Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Prime Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now

Customer Reviews

3.5 out of 5 stars15
3.5 out of 5 stars
Format: DVD|Change
Price:£7.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 20 January 2014
A terrible sequel to Dracula 2001, can only imagine that the people who made this piece of dirt didn't actually bother to see the first film. The corpse was burnt to ash now guarded in a vault by Mary. Not a badly burnt corpse in a morgue. From the instant this film starts it makes everything that happened in the first film irrelevant.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 August 2013
The first film wasn't amazing but it was a very good take on the classic tale,this sequel though is just pants with dreadful acting,story and effects,a waste of talent too,should of left it at one.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 9 July 2007
The sequel to in my opinion the best Dracula movie since Dracula, the original went somewhere new and the twist was awesome and the ending was so final and resolved his issue against god in a touching way so why the need to make these two sequels? Did the guys who made these even see the first? These sequels have good FX and ok acting but to see it based soley on that is wrong the continuity is off too.
0Comment|6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
If there was a vampire movie that did NOT need a sequel, it would be "Dracula 2000."

But since Hollywood cannot resist flogging a dead horse, "Dracula 2000" actually got TWO sequels that it didn't need. The bafflingly-named "Dracula II: Ascension" introduces a completely new cast of characters with no connection to the previous movie... including Dracula. Apparently vampires are Time Lords -- set one on fire, and he'll pop up later with an all-new face.

When a charred corpse is brought into a morgue, Elizabeth Blaine (Diane Neal) and her buddy Luke (Jason London) quickly discover that it is a vampire. How? A fang springs out and pricks Elizabeth's finger when she's prodding the mouth. Since her boyfriend Lowell (Craig Sheffer) is dying of a degenerative disease, they hope to come up with a cure-all derived from vampire... something.

So they take the charred corpse to a remote house, and soak it in a bathtub of blood. And who should pop up, partially renewed, than Dracula (now played by Stephen Billington) himself?

While the group ties Dracula up and bickers a lot, a vampire-slaying priest named Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) is tracking them down. His goal is to first give Dracula absolution, then destroy him. However, the idiots who revived Dracula have no idea how dangerous he is, or how corruptive vampirism is -- and they also don't realize that the greatest dangers are from their own.

Except for the presence of Dracula (who isn't even played by the same person), this movie really doesn't have much in common with "Dracula 2000." It's pretty much a standard horror movie where a bunch of idiots congregate in a dangerous remote place, so they can die one by one. Also add a priest character who... doesn't really do much.

And admittedly it does have some nice touches, such as including the OCD qualities of traditional vampirism. And while Billington spends most of the movie tied to a table, he does have a lot of menacing, alluring presence even when covered in flour.

Unfortunately, that is about as far as it goes. Most of the movie is just a fetid regurgitation of the same old horror movie cliches -- a bunch of idiots hanging around a dangerous place, making stupid decisions. And the thin plot becomes even more nonsensical when one of the characters reveals his dastardly plan... which makes NO logical sense, because he was trying to trick people into giving him what they were going to give him anyway. Idiot.

Dracula is one of the few characters in this whole movie who is actually memorable, and Billington does a decent job making him actually menacing. He's also apparently a Time Lord, since now Dracula regenerates with a new body every time someone "kills" him.

Lee is the only other person who makes any impression, which is impressive since his character fails to do... anything, really. The rest of the cast is played by a bunch of supremely untalented actors, who fulfill pretty much all the cliched horror roles -- the Doomed Annoying Black Guy, the Doomed Annoying Blonde, the Supposedly Smart Vampire Groupie, the Eager Puppy Sidekick and the Obvious Villain. Each one is irritating and devoid of depth.

"Dracula II: Ascension" is barely a sequel to "Dracula 2000" -- it could have been the sequel to any other movie where Dracula temporarily dies. Instead, it's an irritatingly shallow horror movie with a few pale virtues.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 16 March 2006
Dracula Ascension is the follow up to the hugely hyped Dracula 2000 (or Dracula 2001, depending on where you were when it was released). The plot has a few twists which are largely unexpected, along with a seduction scene which should please vampire movie aficionados. On the downside, the excellent Roy Scheider appears for what seems to be 10 seconds, which is a waste of a good actor and parts of the movie appear to have been filmed for an audience with no attention span, but on the whole it is coherent enough. There are a few loose ends which will undoubtedly be tied up in the final part of the trilogy.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 August 2015
First off this is a Story in the Same Style of Dracula 2001 but not a direct Sequel.It still has its moments and is an overlooked Decent horror Flick.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 January 2008
I loved this film because of the story and effects. Only mistake was that in Dracula 2000 the first film in this trilogy, Mary Van Helsing took the burnt corpse and locked it up in a vault. Now in this one the corpse turns up at the morgue? Apart from that very good and acting superb.
0Comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 15 January 2016
Not as good as I was hoping as the first film in the series was better. Very prompt delivery would use these again.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 December 2015
Nice to find a Dracula trilogy I hadn't seen hundreds of times before
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 10 June 2014
ITS ALWAYS A PITY WITH A SEQUEL WHEN THEY DON'T KEEP THE ORIGINAL CAST. ALSO AT THE END OF THE 1ST,THE GIRL WAS GOING TO KEEP WHAT WAS LEFT OF DRACULA TO PREVENT HIS RE-ERECTION OR ESCAPE.THE 2ND FILM SHOULD HAVE REALLY LED ON FROM THERE.
NEVERTHELESS, IT WAS QUITE GOOD, WITH A FEW TWISTS AND TURNS THAT WERE QUITE UNEXPECTED. I ENJOYED IT AND WILL NOW LOOK FOR DRACULA 111.
I RECOMMEND IT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A VAMPIRE BUFF LIKE ME.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)