film as one of the auteur's trademark, enigmatic men-of-action, like Snake Plissken in Escape from New York. In contrast to Lee's no-nonsense character, Jason London is the easy-going sidekick that provides the film's doses of comic relief. These two actors have come a long way from films like Dragon (Lee) and Mallrats (London) to form an excellent duo.

Dracula III features a good balance of cool characters, the right amount of exposition and a beefed up vampire presence that was lacking from Dracula II. This last installment of the trilogy captures a modern gothic atmosphere beautifully, putting other contemporary Hollywood horror movies to shame. The heir apparent to John Carpenter's legacy has been found and it should be interesting to see what Lussier does next.

There is an audio commentary by writer/director Patrick Lussier, producer/co-writer Joel Soisson and special makeup designer Gary Tunnicliffe. This is chatty track as the three men discuss their movie and the challenges of shooting on a budget.

"A Conversation with Patrick Lussier on the Mythology of Vampires." The director was fascinated by the depiction of vampires all over the world and in particular Romania's Vlad the Impaler and Bram Stoker's take on the legend.

"A Conversation with Special Makeup Designer Gary J. Tunnicliffe." He talks about the hardships of working in the cold weather of Romania and how he had to ship in fake blood and reassemble the plastic weapons because they kept breaking in the cold weather.

"Cast Auditions" features footage of four of the supporting cast members who were taken from Europe.

"Deleted Scene-Flat Tire" features our heroes fixing a flat tire and encountering some undead along the way.

Also included is an "Alternate Ending" that features a much more upbeat ending than what is in the existing version.

For dedicated fans of this franchise there are the original story treatments for all three movies that allow one to see them in their early stages and how Lussier initially envisioned them.

Finally, there are trailers for the first two Dracula movies.

Although the title might suggest otherwise, "Dracula III: The Legacy" is not the final part of a trilogy but rather the second half of a story begun in "Dracula II: The Ascension." In other words, you do not need to go back to "Dracula 2000," because there is really nothing in that movie that has anything to do with these other two. This may or may not have anything to do with the audacious but rather ludicrous idea that the reason vampires loath Christian symbols is that Dracula is really (wait for it) Judas Iscariot, but except for the fact that at the end of "Dracula 2000" the title character is a charred corpse and at the start of "Dracula II" he is a charred corpse, there is really nothing else to connect the dots (and for what it is worth, yes, I buy the explanation for why Dracula looks different in each of these films).

When we go to the "to be continued" end of "Dracula II," Luke (Jason London) is desperate to find out what happened to the woman of his affections, Elizabeth Blaine (Diane Neal). Luke is traveling with Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee), a vampire killer who uses a scythe to decapitate the undead. Uffizi remains at odds with the Church because his superior, Cardinal Siqueros (Roy Scheider), insists that the goal is not just to kill vampires but to try saving their souls as well. Father Uffizi and Luke are making their way through the Romanian countryside where they have to worry not only about vampires, but revolutionaries and other people with guns. They discover a British TV reporter, Julia Hughes (Alexandra Westcourt), who though she was covering the war but has stumbled upon Dracula's plot to use the locals to stock his blood cellar. The whole concern about the scientific properties of vampire blood and the emphasis on all of those ancient Eastern European superstitions regarding vampires now take a back seat to rescuing Elizabeth and stopping the orgy of blood sucking taking place over at the Dracula place.

This 2005 film is again directed by Patrick Lussier, who co-wrote the script with Joel Soisson. Lee is certainly a compelling lead figure, and London manages to provide the comic relief without becoming laughable in the wrong way, but the problem is that in a Dracula movie the big bad vampire should pop up for more than the conclusion. Granted, the film really is more about Uffizi to the point where you wonder why it has to be a Dracula film. But then it would be too much of a Blade rip-off. At this point it reminds me more of the "Hellraiser" direct to video releases where Pinhead usually shows up just at the end. If you are going to go this route then you really need the journey to be a lot more interesting, but what we have here is nothing like going off to see Marlon Brando in "Apocalypse Now."

Lussier filmed both "Dracula II" and "Dracula III" at the same time in Romania, but for some reason I have not bothered to investigate we have had to wait all this time for this direct to video release. The production values are pretty good (you get your money's worth in Romania apparently) and I liked doing a contemporary film back on Dracula's home turf. But Rutger Hauer is not simply wasted, his performance is counter-productive. Ultimately the whole idea here is that Uffizi is arriving at a personal crucible, and the Dracula he finds at the end is not worthy of the moment, especially given the ending they want to go with for the movie (I was going to say for the series as well, but who knows: they might be trying to squeeze a few quarts of blood out of this storyline).

