"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.
77 Reviews
Tries hard, must do better
burglarbil23 June 2003
I enjoyed 'Dracula 2000' despite it's faults and I thought the portrayal of the timeless count was very good but this was a poor sequel. After about 15 minutes I was commenting to my wife about how well filmed it was for a straight to video release but please, if you're going to do a vampire film try to please the thousands of undead fans out here in the real world. It was quite clever to include the folklore elements of vampires having to count seeds (done to good effect in The X Files) and undoing knots; but people turning into vampires within minutes of being bitten?! What happened to dying first, you know the draining all the blood and coming back as the undead bit? The obligatory black character Kenny injects himself with Drac's blood and turns into a vampire on the spot yet in Dracula 2000 Van Helsing has been doing that for years with no ill effect. I realise that this was a low budget movie but they must have cut their costs by not employing someone to cover continuity. That said, the production was good and it tried hard. Better luck next time. PS It was better than 'Dusk till dawn 2'
Just a Reasonable Movie of Vampire, Not a Sequel of Dracula 2000
claudio_carvalho29 July 2004
This movie is `sold' as a sequel of `Dracula 2000'. The unique common point, besides the vampires, are the producer (Wes Craven) and the writers and director Joel Soisson and Patrick Lussier. The rest has nothing to do with `Dracula 2000'. The story has a good beginning in Czechoslovakia, with the vampire hunter Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) chasing the Twins of Evil (Jennifer Kroll). His character is not well developed, but anyway his blood is contaminated by a vampire. Meanwhile, a group of students steals a carbonized body from the morgue for a research about life. Together with the handicapped Professor Lowell (Craig Sheffer), they bring a vampire back to life, keeping him chained and taking his blood for experiments, trying to isolate evil from the blood. Father Uffizi arrives in town chasing the vampire. This story has bad interpretations, a confused script and an important character (Father Uffizi) not developed. Jason Scott Lee seems to like undressing his shirts on the screen to show his body: his self-flagellation is ridiculous, and in `Timecop 2: The Berlin Decision' , he also undresses his shirts to fight against his opponent. Narcissism of his chest? My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): `Dracula II: A Ascensão' (`Dracula II: The Ascension')
Title (Brazil): `Dracula II: A Ascensão' (`Dracula II: The Ascension')
It's got potential
heather76807 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Having seen Dracula 2000 and hating it, I was pleasantly surprised by Dracula II. I've read the other comments so I have a few of my own. Being a sequel, the beginning was a little choppy. Dracula 2000 should have been about Jason Scott Lee's character and history leading up to part 2. I liked the storyline of the students finding Dracula in a morgue and deciding to find the secret of undead life. Yes, they should have checked the blond's body for bite marks but they thought she died from the fall. Not to mention that she didn't rise up as fast as the girl with the cat did. I did like the twist with the teacher. I loved the guy playing Dracula. For everyone who hated that Drac was a blond - Dracula would be cutting edge and bleach his hair to blend in. Liked the guy who played him. Especially when he finally broke free.
Lee's character was cool but again - where is his story? Part III? I've been a fan of his for a while and it's nice to see him in this kind of role.
I've also liked Jason London. I hope his character can save Elizabeth and end up happily ever after in Part III. Of course he ran at the end. She had just changed over and I'm sure she was hungry. I would run too. Live to fight another day. I also liked the actress who played Elizabeth. She fit her role.
I watch vampire movies for the atmosphere and different angles on the story of Dracula and vampires not so much for the fear factor. I do agree that the pool setting was a little clinical. The mansion house had much more attitude. And can I just say a big thank you for none of the actors trying to put on a New Orleans accent. Being a native of New Orleans it's insulting to hear it (see The Big Easy for an example). I can't wait to see it wrapped up. Maybe we'll get to see the priest's story. If you liked this movie, I would also recommend the Subspecies trilogy.
Lee's character was cool but again - where is his story? Part III? I've been a fan of his for a while and it's nice to see him in this kind of role.
I've also liked Jason London. I hope his character can save Elizabeth and end up happily ever after in Part III. Of course he ran at the end. She had just changed over and I'm sure she was hungry. I would run too. Live to fight another day. I also liked the actress who played Elizabeth. She fit her role.
I watch vampire movies for the atmosphere and different angles on the story of Dracula and vampires not so much for the fear factor. I do agree that the pool setting was a little clinical. The mansion house had much more attitude. And can I just say a big thank you for none of the actors trying to put on a New Orleans accent. Being a native of New Orleans it's insulting to hear it (see The Big Easy for an example). I can't wait to see it wrapped up. Maybe we'll get to see the priest's story. If you liked this movie, I would also recommend the Subspecies trilogy.
Not for vampire-afficionados
Alex_Guerrero6 January 2004
This must me one of the worst takes on vampires ever conceived by men. How can one turn such a mesmerizing subject into a totally uninspiring story? Apparantly not such a difficult task... First of all, a conditio sine qua non of any vampirefilm is a dark and gloomy atmosphere with a nice sexy touch, this one lacks all these things.. Too much light - the spots! oh my god, why in the name of Christ/Judas was that about?
Every time Dracula came about he was devoured by light (in the script to keep him weak, for the record: just weak) There was only one scene that made it almost worth watching, near the ending of the movie (beatiful dancingscene with Dracula and his new conquest). I really enjoyed the first one, the Judas-twist was defintely original, but this one's just not good, not in any way. Hopefully the third one will cary the vampire-signature I like so much in other classics like Herzog's Nosferatu, Coppola's Dracula or even Interview with the vampire.
