Very disappointed :(

Load of rubbish!!

Dreadfully Boring

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

This straight to video, low-budget follow up to the hip, modern-day "Dracula 2000" continues on from where the last film finished, although it has new characters and story path. In some ways I found it better, even a touch of creativity in its idea. A priest/vampire hunter tracks down the corpse of Dracula to a morgue, but before he can destroy the burnt remains, a coroner and med student steal the body when they are offered money for it. However their own agendas come to the foray when they bring Dracula back to life. Directed by Patrick Lussier, who did "2000" and then the following sequel "Legacy". What he crafts is slick, if on the shallow side but he uses the Romania backdrop to great affect instilling a Gothic ambiance. Most of the moody action takes place in one area, giving a taut strangle-hold as Dracula is kept captive for most part and those around him try to figure out what to do. Interested in his immortality, they try to harness this ability through his blood in the hope it could be a cure for sickness/ or disabilities (in which why Craig Sheffer's character has a special interest) but in doing so they need to take away the evil. Or they would become one of the un- dead. Or maybe the un-dead is tempting? The story is characterised by these traditional character arches to only build up plot twists, especially when plans come crashing down. Now throw in Jason Lee Scott's character, quite ambiguous but edgy and imposing in sight. The sub-plots involving this priest do draw you in, but little is explained. Now the technical side, the stunt work was dazzling (like the opening involving Scott and Jennifer Kroll) and the action was bloody in a relentless charge. It tries to play it for laughs and kicks. Doesn't entirely come off though. The performances are decent. Diane Neal is ravishing, but potent in the lead. Jason London has a twitchy quality, but is likable. Craig Shaffer's portrayal is kind of predictable, where John Light does a better job. As for Dracula, Stephen Billington doesn't get all that much to do but his presence and visual manners acquit themselves well. As for the ending, it sets-up for the next instalment; "Legacy"."Picked a bad day to become a vampire."

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...

Oh, I am confused, the way I read some of these comments here on IMDb, I was thinking that Dracula 2 was going to be a decent horror movie. I had recorded this film expecting at least a good story. But honestly, the reason why I can't enjoy Wes Craven's take on Dracula is because it seems like he has no clever way of telling this classic story. Dracula is one of history's most famous villains and Wes Craven has made him into nothing but a joke. I don't like the new characters, they're clichéd and boring not to mention that they're horrible actors. The effects, the characters and the story just didn't work with me. Not to mention that I don't know where the heck they got the idea that mustard seeds and rope weaken Dracula? Why not just squeeze a mustard bottle on him? Then I can take a hot dog and rub the mustard off Dracula's body with it and have some dinner. I can't take this stupid story seriously and I don't know how anyone really could.A small group of scientists hope to use Dracula's desiccated body to discover the secret of immortality. Elizabeth who examines the corpse, leads her to alert her boyfriend Lowell, who is suffering from an ultimately fatal degenerative sickness. Lowell claims a wealthy investor wants to fund their research into the mysterious corpse. They take the body away. On their heels is Father Uffizi, seemingly the Vatican's official vampire hunter. He has been given the task of not only killing Dracula, but granting him absolution. This will allow the vampire to rest in peace. What the Cardinal giving Uffizi this task may or may not know is that the priest was scratched by a vampire fang in a previous hunt. Each day he exposes himself to the sun. But one of the scientific team, Luke, doubts Dracula is a purely natural phenomenon. He surrounds the now-awake vampire with folkloric wards like mustard seeds and knots. Elizabeth, meanwhile, feels increasingly strange as the infection in her grows, as does her attraction/bond to Dracula.Well, like Dracula 2000, I just couldn't stand this film. Nothing about this story made sense and all the folklore that fascinates me about Dracula does not exist here. Now the movie could have worked a lot better if it dealt with a better director and different actors, not to mention that they shouldn't make the characters so clichéd, it could have been better. I also don't like the way they handled how you become a vampire, it seemed like the most small bite in the world, that doesn't even require your blood to be drained, just get a little nip and you're becoming a vampire. The "love" story that was incredibly random between Elizabeth and Dracula didn't make any sense, their connection didn't seem real at all. Uffizi is another character that didn't make any sense and once again the actor was just horrible. Nothing about this movie made me think that it could be good, I couldn't wait for it to be over and I don't get how anyone could think that this was a decent horror movie.1/10

While "Dracula 2000" didn't quite set the box office on fire, it did well enough to warrant a sequel – two, as a matter of fact. Released straight to video, "Dracula II: Ascension," finds everyone's favorite bloodsucker in the custody of a group of med students, following the events of the first movie. When experimenting with his charred corpse in hopes of helping their crippled professor turns out to be a bad idea, all Hell breaks loose and things get rather nasty, as you would expect.Director Patrick Lussier returns to the director's chair, and perhaps the biggest difference with this installment is its surprisingly restrained style. Less action packed and not as flashy in the visual department, the film is a more straight-up Dracula flick that gets its job done efficiently and in a timely manner. It also boasts a lot less star-power, in spite of a brief appearance by the late Roy Scheider. You'll spot a few C-list stars (Jason London, anyone?) but the big surprise is Jason Scott Lee, who plays a vampire hunter and virtually carries the film on his shoulders. It's a crime, then, that his character isn't given as much time as the over-dramatic students that drive the plot.Of course, the film was shot back-to-back with the third sequel, and it shows. The thing that keeps it from being as good and as complete as it should is that too much time is spent setting up the next installment and not enough time giving the film enough meat and potatoes to stand alone. Also, it doesn't help that this version of Dracula (re-casted from Gerard Butler to Stephen Billington) is slightly neutered and isn't given much to do. If you can forgive its shortcomings, though, you'll find it to be a fair sequel that is at least a lot better than a lot of direct-to-video fare and serves as a decent enough way to whittle away 80 spare minutes.