I went in to Wes Craven Presents Dracula III: Legacy cold, without having seen either Dracula 2000 or Wes Craven Presents Dracula II: Ascension, so I can't really compare what has come before with what takes place here. I was cautiously optimistic about the film, though (the name Wes Craven doesn't necessarily guarantee quality the way it once did). There are some things I didn't like about Dracula III, but overall it's a better than average vampire film. There could have been more blood and gore, and some of the special effects toward the end smelled slightly of cheese, but Jason Scott Lee pretty much carries the film. His character, Father Uffizi, isn't your typical vampire hunter - and he's certainly not your typical priest - and I think that gives the film a special little spin. Unfortunately, the movie is short on hot vampire chicks. Diane Neal more than fits the bill, but she's limited to the film's final scenes.

Father Uffizi is going after Dracula, with or without the Church's blessing (the Church being represented by Roy Scheider in a short, nonessential cameo). Unfortunately, he takes an annoying do-gooder sidekick with him. I can understand Luke's (Jason London) motivation, since the woman he loves is now a plaything of the vampire and it's apparently all his fault, but his is the kind of character vampire movies just don't need - unless they're going for comedy. The two make their way to Romania, a country in the throes of civil war, and fight their way through a number of obstacles - both human and vampiric. Along the way, they take up with an English journalist who is about to get the scoop of her life (assuming she lives to report it, of course) when she learns that the real source of the trouble in Romania is a vampire. As you might expect, the final scenes play out in Dracula's abode, and I can't say I was all that impressed with the head honcho blood-sucker. He's not all that bright to have caused so much trouble for so many centuries and his security system could certainly do with some improvements - and it takes more than harsh whispering to make a vampire truly impressive. Half the time, I had to strain to understand whatever rubbish Rutger Hauer was putting out there. I liked the ending, though - it's not unpredictable, but it is subtle.

The special effects are pretty darn good for the most part; human appendages tend to be less impressive when they're separated from the body, and I thought the special effects of the climactic scenes could have been better, but I'm not really complaining. Okay, I will complain about one thing. Uffizi has this deadly arsenal of blades, but we usually have to settle for watching blood splatter on the walls rather than see the blades do their dirty work. There's no shortage of that blood, though.

It's hard to offer a new take on the Dracula legend, but this movie does a pretty good job of it. I've certainly seen worse - much, much worse. Seeing Dracula III won't make your life complete, but I think most vampire fans will enjoy it.

I was very pleased with the first two movies in this series and was hopeful that part three would deliver. It did. Legacy is a fine third chapter that really entertains. Sure I wish that filmakers had been given more money for another theatrical release BUT that's a minor quibble. Legacy and the first two movies make a very satisfying trilogy that many horror fans should appreciate. This is one of the best modern horror series.

Dracula III is a fantastic final chapter to the Dracula series which began with Dracula 2000. I'm very happy with it and I'm proud to have all three flicks in my DVD collection. Give 'em a try. All three are bloody good!

After seeing "Dracula 2000" and the sequel "Dracula 2: Ascension", and enjoying both, needless to say I was looking forward to the release of the third and supposed final chapter in this new `Dracula 2000' series, for two reasons. One reason was, obviously since I enjoyed the first and second entries in this series, I figured I would enjoy the third installment; and second, because "Dracula 2: Ascension" left everything hanging at the end of the movie. This was due to the fact that both "Dracula 2: Ascension" and Dracula 3: Legacy" were filmed at the same time, and when viewed together, they essentially make one big movie that continues from "Dracula 2000". So, of course until "Dracula 3: Legacy" was released, over a year after the release of the second film, I felt the series was incomplete since "Dracula 2: Ascension" didn't really have a satisfactory ending. Finally, after over a year of legal maneuvering, Dimension Films was able to release the third installment in the `Dracula 2000' series, and it definitely was worth the wait, as it ties everything together in a very cool way.