Every time Dracula came about he was devoured by light (in the script to keep him weak, for the record: just weak) There was only one scene that made it almost worth watching, near the ending of the movie (beatiful dancingscene with Dracula and his new conquest). I really enjoyed the first one, the Judas-twist was defintely original, but this one's just not good, not in any way. Hopefully the third one will cary the vampire-signature I like so much in other classics like Herzog's Nosferatu, Coppola's Dracula or even Interview with the vampire.
Average horror film
catfish-er3 November 2009
I saw WES CRAVEN'S Dracula II (ASCENSION) on Showtime the other night; and, I found it to be is a fairly unique take on the vampire mythology. That is, until I saw Blood of the Vampire on AMC; and, realized that a "scientific" approach to vampirism isn't that original.
First, I have to admit that I have not seen DACULA 2000, so I may be a bit lost. However, I did like the opening sequence as an introduction to Father Uffizi. I found him a compelling and credible character; and, think the part was well-acted by Jason Scott Lee.
The rest of in the cast are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average. The psychotic, controlling, wheel-chair bound homosexual / bisexual) mad scientist, played by Craig Sheffer could not have been a worse foil to our vampire hunter. And, his "reveal" at the end is just the film makers' ridiculous attempt to tie up loose ends.
WES CRAVEN'S Dracula II (ASCENSION) is only an average horror film, which shows many flaws.
First, I have to admit that I have not seen DACULA 2000, so I may be a bit lost. However, I did like the opening sequence as an introduction to Father Uffizi. I found him a compelling and credible character; and, think the part was well-acted by Jason Scott Lee.
The rest of in the cast are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average. The psychotic, controlling, wheel-chair bound homosexual / bisexual) mad scientist, played by Craig Sheffer could not have been a worse foil to our vampire hunter. And, his "reveal" at the end is just the film makers' ridiculous attempt to tie up loose ends.
WES CRAVEN'S Dracula II (ASCENSION) is only an average horror film, which shows many flaws.
This movie was horrible.
traviswrdunbar3 December 2005
I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.
This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.
Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).
Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies.
This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.
Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).
Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies.
A true 5.0 movie...
movieman-13818 June 2003
First off dracula is locked up 60 mins out of the total 85 of this film. It is interesting how he is locked away etc etc for about the first 20-25 minutes but the movie can not hold up on its own after that and goes downhill. There are scenes worth watching in the movie but overall a disappointment. That being said if there is a third dracula I may rent it just to see how bad a movie can get from the orginal. I recommend renting jason goes to hell instead or almost any other horror movie you THINK may be worth renting because this is a disappointment period.
Disappointing sequel
ashfordofficial9 January 2022
It seems like the first one was a hit on home media sales, even though it flops in theatrical performance. Otherwise they won't let Lussier make another one.
Gerard Butler burned to a crisp and risen as a Tom Cruise lookalike. Dracula's anatomy is something else isn't it? It's not like they couldn't afford Butler on their little direct-to-video project!
Diane Neal is a terrible actress. She can't act.
Gerard Butler burned to a crisp and risen as a Tom Cruise lookalike. Dracula's anatomy is something else isn't it? It's not like they couldn't afford Butler on their little direct-to-video project!
Diane Neal is a terrible actress. She can't act.
Sequel to "Dracula 2000" which didn't need a sequel but...
preppy-315 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Dracula was burnt to death at the end of the previous movie. Two medical students (Jason London, Diane Neal) are working the morgue and get the body. They realize they have a real--um--dead vampire on their hands. They contact their teacher Professor Lowell (Craig Sheffer) who has them take the body to a remote castle so they can resurrect Dracula and try to "cure" him of his evil through blood transfusions. Naturally, things go wrong. And who is this Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) who has a mission (it seems) to kill all vampires?
Pointless sequel is actually, for a sequel, pretty good. It's well-directed by Patrick Lussier, has a somewhat interesting story and some good performances. Also there are a few vampire attacks which are appropriately bloody and gruesome. Some excellent special effects too. SPOILER!!!! You should know, Dracula spends 90% of the movie chained up--it's not until the last 20 minutes when he escapes that he goes into action. SPOILER END!!!!
The acting is pretty good--London and Neal are young, attractive and very realistic in their roles. Sheffer speaks in a REAL strange low voice and basically walks through his performance. The others (all vampire fodder) are fine. Dracula himself (played by Stephen Billington) is actually pretty good considering he's chained up most of the time. But he has a THICK British accent and he has to be the first BLONDE Dracula I've ever seen! Roy Scheider has one scene in the movie lasting (maybe) 2 minutes. And what the hell is Lee doing in this? His character is never explained--he just shows up and kills vampires--that's it! But his showdown with Dracula at the end IS fun and he defeats him using a trick right out of the 80s vampire flick "Fright Night".
And the movie is open-ended leaving room for a sequel (which was just completed). So, it's a pretty good way to spend 90 minutes. No classic--just fun.
Pointless sequel is actually, for a sequel, pretty good. It's well-directed by Patrick Lussier, has a somewhat interesting story and some good performances. Also there are a few vampire attacks which are appropriately bloody and gruesome. Some excellent special effects too. SPOILER!!!! You should know, Dracula spends 90% of the movie chained up--it's not until the last 20 minutes when he escapes that he goes into action. SPOILER END!!!!
The acting is pretty good--London and Neal are young, attractive and very realistic in their roles. Sheffer speaks in a REAL strange low voice and basically walks through his performance. The others (all vampire fodder) are fine. Dracula himself (played by Stephen Billington) is actually pretty good considering he's chained up most of the time. But he has a THICK British accent and he has to be the first BLONDE Dracula I've ever seen! Roy Scheider has one scene in the movie lasting (maybe) 2 minutes. And what the hell is Lee doing in this? His character is never explained--he just shows up and kills vampires--that's it! But his showdown with Dracula at the end IS fun and he defeats him using a trick right out of the 80s vampire flick "Fright Night".
