Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

brandonhelee Not too many films can claim themselves to be sequels but in reality they are Director's Cut Remakes of the film they are a sequel to well that's the case for Dracula II:Ascension.How I got around to seeing and ultimately appreciating the whole D2k trilogy was back in December 2011 I was an episode of "Good Bad Flicks" of which he was reviewing Dracula 2000 I got very interested in seeing it than I got the pleasure of coming across a four film Blu-ray pack that features the whole trilogy+They.My overall thought's on Dracula 2000 is that it rocked I enjoyed it for being a close re- vamp(pun intended) of the classic Dracula tale having being taken place in modern times,Dracula himself being attached spirituality to Mary through Blood,Judas Iscariot & etc, so many interesting and cleaver ideas being put into that film. But Dracula 2000 was an altered version of what Patrick Lussier wanted and he was forced by The Weinsteins to Hip it Up what he wanted has something like Dracula II:Ascension of which is why they both have a similar plot.Dracula II:Ascension isn't as connected to the Dracula mythos as Dracula 2000 and feels more like a vampire tale than a Dracula tale.Dracula II:Ascension starts out with a bang having the eerie atmosphere a shadowy figure slowly approaching a dismissal in distress than bam you realize that she is a vampire and has her friend come out and help her attack shadowy figure than he cuts their heads off in a very badass fashion before he than does his morning purge.I love the way this opens it's well done but not as impressive as the beginning of Dracula 2000.The film goes on to introduce us to the main characters of the film of which are still fun characters to watch but they seem more like average victims of a slasher film than the emotionally impactful characters of Part 1.The characters all are likable and have stand out traits about them Kenny is a goof-ball,Tanya reminds me a lot of Lucy(Vitamin C) in Part 1,Lowell is a wise old man, & lastly Elizabeth is a good girlfriend to Lowell. We learn that the events of this film took shortly after the events of D2k of which I like that and it set ups Dracula's corpses being in a morgue where our Elizabeth a morgue attendant and a new character Luke is introduced.They received a phone call from a potential investor for the body of Dracula and this is pretty much where the remake stuff kicks in with them stealing the corpses of Dracula from the morgue instead of Stealing it from a old antics dealer by a group of criminals as seen in Part 1 now we have a group of college med students who are misbehaving to have an scientific experiment on the body. They are following the blood transfusion resurrection that was apart of the mythology behind Part 1 and I love that they made an effort to have the New Orleans mardi gras being present in this film. Here's is when the first glaring problem comes to mind what about the much more intimate characters of Mary Van Helsing & Simon of which we have a lot more emotionally investment in what happened to them I know in the director's commentary he states they were duped by the body misplacement at the morgue but I feel as if that's not fair because Dracula having such a connection Mary in Part 1 but I think I can counteract that by him saying I release you breaking all ties to Dracula but I still think that's a bit off. Back to Dracula II:Ascension the characters take the body of Dracula to an abandon public pool for further testing which is something I like about this film is the difference between Dracula 2000 being a more spirituality religious based take on the story of Dracula while Dracula II:Ascension is a more atheistic science based take on the Dracula mythos I love the strike difference between those in contrast. Father Uffizi comes in every so often in the story so you can feel his presences is still their.The film goes on to have Kenny inject himself with Dracula's blood only to lead to Father Uffizi finding out where Dracula and the gang are.While that's going on we are given the information that Lowell & Eric have played everyone and we're just using them to get Lowell vampriized.After that we get a badass fight between Dracula and Uffzi.Dracula II:Ascension is definitely an inferior piece of work than Dracula 2000 but it still is pretty good on it's on.I enjoyed it being different and going into it's own direction despite me feeling unsatisfied by the lack of any mention of Mary Van Helsing and Simion.Still Dracula II is a good movie filled with a lot of neat twist and turns.The atmosphere is awesome in this film.I also enjoy Dracula III:Legacy but I will not be reviewing that as the next review I'll be doing is for Christmas Vaction.I'd recommend Dracula II:Ascension to people who haven't seen Dracula 2000.

jessegehrig Its got my boy Craig Sheffer, king of the B-movie, so you know it's got to be good, or at least some movie nerd's version of "good". Holy crap. Uh, it's got vampires, does that count for anything? The boom mike is never visible in any scene so they accomplished that major obstacle. I feel like this is a real good effort on everyone's part other than the fact that the movie is garbage. I watch Jason Scott Lee act and I wonder if he's weird to hang out with in real life- famous Hollywood movie stars are real people too y'know, even when those stars are like Jeremy London, Craig Sheffer and Jason Scott Lee. I don't remember if there is any nudity, but the movie could have used a time machine and a dinosaur.

elderado66-1 The movie was OK. The problem I had was that it was to be a sequel to Drac 2000. Problem was...no carry over characters and most importantly totally ignored how the first one ended. The only thing that attached was a brief flash back to the first one and that is it. No continuity. I can overlook a lot but continuity between sequels and prequels drives me bonkers. I can forgive editing errors. I can even forgive when things like a mic drop in a scene but if you are going to do multiples you must must must have concept and script continuity. If you don't you might as well have them as entirely different movies. I can understand why butler wasn't in this $$$$. I would have liked to seen Johnny Lee Miller and Justine Waddell. To some it up what do I know I am just a movie junkie with all the training and no place to use it

disdressed12 this is a sequel to Dracula 2000,but not completely.it's still about Dracula,but it begins shortly after the first one ended.the thing is,***spoiler ahead*** it ignores the ending of 2000.if you paid attention to the very end of that film,you'll realize that the events in this one couldn't happen the way they do.end of spoiler***oh,well,that's life.it still has the same biblical bent to it.but this one lacks many of the things 2000 had.gone is Gerard Butler as the title character,a fairly big loss,in my opinion.this Dracula(the character)is not as compelling,nor did i feel he was seductive or charming.gone is also the visual style of 2000.there's also no macabre humour here.nor is there much action.what is added is some overacting by many of the cast involved.While i don't have anything against Jason Scott Lee,i feel he was trying way too hard to make the character serious.***minor spoiler***oh,and if you're expecting to see Roy Schieder(he is billed as being one of the stars of the movie)then you better not blink,or you'll miss him.overall,this entry is not as fun as Dracula 2000,but i still thought it was OK.For me,Dracula II:Ascension is a 6.6/10