"Dracula 3: Legacy" as I said in the previous paragraph, quite literally picks up the second that "Dracula 2: Ascension" ends. Father Uffizzi, the priest/vampire hunter, and his reluctant partner Luke (Jason London) are pursuing Dracula in hopes of finishing him off once and for all. The problem is, they don't know where Dracula has gone to since he evaded them, this leads them back to the Archbishop that assigned Uffizzi the task of eliminating Dracula, for some help in locating the vampire that started it all. At this time we learn that since Uffizzi has somewhat given Dracula the forgiveness he was lacking, Dracula is no longer immortally young as he has been all this time. Now, Dracula (Rutger Hauer) is growing older and he knows that his time is shorter now and is doing all that he can to prolong the inevitable end to his reign of terror.

"Dracula 3: Legacy" takes the series to Dracula's home in Romania, for what appears to be the final installment in the series. This change of location served for some interesting twists, as the hunters must now track Dracula on his own turf, while fighting off legions of vampire servants for Dracula, and avoiding the civil war that is raging in the country between Dracula and his legion, and those who oppose his oppressive rule.

It was nice to see Jason London and Jason Scott Lee reprise their roles for this film, also making a cameo appearance is Roy Scheider as the priest that assigned Uffizzi the task of killing Dracula (Roy Scheider also made a cameo in "Dracula 2: Ascension"). Dracula this time around is played by Rutger Hauer, who does a magnificent job of playing the menacing vampire lord. By the way, Rutger Hauer is the third actor to portray Dracula in this series.

The story stands much better by itself than the story of "Dracula 2: Ascension", but to really appreciate the events in this film you really must see both "Dracula 2000" and Dracula 2: Ascension". Some fans of the series have said that "Dracula 2: Ascension" and "Dracula 3: Legacy" feel as if they have no relation to the first film, I disagree with these people. Clearly if you watch them all together you can easily see the relation between each of these films and how the overall story flows wonderfully from one film to another, a quality that most horror franchises never achieve or aspire to.

This has been an entertaining series of films, that has done an excellent job of tweaking the legend of Dracula to make him more menacing for the new generation. If "Dracula 3: Legacy" is to be the final installment in the `Dracula 2000' series, making it a trilogy, then I am completely satisfied. If Dimension Films and the director choose to continue on with this series, and at the end of the movie there is potential to take this franchise in a completely new direction or do a spin-off series, as long as the quality of future installments stays on the same level as these films then I will definitely be watching.

"Dracula 3: Legacy" is rated R for violence, language, and brief nudity.

I really am leery of sequels, and this is the third installment of the dracula 2000 series. First of all, Dracula (Rutger Hauer) wasn't all that strong a character and it doens't really explain why they have changed his face for the third time. The one performance that I thought I liked was Scott Jason Lee and the ending. Don't expect alot from this, its only entertainment..But, if you are anything like me, I have the three installments....Still like the first the best...and again with the ending, will there be a forth?

More vampire mayhem from the folks who brought you Dracula 2000. Sequels often pale when compared to the first film, but 2 and 3 have their moments. I like them. Many of the ideas and characters are enjoyable. Could have been a little better. Could have been a lot worse. Pretty darn impressive for a direct to video sequel. Ultimatley it's a good time. Part 3 is a fine vampire movie worth watching - and owning.

Dracula 3 The Legacy is one of those movies that I wanted to see so bad, because I loved the first two films. However, to me, this film isn't as good as the other two films, but it's still a good movie.

It's a lot different than the first two films Dracula 2000 and Dracual 2 Acension. The other movies go for a younger audience and try to mix Dracula with a modern day world. This film goes to Romania and wants the audience to be more aware of where Dracula came from and show things from a different point of view, being away from modern civilization and involving an army and a different setting entirely.

The things that really work for this film are the relationships the actors have with each other and the total change of scenery from the first two films. Jason London and Jason Scott Lee provide better than expected acting in their roles as vampire slayers.

The things that don't work for this movie are the amount of time Dracula and the vampires fighting the slayers get on the screen. A lot of the vamire fights are just way too short to be that interesting and entertaining to watch.

Yes!! Dracula III has risen from the vault! I was hooked with Dracula 2000 and made hungry for more by Dracula II... and now at last the final chapter is here! Dracula III is everything I'd hoped it would it be and a hell of a lot of fun! It's a vampiric Heart of Darkness and that's a gem of a story direction. III is absolutley my favorite of the three Dracula films in this series. Dracula fans should definitley check this one out, but I'd suggest seeing the first two in the series before seeing this one.