And the movie is open-ended leaving room for a sequel (which was just completed). So, it's a pretty good way to spend 90 minutes. No classic--just fun.
first fifteen very good, after that.....blah
spooky_trix30 June 2003
the movie opens with a beautiful lady in a tattered white gown running through a stereotypical eastern european town. we know she's being followed by something, because she keeps looking behind her. and soon we see she's being chased by a mysterious man in a black trenchcoat. then we realize that the man is actually the vampire hunter and he is after her. but look is that her reflection in the store window??? no its just her identical twin vampire! but unfortunately they both get it.
after this brilliant and amazingly fun throwback to the old hammer films of the 60's and 70's (in the credits the twins are listed as the twins of evil, which of course is the name of the final instalment in hammer's karnstein trilogy), the plot pretty much dies.
What little plot there is involves dracula (who conveniently changes his appearance each time he is reborn, so the producer doesn't have to rehire the same dracula) coming to a morgue, the med students realizing he's undead and thinking....wow what an opportunity, maybe i'll just disregard all those movies that say that drinking vampire blood turns you into a vampire and use the vampire's blood to find a cure for our jerk friend's ailment. obviously this is a mistake and everyone becomes a vampire.
A new concept but pulled off excruciatingly badly. The movie keeps setting up wonderful situations and refuses to do anything with them.
For example the med students attempt to bring drac back to life by placing him in a bathtub filled with blood in a secluded run down country mansion. The house itself is scary enough to be the center of the film, but do we stay there? no because they decide to take the vampire to an abandoned swimming pool. sigh. This movie has a real problem with "homages" as i mentioned before the opening scene is straight out of hammer, and this house scene would have been perfect for a hammer-like movie, but the movie rapidly switches gears and changes to a medical horror.
The other problem is that they introduce so many characters it is almost impossible to feel sorry for any of them. There are the med students and their wheelchair bound professor-type "friend" the med students are all: arrogant, boring, money hungry, and stupid. how they made it to med school at all amazes me, unless the med school had to meet its muscle bound hunk/big breast quota. and then there is the vampire hunter who remains mysterious through the movie. hey i can respect that but it would be nice if they didn't set it up like the movie would be about him. then you have random priests, cops, and science types. so many people are introduced and then quickly forgotten about until they need that person to either save the day or jump out for a cheap scare that it becomes quickly tedious.
Basically this is a lazy movie. no real scares, just a few predictable jump scares. The set up for these is so elaborate it is hilarious. for examp le the bathtub full of blood. it is so obvious that drac is going to pop out of the murky blood. and yet we have to wait far too long to get to the inevitable jump scare. after this he kills one of the dumber and larger breasted med students. we all know she's going to become one of the undead. but what do the others do? bury her in a shallow grave near the house. sigh, so you know who will jump out at you when the cops show up at the house..........
Oh well.
Maybe someone will get the hint that it is impossible to make a scary vampire movie and just go for atmospheric, and then we will end up with an entire movie that is as good as the opening scene.
after this brilliant and amazingly fun throwback to the old hammer films of the 60's and 70's (in the credits the twins are listed as the twins of evil, which of course is the name of the final instalment in hammer's karnstein trilogy), the plot pretty much dies.
What little plot there is involves dracula (who conveniently changes his appearance each time he is reborn, so the producer doesn't have to rehire the same dracula) coming to a morgue, the med students realizing he's undead and thinking....wow what an opportunity, maybe i'll just disregard all those movies that say that drinking vampire blood turns you into a vampire and use the vampire's blood to find a cure for our jerk friend's ailment. obviously this is a mistake and everyone becomes a vampire.
A new concept but pulled off excruciatingly badly. The movie keeps setting up wonderful situations and refuses to do anything with them.
For example the med students attempt to bring drac back to life by placing him in a bathtub filled with blood in a secluded run down country mansion. The house itself is scary enough to be the center of the film, but do we stay there? no because they decide to take the vampire to an abandoned swimming pool. sigh. This movie has a real problem with "homages" as i mentioned before the opening scene is straight out of hammer, and this house scene would have been perfect for a hammer-like movie, but the movie rapidly switches gears and changes to a medical horror.
The other problem is that they introduce so many characters it is almost impossible to feel sorry for any of them. There are the med students and their wheelchair bound professor-type "friend" the med students are all: arrogant, boring, money hungry, and stupid. how they made it to med school at all amazes me, unless the med school had to meet its muscle bound hunk/big breast quota. and then there is the vampire hunter who remains mysterious through the movie. hey i can respect that but it would be nice if they didn't set it up like the movie would be about him. then you have random priests, cops, and science types. so many people are introduced and then quickly forgotten about until they need that person to either save the day or jump out for a cheap scare that it becomes quickly tedious.
Basically this is a lazy movie. no real scares, just a few predictable jump scares. The set up for these is so elaborate it is hilarious. for examp le the bathtub full of blood. it is so obvious that drac is going to pop out of the murky blood. and yet we have to wait far too long to get to the inevitable jump scare. after this he kills one of the dumber and larger breasted med students. we all know she's going to become one of the undead. but what do the others do? bury her in a shallow grave near the house. sigh, so you know who will jump out at you when the cops show up at the house..........
Oh well.
Maybe someone will get the hint that it is impossible to make a scary vampire movie and just go for atmospheric, and then we will end up with an entire movie that is as good as the opening scene.
