Dracula III: Legacy (2005)

Sadly Over-hyped

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

A Brilliant Conflict

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

I have not seen all of this movie. Just the first five minutes. I feel like that's enough though. What happens? Who is Dracula in this movie? Do they stop Dracula at the end? These are important questions that you can help me with. A lot of movie reviews are spent explaining the plot or listing plot points in chronological order as they happen in the movie. I could do that if I had seen the rest of the movie- all I saw was people running through like a building from vampires or toward vampires, that or it was police chasing people cause I can also sort of remember that happening as well. Maybe that was a different movie? Things are hard to remember sometimes.

Dracula III: Legacy starts as part Vampire, part man all Vampire hunter Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) & his new sidekick Luke (Jason London) manage to learn that Dracula (Rutger Hauer) has returned to his homeland of Romania, Father Uffizi wants to destroy him once & for all while Luke wants to rescue Elizabeth (Diane Neal). They arrive in Romania & quickly discover that Dracula is using rebels to collect victims for him & his Vampires & using the civil war as a cover, it's up to Father Uffizi & Luke to stop him once & for all...Co-written & directed by Patrick Lussier this is the straight-to-DVD sequel of Dracula 2000 (2000) & Dracula II: Ascension (2003) which this was shot back-to-back with. For some reason the title character of Dracula is played by different actors in all three films, Gerard Butler in the first, Stephen Billington in the second & Rutger Hauer here in the third without any real explanation given for it. Anyway the script by Lussier & Joel Soisson brings the Vampire legend bang up to date & places Dracula in a modern war torn Romania using the chaos caused by fighting rebels & the like as cover for his Vampiric activities which is a novel idea I suppose but one which not much is made of. The film moves along at a decent pace, there's a few good set-pieces & the like but I never felt particularly emotionally involved with anything or anyone, I was just sat there waiting for the next Vampire to show up rather than being enthralled by the story. Dracula III: Legacy is a reasonable film, it passes the time harmlessly enough but I just felt it was a little bit too 'middle of the road' as it were & ultimately a bit forgettable.Director Lussier does a decent job, there's some nice camera angles & well lit scenes but apart from the occasion sporadic piece of stylish film-making it's pretty routine. The gore levels are a little low, there's some melted faces, some dead mutilated bodies, arms & head whipped off & a few largely bloodless staking, some priests impaled on huge stakes & little else. There's a bit of nudity as well but not enough to get excited about. Dracula III: Legacy (Legacy by the way is a word the makers have seemingly plucked out of the air at random because it 'sounded' cool) is maybe the one & only time in cinematic history that someone is attacked by a Vampire walking on stilts! I wouldn't say it's overly scary or exciting but it does have a bit of mood to it.With a supposed budget of about $3,200,000 this was shot at the same time as Dracula II: Ascension in 2002 but remained unreleased until 2005. Actually shot on location in Bucharest in Romania this looks nice enough with decent production values. The acting is alright but no-one is going to win any awards, Roy Scheider turns up in a (very) small role.Dracula III: Legacy is a perfectly entertaining way to pass 90 odd minutes without ever really getting one worked up too much, I liked it but didn't love it & doubt I would ever want to see it again & I will probably have forgotten all about it by the end of the week.

Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) and Luke (Jason London) travels through a Romania destroyed by the civil war and the vampires. Luke is trying to save Elizabeth (Diane Neal) from the claws of Dracula, and Uffizi to terminate with the vampires. Along their journey, they meet the British television journalist Julia Hughes (Alexandra Westcourt) covering the war, and the trio follow together facing dangerous situations with the rebels and the vampires."Dracula III: Legacy" is a reasonable sequel of "Dracula II: Ascension". The cinematography is beautiful, the special effects work well, but the facial expressions of the ham actor Jason London almost spoil the film. In the end, this forgettable movie entertains. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): "Drácula 3: O Legado Final" ("Dracula 3: The Final Legacy")

I'm amazed , one of the worst movies ever. Rutger plays like he drink-ed to much in the night clubs of Bucharest , the main actor is just another Blade , a vampire who is also a day walker. But Romania in a civil war , with rebels , with desert and , let's take the hypothetical scenario and believe it. Rebeles with crossbows armed ? I understand that the filming is more cheap in Ro but to play this bad and to mock the history and present of a country in a lousy movie? I wonder how much this film costed. The original things and new in it , were the vampire turned from a circus , a new weapon for the vampire slayer also combined with a bad whip. For those who know i must say one thing. Don't watch .. this ain't worth s**t .