You won't be disappointed!

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Admirable film.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

This is a great movie. It is very scary. This is one of the better. Dracula sequels. It has a great story line. It has great acting. It has great special effects. This movie has great special effects. 4.7 is underrating it. This is one of the best vampire movies ever. This movie is scarier then The Exorcist and that is not easy to do. This movie is a must see. It is a very scary movie. Rutger Hauer is a great actor. He is very scary in this movie. Jason Scott Lee is a great actor. This is a horror classic. It is a very scary movie. More people should see it. Do not watch this movie alone. It is so scary. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will.

This movie has Rudger Hauer and Roy Scheider. Sounds like an amazing cast, doesn't it? Sadly both of them only show up for 2 minutes. This movies cast is nothing but mediocre.While the 2nd part had some new variations about the vampire theme, this movie has nothing new. Everything has been there before (and better). Again and again the same vampire-trash story. Evil super-mighty vampire shows up, and is killed by good half-vampire (or half-demon or something else simliar silly). Do people really like this? I despise it. There is so much potential in the vampire material, yet, most filmmakers lack creativity.

This is not a great movie by any means but it still is certainly a good and entertaining watch. No matter how weak and silly the movie seems at times, you'll still enjoy watching it.This is pretty much a direct sequel to "Dracula II: Ascension", even though its being set at different locations and follows a different story. It still focuses on the same characters and is connected to the events of the second movie. But oh well, you don't necessarily need to see "Dracula II: Ascension", in order to understand this movie.Like must cheap straight-to-video horror flicks made these days, it got shot in Romania. However when your movie is about Dracula this is of course also not an unlikely place to set your movie in. For more than halve of the movie it still doesn't look like it's going to be a Dracula movie though, since the character gets introduced quite late into the story, as if they could not afford to have Rutger Hauer on the set for more than a week or so.But let me tell you that Rutger Hauer still really leaves a lasting impression with his role. I was quite surprised at how great he was. The two other big names of the movie are Jason Scott Lee and Roy Scheider, though none of them were of course quite the best or biggest names the movie industry had to offer.The story is of course nothing to special but it's all being still quite good and I liked its approach. All the movies out of the series always have been a modern take on the Dracula legacy and it's perhaps in this movie that this approach works out the best and most refreshing.It's still a quite weakly directed, cheap looking B-horror flick, with some not to impressive actors but it's a good and entertaining little guilty pleasure to watch.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Naturally, Dracula III picks up from the cliffhanger ending of Dracula II with a mercifully brief montage covering the ending of the previous film. From there, Legacy fast forwards several years in the future where Luke and Father Uffizi attempt to track down Dracula, himself, by "interrogating" vampires.Jason Scott Lee and Jason London return in the lead roles to track down the infamous count across the Romanian country side in a buddy-cop meets Heart of Darkness sort of way. Of course, I applaud the film's wisdom in choosing a more patient path over a 90 minute confrontation with Drac; however, at the same time I'm not entirely sure that Patrick Lussier and Joel Soisson chose the best route (especially since it might draw comparisons to a certain Coppola film.) The journey these characters take never piqued my interest very much, probably because the previous film lead up to a false climax with Dracula only to have him vanquish the heroes for now and escape. Now, in Legacy, the characters essentially restart their journey from square one, getting to Dracula to confront him once again (whoa, déjà vu -- am I playing CastleVania?). Even though Lussier took two totally different routes with the two films, I can't help but feel like I waited in line for 20 minutes only to have to go stand in another line. I've been here. I've done this. I'm through with lines! I want to check out already.Another harmful factor lay in the clunky character development. Dracula, himself, is not only played by different actors in each film, but he also inexplicably takes on a completely new personality (not to mention new history) with each incarnation. The changeup comes so abruptly that it's jarring and distracting. It robs Rutger Hauer's performance of a being bored with his own existence but too proud to die. Perhaps my observation is unfair, but then again the movie does proudly wear the title "Dracula III" as in the sequel to "Dracula II" as in the second sequel to "Dracula 2000." Is it too much to ask for reasonable consistency from film to film? Luke and Uffizi, by contrast, both evolve consistently across two films, but the progression felt more like clumps of revelations falling out of the back of the plot's truck. Consistent, but clunky. People change, and people can change rather quickly. However, the torment of Uffizi's soul that Dracula II only hinted at comes front and center in Dracula III, once again jarring the viewer with its abruptness. One minute he's got it together, the next he's selling his soul.Despite that complaint, I still found Luke's evolution juxtaposed to Uffizi's evolution very intriguing. I especially loved the film's finale when the mentor, Uffizi, ultimately succumbs to the darkness within, brilliantly intercut with Luke who simultaneously gains the strength to do what must be done. I smiled with satisfaction that the filmmakers had it in them to end on a depressing, but fascinating ending. However, the smile turned to a frown and satisfaction turned to dismay as the film refused to leave a good thing alone. It proceeded to hammer home the obvious with an unnecessary image of Uffizi upon Dracula's thrown, holding his undead vampiric bride. And to further spell out the obvious, it superimposes the words, "The king is dead; long live the king" over Jason Scott Lee's eyes.Like the other films in Lussier's Dracula Trilogy, Legacy has a number of positive (dare I say "great") elements and ideas that suffer due to overdose or outright mishandling. Legacy, like its predecessors, would stand as a better film with a little restraint. The exploited clichés, the overused gimmicks, the binging on good ideas (the "you are forgiven" battle) to point the viewer wishes to purge ultimately brought down a series that clearly had potential to rise far above direct-to-video expectations.