A decent vampire guilty pleasure
kannibalcorpsegrinder8 April 2017
After arriving at a morgue in New Orleans, an anatomy teacher and his students conduct a series of tests to see if it's really Dracula, but when the reborn Dracula begins turning them into vampires themselves, it's a race against time with a vampire hunter in tow to stop him.
This one wasn't all that bad and was a pleasant surprise. One of the more enjoyable elements here is the decent pace to it, which means that it pretty much stayed the same on an even pace and knew when to throw in an action sequence to keep it upbeat. That goes a long way, and it goes right from the opening scene chase through the old-town streets in a clever reversal of expectations that gives the film a great start while setting up one of the best mirror gags in the genre that gets a great jump along with the action, the revival in the bathtub at their house is handled well and is a disorienting and hyperactive sequence that leads nicely into the later battle with the police officers who arrive. It does tend to load up on action near the end, and the scenes there are it's best as the alleyway sequence is the clear highlight with a clever jump, impressive weaponry on display, a nice smattering of gore, and a great conclusion, their second revival attempt on the creature that leads into all the fine brawls and battles throughout the pool with the scores of vampires which really sets this one off into an incredibly fun final fight that brings plenty of historical significance from the flashbacks to settle this one off rather nicely. Along with some pretty nice gore in here and the clever use of more obscure vampire rules that offers a little creativity into the mix, there's very little to complain about in this one. Among the few problems here is that after an entertaining opening of the film, the middle section gets a little too slow for its own good. Most of this is relegated to the discovering sequences when the vampire is trapped and all of the experiments are being conducted where it's all the waiting around for results that get in the way of the truly exciting vampire story around it. There's not a whole lot wrong with them, it's just that they slow the film down when it should've just been let loose and really flew with abandon. Most of this is due to the fact that the main vampire, Dracula, is tied up and bound to a single position for the majority of the film, and only at the end is he actually freed. Not having its main source of horror there to do what it does best makes the middle largely hard to get through, with the only sparingly action scenes keeping it awake. That's really the only two complaints against this one.
Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Brief Nudity.
This one wasn't all that bad and was a pleasant surprise. One of the more enjoyable elements here is the decent pace to it, which means that it pretty much stayed the same on an even pace and knew when to throw in an action sequence to keep it upbeat. That goes a long way, and it goes right from the opening scene chase through the old-town streets in a clever reversal of expectations that gives the film a great start while setting up one of the best mirror gags in the genre that gets a great jump along with the action, the revival in the bathtub at their house is handled well and is a disorienting and hyperactive sequence that leads nicely into the later battle with the police officers who arrive. It does tend to load up on action near the end, and the scenes there are it's best as the alleyway sequence is the clear highlight with a clever jump, impressive weaponry on display, a nice smattering of gore, and a great conclusion, their second revival attempt on the creature that leads into all the fine brawls and battles throughout the pool with the scores of vampires which really sets this one off into an incredibly fun final fight that brings plenty of historical significance from the flashbacks to settle this one off rather nicely. Along with some pretty nice gore in here and the clever use of more obscure vampire rules that offers a little creativity into the mix, there's very little to complain about in this one. Among the few problems here is that after an entertaining opening of the film, the middle section gets a little too slow for its own good. Most of this is relegated to the discovering sequences when the vampire is trapped and all of the experiments are being conducted where it's all the waiting around for results that get in the way of the truly exciting vampire story around it. There's not a whole lot wrong with them, it's just that they slow the film down when it should've just been let loose and really flew with abandon. Most of this is due to the fact that the main vampire, Dracula, is tied up and bound to a single position for the majority of the film, and only at the end is he actually freed. Not having its main source of horror there to do what it does best makes the middle largely hard to get through, with the only sparingly action scenes keeping it awake. That's really the only two complaints against this one.
Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Brief Nudity.
An unusual twist on the 'Dracula' mythos, but needed some work
lemon_magic4 July 2005
This is a sequel of sorts to "Dracula 2000", and the opening moments will be somewhat confusing to those who haven't seen that movie first. D2K had one original idea going for it (Dracula was actually Judas Iscariot, consumed by his own guilt in his betrayal of Jesus, and who hanged himself), and in the end of D2K, Dracula is both hung from a giant cross AND burned by the rising sun, the combination of which is supposed to be enough finally put the King Of Vampires to rest once and for all.
So D2:Ascension opens up with a paramedic team pulling the fried remains of Dracula in from his hanging gibbet. Apparently the heroes of D2K couldn't be bothered to actually either a) finally dispose of his body or b) explain to the authorities that the 'corpse' might still be dangerous, which strikes me as REMARKABLY irresponsible of them. But anyway, the cleanup crew who pulls in the body only sees Dracula's remains as those of another anonymous John Doe, and ship the remains off to the nearest morgue. By an INCREDIBLE coincidence, the young lady in charge happens to be part of a group of medical students (and a professor) who are on the lookout for vampire remains. She becomes suspicious that these remains might be those of an actual vampire, and the group carts the remains off to a lonely mansion to soak Drac's corpse in a bathtub full of blood (don't worry, it's plasma from the hospital). Drac revives, and hijinks and hilarity ensue.
I give the creators credit for adding a few interesting twists and details to the standard vampire tale. The idea of a group of researchers trying to hold a creature as insanely powerful and dangerous as the King Of Vampires while they try to isolate the factors that grant him power and immortality is potentially quite good. The group dynamics are also interesting, with internal dissension and betrayals tearing the group apart almost from the beginning. And some of the little touches - the 'sun gun', the use of seeds and knots and chains soaked in liquid silver, the idea of the vampire blood itself as a viral infectious agent - are fun to play with. The plot also throws in Jason Lee as a half-vampire priest who is trying to rid the earth of all vampires, especially Drac. Lee is a great ham, and his presence in the movie is a good excuse to do be-headings and fisticuffs and glares filled with Jesuitical outrage, etc.
