Customer Reviews

NEW Dracula 2-ascension (DVD)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

this is a sequel to Dracula 2000,but not completely.it still has the
same biblical bent to it.but this one lacks many of the things 2000
had.gone is Gerard Butler as the title character,a fairly big loss,in
my opinion.this Dracula(the character)is not as compelling,nor did i
feel he was seductive or charming.gone is also the visual style of
2000.there's also no macabre humour here.nor is there much action.what
is added is some overacting by many of the cast involved.While i don't
have anything against Jason Scott Lee,i feel he was trying way too hard
to make the character serious.by the way,Roy scheider has a role that
amounts to little more than a cameo.overall,this entry is not as fun as
Dracula 2000,but i still thought it was OK.For me,Dracula II:Ascension
is a 3/5

Dracula II: Ascension is another addition to a long line of poorly-made Dracula movies with the attachment of several elements. Over time, Dracula has been physically depicted in numerous ways. Traditionally, Dracula is a pale-skinned man with short and slick black hair. In his various forms, however, Dracula's hair length has increased and become wavy or decreased to baldness. In Dracula II - which is actually the sequel to Dracula 2000 and does not utilize its sequel's depiction - the vampire is given a complete makeover. Somewhere during the burning of his crucified body, he has apparently contracted a second disease: albinism. Though his eyes are still hypnotically multi-hued, Dracula's ultimate Aryan and melanin-drained form is completely unnecessary and unhelpful to the story. The explanation offered in the story is that Dracula's physical appearance changes with each regeneration. To any discerning viewer, however, this is obviously a poor excuse to throw an underappreciated genetic disease into the mix, thus increasing his status as a villain. Furthermore, Dracula II reveals that the vampire is cursed with the compulsion to count every grain of sand he comes across and untie every knot he finds. These requirements he meets with supernatural ability when they become hindrances, but Dracula is bound to perform nonetheless.

As an oculocutaneous albino with an obsessive-compulsive disorder, I am supremely insulted to find Dracula himself added to the list of villainous characters with these unfavorably-depicted conditions. Like a vampire, I too am cursed by an aversion to direct sunlight, and I too must fulfill reoccurring impulses that may seem illogical. In the formulation of vampire mythology, it is likely that individuals with such conditions were exaggerated to absurdly mythic proportions, but that is not something I want to experience in modern times. Are people as superstitious today as a millennium ago, or have we achieved something better than childish scapegoatism? The MPAA rating for this movie is R for violence, language, and sexuality, but maybe enforcing prejudices should be granted its own category. I give this movie one star for encouraging barbaric and senseless hatred among fellow men. If you have ever known an albino - oculocutaneous or otherwise - or obsessive-compulsive, support me in condemning such hate-inspiring filth.

Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story." Jason London is funny as, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend. And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note.

No comments on this poor film that Wes Craven so graciously put his name on.

I was happy to see this movie on the local channels. More happy after watching the movie. To see a movie finally where the vampires aren't all killed is a welcomed relief from the mainstream, kill em and stake em bit. Talk about major yawn and boring! This movie is different. Also loved the bits of vampire lore, about the untying knots and counting the seeds. This goes back to ancient medival beliefs and is a refreshing change from the commonly overused garlic, crucifixs and holy though that is used in here too. Get the movie and you won't be sorry.

This is a painfully inferior sequel to DRACULA 2000, which featured a marvelous performance by Gerard Butler as the doomed vampire. With this, we get a kung fu priest, played with as little emotion as possible by Jason Scott Lee; we get a wacko professor played with constrained malice by Craig Sheffer; a Dracula with no pizzazz, no power, only albino-like features; and a supporting cast of actors seemingly pulled from other bad b movies. Shame on writers Joel Sassoon and Patrick Lussier for forgetting what made their previous effort worthwhile: a good cast and some fresh innovations on the vampire legend. This one with its notion that vampires must untie all knots and count pebbles is so far out, it's goofy.
I won't venture into the third of this series, which features of all people RUTGER HAUER as the vampire. This is one where there should have been no sequels!!!

Dracula II: Ascension, meets many B-movie sequel standards. Is the plot only slightly related to the first movie? Check. The story picks up where the first left off, and seems to have no real connection to the original. A mention of the how Drac was found and a brief flashback sequence are all that tie this film to the first. The plot itself is weak, with none of the characters (except Lee and to a lesser extent Jason London as Luke) are interesting or even likeable.

Is there a B-movie star just there for the paycheck? Double check! Roy Scheider sleeps through a cameo and Jason Scott Lee outclasses his fellow cast members with ease. Lee is the entire reason to see this film but even he can't save it from mediocrity.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this sequel is the fact that Drac looks nothing like he did in Dracula 2000. At all. There is some passing mention about how he can change forms with each incarnation, but I didn't realize that he was in the same classs as Dr. Who, James Bond, and Darrin Stephens.

And then there's the ending. The ending of a film can make or break it. I'd love to tell you about how the ending was, but I'm afraid there isn't one. Sure, there's a final scene before the credit roll, but it isn't an ending. It is, however, a rather open ended link to the third film (unreleased as of this writing). Perhaps when the third film rolls around and they can be watched in conjunction, the overall "watchableness" of the film will increase.

Overall, the film is a jumble. Some homage is paid to the classical vampire myths, and it's perhaps the smartest moments of the film. But the overall plot, characters, and lack of any real connection to the first movie, make this a weak film and a weaker sequel. Despite this, there was promise in this film, enough that I will see the third movie, in hopes that the promise will be fulfilled.

I actually liked this movie to a certain degree. The basic story is a crippled doctor and his staff are trying to use the power of re-generation in Draculas blood to cure the doctor. They bring Dracula back and have a certain amonut of control over him it would seem. Good action scenecs and the Vampire hunter Priest is very good. I would make a movie of this charcter alone I think. Of course Dracula gains the upper hand in an odd way as the group all want his power but not his evil. Sad to say they all get both which leads to trouble. The ending is so abrupt and confusing it almost ruined the entire movie for me. What does it mean?? It may have been tossed in to lead to the third movie. Aside from that it is not to bad.

This piece of garbage is an argument for negative stars, one star is too good for it. The first film was stupid, this film is worse. Wes Craven is a goof.

After seeing Dracula 2000, and what it stood out as a classy, retelling of the tale of Draula, with a completely new folklore for the famed "Prince of Darkness", This sequel is nothing short of bad, the only link to the original movie is attempted to take up where the original ended (other than a stolen video clip here and there, espeically the 2 second recollection of Judas hanging from the tree).
While Dracula 2000 might have created a new Dracula legend, in a new ultra modern gothic/punk underworld scene. Bringing the old into the new age. This movie does nothing but attempt to capitalize on the fame of the first one. Lame connection with the first, poor storyline, and probably made on a budget that was less than buying coffee for the cast.
The bringing in of Jason Lee, into the storyline, while it might be good in another story, left many questions, how did he and the church get involved if Dracula was imprisioned in a steel coffin by Van Hensing, for hundreds of years, and the treat of vampires had become nothing but a myth.
Come on, a better sequel could have been made, if they really wanted to. The first movie (Dracula 2K) was a complete story, this one, this one leaves you craving for something better.