In 1999, the studios 'Dimension Films' and 'Neo Art & Logic' began developing a new project, using as a plot platform the classic Gothic novel by Bram Stoker about one of the most famous fictional monsters in art - Count-vampire Dracula. But at the same time, the project was supposed to become not a static exposition of Stoker’s work, but some rethinking of his history, shifted to modern rails. Moreover, the target audience was supposed to be young people and for this purpose the appropriate cast, musical accompaniment were selected, and most importantly, one of the curators of the project was the brilliant master of the horror genre Wes Craven, who assumed the functions of an executive producer, and also recommended Patrick Lucsier for the post of chief director, and he, in turn, was often the editor of Craven’s films. So, in 2000, the film was released ' Dracula 2000' but with a solid budget of 54 million dollars, it collected only 47, and received mixed criticism. But this did not affect the decision of the studio 'Neo Art & Logic' launch a couple of sequels ' Dracula 2000'.
And it can be noted that both of these sequels were released in the format 'direct-to-video' that is, bypassing the screens of theaters immediately on various video media. The second part of Dracula 2000', which was called ' Dracula 2: Ascension' and it was released in 2002, already had a budget of only 5 million. Therefore, none of the actors and, as a result, the characters were not in the sequel, except for the central antagonist, played by a completely different actor. In the plot plan 'Dracula 2: Ascension' subtly continues the end of the story in 'Dracula 2000'. In the original film, a bloodthirsty vampire is exposed to sunlight, which could lead to his death, but in the second part, the viewer learns that this is not happening. Although this is the fault of a group of students, which gets, as they thought, burned corpse. But due to some manipulation, the ancient evil awakens and thirsts for blood again. Then in the arena of action appears Father Uffizi – a priest from the Vatican, who has set himself a goal in life to destroy Count Dracula.
And it is also worth saying that the production ' Dracula 2: Ascension' engaged all the same Patrick Lussier, and the script was written by him in a duet with Joel Soisson, who wrote an early version of the script for ' Dracula 2000' and they were also familiar from the joint work on the horror film ' Prophecy 3: Ascension'. And, in principle, as for the film category ' B' ' Dracula 2: Ascension' turned out to be quite a tolerable spectacle, if not to expect something special from him, although such hopes may creep in, because in the center of the plot is Count Dracula himself. But the picture of the sequel does not scare off its quality, as it often happens, it feels that Patrick Lussier has experience accumulated on the set of films directed by Wes Craven. You can even praise the specialists in scenery, which look even higher than in other mainstream thrash. Visual effects don’t look cheap either. Although the action itself, as well as the designated bloody scenes (the film is about vampires!), still cause a sense of secondary, although this was a flaw in ' Dracula 2000', so in this case Lucsier did not improve.
As for the cast, if we do not take into account Roy Scheider, who played as a guest star in a couple of scenes of the Vatican cardinal, then the main, so to speak, star & #39; Dracula 2: Ascension & #39; is Jason Scott Lee, who embodied the image of the already mentioned Uffizi father. Frankly, this actor, at first glance, was not suitable for a character with a clearly Italian surname, and because of external data, it was difficult to imagine him in monastic attire. But Jason Scott Lee diligently fulfilled his role, where he was able to balance religious virtue and wisdom with the skills of a desperate warrior. Everything that was embarrassing at first has almost disappeared. But it is difficult to single out anyone from the remaining ensemble, especially because their emotional and facial components were rather constrained or hasty. But for some it will be gratifying that there is a model ' Playboy' Brand Roderick. But once it was almost a trend - to invite sexy girls to second-rate thrash, and sometimes even porn stars flew into it.
In general, if, again, remember that 'Dracula 2: Ascension' is a film from the category 'direct-to-video', then on the positive side of the scales you can put a visually acceptable picture, as well as not the worst way set special effects, although fans of blockbusters they do not impress. And the game of the main protagonist does not cause a repulsive effect. But on the opposite side of the scales there is a static game of the entire secondary cast, a rather trivial plot and the lack of proper screamers, although, as stated, ' Dracula 2: Ascension' is a horror film. But this claim is quite controversial. So:
Perhaps for everyone there are such films that, despite the existing shortcomings, cause delight and desire to review them again and again. For me, that's Dracula 2000. The idea that it had two cheaper sequels kept me busy for a long time, and finally pushed me to watch. The fact that “Ascent” will not be as bad as expected, becomes clear in the first seconds, when the viewer is surprised by unexpectedly high-quality camera work. For a budget of just $5 million, that's great! Such a movie would not be ashamed to release in the world. The obstacle must have been that larger screens filled potentially more lucrative tapes.