But in the end, the whole thing falls short. I really don't have a problem with the cast, but no one here has half the acting firepower of Christopher Lee OR Christopher Plummer. (Of course, that's true of most movies!) The guy who plays the revived version of Dracula seems to have a bit more charisma this time around than Butler's D2K version, (or maybe it is just that the plot has him acting in ways that are a bit less cliché than the normal run of vampire movies.) but it's still an pretty subdued performance. The movie suffers a bit from lack of internal consistency and cohesion about how the whole vampire infection things is supposed to work. And all but two of the group members turn out to be hateful creeps (except for a member who gets killed early on), which murks up the 'good versus evil' theme common to most horror movies.
But there is ONE great moment moment near the end of the film where Dracula finally escapes his bonds and confining measures with contemptuous ease and bites the face off one of his captors ("Go ahead - I'll still live forever!" "But will you *WANT* to?!?" C-H-O-M-P!!!) that reinforces the fact that messing with the Prince Of Darkness under ANY circumstances is like trying to catch lightning in a bottle.
So in the end, is this movie worth watching? Yes, in fact, I prefer it to D2K for the sheer novelty of the plot. Is it a great movie? No, because there is no actor here who does more than a competent job, and the screenplay doesn't live up to the promise of the premise.
So D2:Ascension opens up with a paramedic team pulling the fried remains of Dracula in from his hanging gibbet. Apparently the heroes of D2K couldn't be bothered to actually either a) finally dispose of his body or b) explain to the authorities that the 'corpse' might still be dangerous, which strikes me as REMARKABLY irresponsible of them. But anyway, the cleanup crew who pulls in the body only sees Dracula's remains as those of another anonymous John Doe, and ship the remains off to the nearest morgue. By an INCREDIBLE coincidence, the young lady in charge happens to be part of a group of medical students (and a professor) who are on the lookout for vampire remains. She becomes suspicious that these remains might be those of an actual vampire, and the group carts the remains off to a lonely mansion to soak Drac's corpse in a bathtub full of blood (don't worry, it's plasma from the hospital). Drac revives, and hijinks and hilarity ensue.
I give the creators credit for adding a few interesting twists and details to the standard vampire tale. The idea of a group of researchers trying to hold a creature as insanely powerful and dangerous as the King Of Vampires while they try to isolate the factors that grant him power and immortality is potentially quite good. The group dynamics are also interesting, with internal dissension and betrayals tearing the group apart almost from the beginning. And some of the little touches - the 'sun gun', the use of seeds and knots and chains soaked in liquid silver, the idea of the vampire blood itself as a viral infectious agent - are fun to play with. The plot also throws in Jason Lee as a half-vampire priest who is trying to rid the earth of all vampires, especially Drac. Lee is a great ham, and his presence in the movie is a good excuse to do be-headings and fisticuffs and glares filled with Jesuitical outrage, etc.
But in the end, the whole thing falls short. I really don't have a problem with the cast, but no one here has half the acting firepower of Christopher Lee OR Christopher Plummer. (Of course, that's true of most movies!) The guy who plays the revived version of Dracula seems to have a bit more charisma this time around than Butler's D2K version, (or maybe it is just that the plot has him acting in ways that are a bit less cliché than the normal run of vampire movies.) but it's still an pretty subdued performance. The movie suffers a bit from lack of internal consistency and cohesion about how the whole vampire infection things is supposed to work. And all but two of the group members turn out to be hateful creeps (except for a member who gets killed early on), which murks up the 'good versus evil' theme common to most horror movies.
But there is ONE great moment moment near the end of the film where Dracula finally escapes his bonds and confining measures with contemptuous ease and bites the face off one of his captors ("Go ahead - I'll still live forever!" "But will you *WANT* to?!?" C-H-O-M-P!!!) that reinforces the fact that messing with the Prince Of Darkness under ANY circumstances is like trying to catch lightning in a bottle.
So in the end, is this movie worth watching? Yes, in fact, I prefer it to D2K for the sheer novelty of the plot. Is it a great movie? No, because there is no actor here who does more than a competent job, and the screenplay doesn't live up to the promise of the premise.
What was the point?
view_and_review25 January 2005
This movie had mediocrity, laziness, and thoughtlessness written all over it. If you are going to do a movie about vampires that has been done thousands of times already, then you better do a damn good job. I'll be the first to say that this movie just did not cut it. Some scary/horror movies just fail to break the mold of the "lets do something forbidden and forsaken for the sake of fun because all the stories are just lies" cliché. This one, sadly, was no different, and like all scary movies, once you venture down that road there is no going back.
And the ending? How do the heroes do the same job over and over throughout the movie, but then mysteriously they get wrapped up in the moment and cannot do the job in the end? The ending was very anti-climatic and spelled part 3 which I will never watch. Terrible movie.
And the ending? How do the heroes do the same job over and over throughout the movie, but then mysteriously they get wrapped up in the moment and cannot do the job in the end? The ending was very anti-climatic and spelled part 3 which I will never watch. Terrible movie.
Dracula 2: Ascension- 7/10. Never really comes full-circle.
movies2u16 January 2004
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.
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.
Complete Crap
Capt_comicbook13 August 2003
1 out of 10.
This is the kind of movie that you cant believe you just wasted 2 hours of your life as you see the credits role. I honestly think I could make a better Vampire movie.... and I know nothing. The only thing that does not just suck (harder than a Vampire) is Jason Scott Lee.... his character is at least a little bit cool, has some mystery, and kicks a little butt.
