Dracula II: Ascension (2003)

Disturbing yet enthralling

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

This sequel to "Dracula 2000" follows a new bunch of characters as Draculas' charred corpse is brought into a morgue. Medical students Elizabeth (Diane Neal) and Luke (Jason London) are fascinated because they realize that this thing on the slab was an honest-to-God vampire. They're also quick to jump on a strangers' offer of $30 million for the body, so they sneak it out of there, and with two others in tow, take it to an isolated location to do all sorts of experiments. Dracula is naturally brought back to "life", and is now played by Stephen Billington. In search of the famed blood sucker is a vampire hunter named Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee), who's been sent by the Vatican.This whole story is patently absurd, hinging on the absolute stupidity of our protagonists (also including Craig Sheffer as a wheelchair bound professor). You end up rooting for Dracula to snuff them all out. Add to that some highly variable acting. Some performances are passable, some just plain terrible. Veteran actor Roy Scheider is wasted in a very brief cameo as the Cardinal. Lees' performance is actually pretty good, and it deserves to be in a better movie. Some people may find it interesting to check out the early performance by the extremely prolific voice over artist Khary Payton, who more recently has been playing Ezekiel on 'The Walking Dead'.Some things in the movies' favour are a decent forward pace, a sufficient amount of gore, amusing effects (such as a face munched off), and impressive widescreen photography.The script by Joel Soisson and director Patrick Lussier comes complete with some twists near the end. The "conclusion" is obviously merely serving to set up the next sequel.Five out of 10.

In Dracula II: Ascension, the short-awaited sequel that horror fans didn't demand, producer Wes Craven and director Patrick Lussier have created another slick, contemporary vampire tale that once again plays fast and loose with the Dracula legend; thankfully, neither goofy Gerard Butler nor thoroughly irritating Jonny Lee Miller return for Part II, and matters are dealt with in a far less pensive manner than before, making the film a more enjoyable effort overall than the rather disappointing Dracula 2000.Having been burnt to a crisp by the sun at the end of the first film, the legendary vamp's charred corpse is delivered to a morgue where a group of medical students soon realise that the latest body on their slab belongs to no mere mortal. Believing that they can use the vampire's remains to advance medical science, and offered a huge sum of money by a total stranger to do just that, they smuggle Drac out of the building and take him to a deserted mansion to begin their experiments. Meanwhile, dedicated Vatican-approved vampire slayer Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) searches for the missing vamp with the intention of destroying him forever...Some decent gore, including several neat be-headings and a bloke having his faced chewed off; a few interesting pieces of vampire lore rarely seen in the movies; solid acting, with a cool turn by Stephen Billington as Dracula, who seems to be channelling Tom Cruise's Lestat for his performance; and cheap but effective scares that'll make you feel rather stupid for having jumped: Dracula II is pure popcorn fun with zero pretensions, and is all the better for it.6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.

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.

To be honest, I expected so much worse. The sequel to Dracula 2000 was almost satisfying... Even though it's much more about the concept of vampirism then it's about Dracula.Dracula wasn't really important in this movie, most of the time he was dried of blood and ugly. But during the sex scene, you can see the beauty Stephen Billington brought to Dracula. Though it's short and insignificant, it's worth paying attention.Jason London's presence in the movie was almost fun, he's adorable, while his character was cute. Luke isn't a coward in my eyes, he is rather cautious. He reminds me of Shaggy (Scooby Doo), but he's much more courageous then him.I was surprised by their choice of filming locations. They filmed in my country and the selected mostly old places, like the Mogosoaia Castle (when Father Uffizi was walking in a flashback with another priest and they were discussing Dracula). They filmed in the old center of Bucharest, Lipscani (some of the streets shown)... And then it's that big white mansion it was also used for the filming of "Blood and Chocolate", but I have no idea what that is.All in all, "Dracula II: Ascension" was an interesting sequel, I'm glad they had the same director for all three movies.