Like the first part, the second continues to explore the subject of vampires who are presented as enemies of the Christian god, for Dracula himself... well, you remember who he really is. Sadly, instead of Dr. Butler, our ancient bloodsucker is now playing Stephen Billington. In order not to focus on this, the writers and director most of the time show the character weakened and exhausted after an accident. It's a good try, but it's not clear why Dracula is now blonde. Through the mouth of a secondary priest, we are told that a character can take on different guises, but what is the point of adding such a feature to him? Yes, and by the way, I may have memory problems, but I think Dracula's name is only used once in the movie. This often happens in American films: for some unknown reason, Americans are afraid to pronounce the names of monsters. In the film franchise “Alien” the word “xenomorph” sounds only once (in the second part), in Monsterverse almost do not pronounce the word “Godzilla”. I wish I knew what the reason was!
Due to the low budget, there are no extra scenes in Ascension, but the episodes with vampires that grind their teeth are shot at the same level. One of the newly converted ghouls has fangs even more expressive than Dracula's! Jumping, chasing, fighting – all this causes great joy. And, of course, as befits most vampire movies, there is a love line with a very subtle mental attraction, and therefore seems particularly passionate. As a kind of response to Blade, a vampire hunter appears here, only with an Asian, not an African-American appearance. Of course, this is not Van Helsing from the yet-to-be-released blockbuster, but it still looks interesting. True, there is one funny detail: the Uffizi weapon is very similar to a sickle, as if a desperate communist is acting against bourgeois vampires.
To summarize, the sequel, despite the loss of some strong characters, still remains at a fairly high level. At least if you love Dracula 2000 like me, you’ll love Ascension too.
9 out of 10
(Roughly 24 minutes of the film)
Dracula 2: Ascension
I try to remember when I got the internet. He certainly didn't exist in 2003. Just imagine, you come across a disc with the movie “Dracula 2”. First reaction, someone filmed a sequel to Coppola's Dracula, ahaha. I mean, director Patrick Lussier is starting to pooch his brains even with the title, let alone the content.
In fact, we have a sequel to Dracula 2000. They could have called Dracula 2000, Part 2, or dullly Dracula 2003. Okay, let's get to the story. It is directly related to the original, amazing. Several students bring Dracula’s body to a scientist’s house to receive an award.
And then we're drowned in some banal thrash vampire stamps. No, Van Helsing can't wait. Jason Scott Lee will play a vampire hunter. The whole movie is wearing a black hoodie with that look, and my mom takes me back to The Jungle Book (Jason's best movie, by the way). As for Dracula himself, it's a walking circus. Of course, old Butler refused to participate in such, replaced by Billington's nouneim.
Dracula is more like a living dead man than a vampire. I don’t understand why the director even went to shoot a sequel (especially for TV), when the original failed at the box office. Apparently, somehow collected from the sale of cassettes and discs. Ascension is a meager picture, so don’t be surprised, the characters will sit in one place half the time and talk.
Add to this the depressing dialogue and deranged behavior of many heroes. It was strange that some moviegoers liked the movie. He is not the worst, of course, but there is not much to praise him for. Hands moving. Roy Schneider was written on the poster. The cult actor from Spielberg's Jaws. It only shows up for one minute. I think director Patrick Lussier was banal about idleness.
Dracula 2: Ascension is a cheap and pale horror game, supposedly about Dracula 2000, ahaha. Category B, of course. You know, give the budget to Charles Band, he will make you 5 of these films. Yes, yes, "Subspecies" of the next. In contrast, "Subspecies" is cooler.
Roy Scheider and Jason Scott Lee are an updated Dracula saga. No end.