This is the kind of movie that you cant believe you just wasted 2 hours of your life as you see the credits role. I honestly think I could make a better Vampire movie.... and I know nothing. The only thing that does not just suck (harder than a Vampire) is Jason Scott Lee.... his character is at least a little bit cool, has some mystery, and kicks a little butt.
Never becomes whole
Movie-Man16 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***Possible Spoilers***
When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.
In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.
The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...
I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes "whole".
4/10 Movie-Man
When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.
In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.
The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...
I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes "whole".
4/10 Movie-Man
Maybe we need virgin blood.
lastliberal25 November 2009
Featuring Diane Neal (A.D.A. Casey Novak from "Law & order: Special victims Unit"), this straight to DVD movie has some great special effects, brilliant cinematography, and some true jump-outta-your-skin moments.
We jump from an exciting opening scene where Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) beheads a couple of luscious vampires to New Orleans where medical students discover a vampire (Stephen Billington) and bring him back to life, costing the life of Playmate of the Year Brande Roderick. What a shame.
This is all about getting Dracula's blood to heal a scientist, Lowell (Craig Sheffer). They need to work fast as the self-flagellating Father Uffizi is on their tail.
This was one of Roy Scheider's last films. He only has a cameo, but it is still good to see him.
This would have been a much better movie had there been some gratuitous nudity. There were certainly enough times that it would have been appropriate.
There was some really good stuff at the end, but I'll leave that for you to see.
We jump from an exciting opening scene where Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) beheads a couple of luscious vampires to New Orleans where medical students discover a vampire (Stephen Billington) and bring him back to life, costing the life of Playmate of the Year Brande Roderick. What a shame.
This is all about getting Dracula's blood to heal a scientist, Lowell (Craig Sheffer). They need to work fast as the self-flagellating Father Uffizi is on their tail.
This was one of Roy Scheider's last films. He only has a cameo, but it is still good to see him.
This would have been a much better movie had there been some gratuitous nudity. There were certainly enough times that it would have been appropriate.
There was some really good stuff at the end, but I'll leave that for you to see.
A little less than the first
FrighT MasteR12 March 2003
I wasn't really a fan of the first, so I didn't expect much from this film. The first movie seemed like a direct-to-video, which I suppose is a good thing since the sequels (like this) wont be as bad.
The whole movie is basically just the group of people studying Dracula and we don't get into any good vamp-action until the last 25/30 mins of the film. Jason Scott Lee's character is pretty badass and I can't wait to see him more in the next film.
This is a decent movie. Worth a rent if you liked the first movie, since it is a continuation from the first - literally continuing straight from how the original ended.
The whole movie is basically just the group of people studying Dracula and we don't get into any good vamp-action until the last 25/30 mins of the film. Jason Scott Lee's character is pretty badass and I can't wait to see him more in the next film.
This is a decent movie. Worth a rent if you liked the first movie, since it is a continuation from the first - literally continuing straight from how the original ended.
Pretty good
IronMonkey2217 July 2003
I don't remember much about the first one, but i found this movie to be pretty enjoyable. For a low-er budget movie it looked really good. For fans of vampire movies this is well worth watching. The character Jason Scott Lee plays is really good. All in all an entertaining movie. 7/10
Better than most Vampire B-movies, but sadly, still not good.
kneiss124 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is another one of that modern vampire stories that is not much more than a Blade copy. In this case, Wesley Snipes is a Hawaiian looking Priest, called "Father Uffizi" (played by Jason Scott Lee). Father Uffizi, that name sounds so absurdly funny, that I have been so much in shock after hearing it for the first time, that I couldn't even laugh. Fortunately, the movie is not as ridicules as most other B-Movies. The acting is decent, music is quite good, even the atmosphere wasn't that shabby. Overall though, there was nothing that has been above average. In the end, this was nothing but another brain dead action-flick without any depths.
I personally liked the ending, since it seemed, like the absolute evil is finally winning. That is something I wanted to see for a long, long time. If Dracula is so evil and powerful - almost omnipotent - why the hell is he killed in every single vampire movie? I personally don't quite get it, and I find it refreshing, that the evil guys finally won in a Vampire movie. Too bad that it was more a cliff-hanger than an ending. Since in the 3rd Part, of course, will the good guys win, and of course will the end-boss be staked... boring...
I personally liked the ending, since it seemed, like the absolute evil is finally winning. That is something I wanted to see for a long, long time. If Dracula is so evil and powerful - almost omnipotent - why the hell is he killed in every single vampire movie? I personally don't quite get it, and I find it refreshing, that the evil guys finally won in a Vampire movie. Too bad that it was more a cliff-hanger than an ending. Since in the 3rd Part, of course, will the good guys win, and of course will the end-boss be staked... boring...
Entertaining Direct to DVD sequel to "Dracula 2000".
hu67515 October 2008
After the near death of Dracula (Originally played by Gerard Bulter and now played by Stephen Bilington) When an medical student (Diane Neal) and other med student (Jason London) accidentally discovered the body of Dracula. They find out that it needs fresh human blood to resurrect. When a mysterious dealer wants to pay them $30 million for the body of Dracula. They unwillingly agreed but a renegade priest/vampire slayer (Jason Scott Lee) looks for the body of Dracula. He finds himself in deeper trouble than he could imagine.
Directed by Patrick Lussier (Dracula 2000, My Bloody Valentine "2009", White Noise 2) made an watchable Direct to DVD sequel to "Dracula 2000". Which the director certainly tries hard to match the quality of the original and it is just as good. The cast are decent enough although Lee looks lost half of the time with his role.
DVD has an sharp strong anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an good Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has cast auditions, deleted scenes and an audio commentary by the filmmakers. This was made as the same time for "Dracula 3". Although it is quite annoying with each film, they keep changing actors to play Dracula. But Craig Sheffer does have some fun with his supporting role as a college professor and the late Roy Scheider in a small part as a priest. At least... "Dracual 2:Ascension" has some interesting plot turns. Lussier's second film has good locations and fine production values. Horror fans will enjoy this one best. Super 35. (*** 1/2 out of *****).
Directed by Patrick Lussier (Dracula 2000, My Bloody Valentine "2009", White Noise 2) made an watchable Direct to DVD sequel to "Dracula 2000". Which the director certainly tries hard to match the quality of the original and it is just as good. The cast are decent enough although Lee looks lost half of the time with his role.
DVD has an sharp strong anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an good Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has cast auditions, deleted scenes and an audio commentary by the filmmakers. This was made as the same time for "Dracula 3". Although it is quite annoying with each film, they keep changing actors to play Dracula. But Craig Sheffer does have some fun with his supporting role as a college professor and the late Roy Scheider in a small part as a priest. At least... "Dracual 2:Ascension" has some interesting plot turns. Lussier's second film has good locations and fine production values. Horror fans will enjoy this one best. Super 35. (*** 1/2 out of *****).
A stand up series so far...flaws drag it down sadly
Robert_duder21 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I am so pleased to have found this series right now. I am a huge horror fan and I love all the many sequels that are spawned from a horror franchise. Dracula 2000 blew me away and I anxiously awaited to see the sequel. I never expect the same greatness from a sequel just a decent follow up and that is what Dracula II is but it comes so close to being a great sequel but falls short on several very key elements.
Dracula II introduces us to Father Uffizi, a priest sent out by Cardinal Siqueros to fight vampires but ultimately find Dracula and eliminate him by freeing his soul. Dracula, after being burned alive in the sunrise in part 1 is brought into a morgue where med student Elizabeth and Luke examine the charred corpse. They quickly discover the corpse is more than human and no sooner are they ready to investigate further when they get a mysterious call from a "financier" who offers them millions for the body. They play a quick trade on the body and smuggle it out to a hidden location with the help of Elizabeth's badly crippled boyfriend Lowell, and some fellow students. A person on behalf of this financier helps set Dracula's body up in an abandoned swimming pool while they investigate on him. They hope to discover a way to use Dracula's regenerating blood and tissue to cure diseases in humans and become very rich. Although chained and restrained in the pool horrible things begin to happen when one of students is turned into a vampire and people begin to die. As they all try to survive Father Uffizi is trying to track them down so he can destroy Dracula but as he goes he must eliminate any vampires he comes across. As the group of them dwindles down a horrible plot begins to unfold and a conspiracy that will shock them and end in Dracula's escape yet again.
I will talk about the plus side first. This sequel again takes liberties with the Dracula story and takes some new spins on it. It's modernized and intelligent. Like the first one Patrick Lussier has a cast of young hot stars but unfortunately they aren't quite up to par with the cast of the original. They do well but nowhere near as good as the original cast. The story line is interesting enough and the twist at the end is quite good, there is enough action and suspense although even the suspense wasn't what the first brought to the table but still has it's moments. It also wasn't as gory or "R" Rated as the other. Without a doubt if you even remotely enjoyed the original you're going to want to watch the sequel but let's talk about the troubles with this because it seriously missed some key points that stopped this from being equal to the amazing original. First...continuity....some of it meshes together but on the key point of the Van Helsing dynasty we are left completely in the dark. In the original film Mary Van Helsing takes Dracula's ashes to the lair to spend her life protecting them as did her father but yet it isn't mentioned at all in this one?? A very odd choice by the writers and totally ruins the continuity. Dracula...Gerard Butler was brilliant, he was amazing and captured the character perfectly. Changing actors is fine...you couldn't tell in Dracula's condition that he wasn't Butler anyways but his whole personality has changed. He was more monster, he was less human, angry, and had no solemness to him. He spent the entire film chained up so the film was less about him than it was about the science that they were performing. There was no passion, no sex, no brutality to his character. The two great things they added to the story were Jason Scott Lee's character of Father Uffizi and Jason London's Luke. Two new heroes and Vampire hunters. Father Uffizi is a depthy and interesting character and portrayed excellently by Lee but completely and totally underused. This guy is a trained, brutally set in his ways, he tortures himself in order to fight the evil that he himself fights. They don't give enough about his origin or why Cardinal Siqueros played by Roy Scheider has sent him out to stop Dracula. There is so much untapped information there they could make another five sequels. I am really hoping that some or possibly all (not likely) of these issues will be cleared up in the third installment. Despite these issues the film pulls off being entertaining and a decent sequel. Check out the series, you'll be pleased you did. 7/10
Dracula II introduces us to Father Uffizi, a priest sent out by Cardinal Siqueros to fight vampires but ultimately find Dracula and eliminate him by freeing his soul. Dracula, after being burned alive in the sunrise in part 1 is brought into a morgue where med student Elizabeth and Luke examine the charred corpse. They quickly discover the corpse is more than human and no sooner are they ready to investigate further when they get a mysterious call from a "financier" who offers them millions for the body. They play a quick trade on the body and smuggle it out to a hidden location with the help of Elizabeth's badly crippled boyfriend Lowell, and some fellow students. A person on behalf of this financier helps set Dracula's body up in an abandoned swimming pool while they investigate on him. They hope to discover a way to use Dracula's regenerating blood and tissue to cure diseases in humans and become very rich. Although chained and restrained in the pool horrible things begin to happen when one of students is turned into a vampire and people begin to die. As they all try to survive Father Uffizi is trying to track them down so he can destroy Dracula but as he goes he must eliminate any vampires he comes across. As the group of them dwindles down a horrible plot begins to unfold and a conspiracy that will shock them and end in Dracula's escape yet again.
I will talk about the plus side first. This sequel again takes liberties with the Dracula story and takes some new spins on it. It's modernized and intelligent. Like the first one Patrick Lussier has a cast of young hot stars but unfortunately they aren't quite up to par with the cast of the original. They do well but nowhere near as good as the original cast. The story line is interesting enough and the twist at the end is quite good, there is enough action and suspense although even the suspense wasn't what the first brought to the table but still has it's moments. It also wasn't as gory or "R" Rated as the other. Without a doubt if you even remotely enjoyed the original you're going to want to watch the sequel but let's talk about the troubles with this because it seriously missed some key points that stopped this from being equal to the amazing original. First...continuity....some of it meshes together but on the key point of the Van Helsing dynasty we are left completely in the dark. In the original film Mary Van Helsing takes Dracula's ashes to the lair to spend her life protecting them as did her father but yet it isn't mentioned at all in this one?? A very odd choice by the writers and totally ruins the continuity. Dracula...Gerard Butler was brilliant, he was amazing and captured the character perfectly. Changing actors is fine...you couldn't tell in Dracula's condition that he wasn't Butler anyways but his whole personality has changed. He was more monster, he was less human, angry, and had no solemness to him. He spent the entire film chained up so the film was less about him than it was about the science that they were performing. There was no passion, no sex, no brutality to his character. The two great things they added to the story were Jason Scott Lee's character of Father Uffizi and Jason London's Luke. Two new heroes and Vampire hunters. Father Uffizi is a depthy and interesting character and portrayed excellently by Lee but completely and totally underused. This guy is a trained, brutally set in his ways, he tortures himself in order to fight the evil that he himself fights. They don't give enough about his origin or why Cardinal Siqueros played by Roy Scheider has sent him out to stop Dracula. There is so much untapped information there they could make another five sequels. I am really hoping that some or possibly all (not likely) of these issues will be cleared up in the third installment. Despite these issues the film pulls off being entertaining and a decent sequel. Check out the series, you'll be pleased you did. 7/10
Cheesy Madness
NolanSorrento11 December 2004
I didn't even knew this movie existed until shortly after seeing Blade: Trinity, I was messing around on the Trinity board when I saw some user mention how the Wes Craven series is a lot better then the 'crap' that's Blade, So I did my quick research: Checked the scores on IMDb & RottenTomatoes for Dracula: Ascension, and somewhere along the search I found out that this is a sequel to Dracula 2000. I also noticed that within the Wes Craven Dracula boards there was a real strong following for this movie which is a big contradiction to the scores I was seeing.
Now let's take a quick personal recap here. I remember seeing Dracula 2000, and I remember not liking it at all, and then seeing the scores of Dracula: Ascension just lowered my expectations even more, but then again, I'm the type of person that truly needs to watch the movie myself (any movie) so that I can form my own opinion.
A couple of things I went in knowing when I started watching this movie was that it's low budget, so because of that, I'm going to have to ignore a lot of the v/fx and just figure it's going to compensated by story & acting, I was also slightly impressed by some of the casting in this movie (Jason London, Roy Schieder & Jason Scott Lee)
Oh geez This movie was CHEESY! But cheesy can be entertaining at least, I found it pretty fricken laughable, the bad audio synch from the re-recording of dialogue in a FEW scenes, the stupidity of the characters in this movie. Sure they all knew about vampires and some of the basic things, Luke even had a book on it, but did it prevent them from wanting to purposely get 'infected'? Nope, this is worst then slasher flicks where the girl has to get out of the shower and check out the noise she hears with nothing more than a towel on.
I also must've blinked at some point, because I'm not sure how 'Dracula' got clothes on his body, especially since he's big wild and angry & I figure if I was in that situation, I wouldn't want to be the one dressing him.
So the movie ends like any middle movie of a trilogy it doesn't, instead it's a 'Cliff Hangar' where I now get to wait for the 3rd installment 'Legacy'. Oh the entertainment value of Cheesy movies.
Now let's take a quick personal recap here. I remember seeing Dracula 2000, and I remember not liking it at all, and then seeing the scores of Dracula: Ascension just lowered my expectations even more, but then again, I'm the type of person that truly needs to watch the movie myself (any movie) so that I can form my own opinion.
A couple of things I went in knowing when I started watching this movie was that it's low budget, so because of that, I'm going to have to ignore a lot of the v/fx and just figure it's going to compensated by story & acting, I was also slightly impressed by some of the casting in this movie (Jason London, Roy Schieder & Jason Scott Lee)
Oh geez This movie was CHEESY! But cheesy can be entertaining at least, I found it pretty fricken laughable, the bad audio synch from the re-recording of dialogue in a FEW scenes, the stupidity of the characters in this movie. Sure they all knew about vampires and some of the basic things, Luke even had a book on it, but did it prevent them from wanting to purposely get 'infected'? Nope, this is worst then slasher flicks where the girl has to get out of the shower and check out the noise she hears with nothing more than a towel on.
I also must've blinked at some point, because I'm not sure how 'Dracula' got clothes on his body, especially since he's big wild and angry & I figure if I was in that situation, I wouldn't want to be the one dressing him.
So the movie ends like any middle movie of a trilogy it doesn't, instead it's a 'Cliff Hangar' where I now get to wait for the 3rd installment 'Legacy'. Oh the entertainment value of Cheesy movies.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