Brilliant in its effectiveness, the beginning tells about a walk through the night Ostrava. Unexpectedly, vampires will dramatically change accents - a potential criminal will appear as a savior. Elegant fights, worthy installation and fascinating work of the operator will give subsequent viewing drives. But here we come across a boring and unattractive sequence of episodes. Spectacular Jason Scott Lee, playing a kind of Blade and once iconic Roy Scheider in the image of a seasoned priest, of course, captivated the audience. However, overall, the tape no longer seemed outstanding.
The desire to make a modern and dynamic vampire movie did not look like a set of cliches. The creators tried to demonstrate as many and interesting finds as possible. However, the form here never passed into the internal content. The associated vampires on which the experiments were conducted carried no more than information that the film was produced by the Weinstein brothers. A special explanation was needed, a kind of “McGuffin”, which would add sharpness and make the tape more acceptable, interesting and whippy. And so, even the "Salems Lot" lost in the archives looks like a real masterpiece in comparison. Perhaps it is better to review this film than to spend time watching the described nonsense. Here we get the actual absence of action and any clear intrigue. Insinuations about Dracula’s brand seem superfluous – the use of his name seems superfluous. But, the flow of such raw materials, it seems, there will be no end.
4 out of 10
Dracula 2000 was an unsuccessful attempt to “modernize” the classic story once created by Irish writer Bram Stoker. His name was mentioned in the film, and there is even a character named Van Helsing, and even the ship “Demeter” was shown a little, but it is difficult to take seriously a boring, not terrible and, in general, simply stupid action that has neither a strong acting performance, nor a clear plot, nor an atmosphere befitting a mystical horror film. It is not surprising that this creation did not find success in cinemas, and the continuation should be done, because the law is such. And here it is, this sequel, where the quality level of production has slipped, together with the focus only on home videos, into the category of second-rate cinema, which should be watched either from nothing to do, or to understand how inept sometimes people use the classic names of world legends.
We should be glad that the plot of the film at least retains an elementary connection with the previous one. Events develop after the end of the first film. A mutilated corpse is delivered to the morgue, and then you remember that a similar scene was in the vampire super-fighter Blade. Only there the corpse immediately came to life and plunged his teeth into the throat of the first caught under the hot hand, and then it turns out that the whole film decided to build on the revival of this corpse. As befits a second-rate film, this introduces a company of young people who decided to play scientists. They take this corpse and go with it to a stone-shaped dwelling to conduct scientific experiments there. Yes, you can’t wait for the action movie, because the lion’s share of what happens is in the room where people bring back the vampire who is Dracula. Of course, all their "scientific experiments" are primitive, and there is no real fiction. It only takes time until the movie is over. If the authors wanted to justify the phenomenon of vampirism from the point of view of scientific knowledge, they did not succeed in this case. Apparently, again focused on “Blade”, where bloodsuckers are generated not so much by mysticism and impure forces, as by genetics and mutation. Nothing comes out of this science. But at the very beginning, you can watch a scene that will remind you of “Van Helsing” with Hugh Jackman. Dressed as a church minister, Jason Scott Lee with long black hair and a steep weapon pursues and cracks down on female vampires. Are vampires the work of the higher forces of Hell, not nature? I guess. In any case, if you expect a vampire action movie, then be kind to be satisfied with the short and weak action prologue at the beginning, and patiently wait until the end. Then the vampire hunter here is back in business. In the meantime, what the filmmakers apparently found very scary is being in a confined room with a recovering vampire. From this plot decision that filled the entire film, you should expect anything, but not fear.
It is worth noting that in some places the film is not so useless. It’s not like D2000, and it’s helped him in some isolated and few episodes. Again, there’s a good actor, Jason Scott Lee, who has no trouble getting attention. If the plot gave him the proper place and in the proper volume, something could turn out, and so - makings, but without abilities. Dracula in “D2000” was played by Gerard Butler, and the vampire king he came out boring, not frightening, saying pathetic things, and with a dull look, and two plastic teeth. Here, obviously, the actor is different. His Dracula is fun and funny. There is a scene for which you can watch the film. The fact that the authors came up with a couple of vampire signs, for example, that a vampire can not pass by the knot until you untie it, and that vampires are obsessed with mathematics, they really like to count the number of grains of sand, grains, and so on. So one of the characters who found this knowledge in literature will put a bunch of knots on Dracula until he has recovered, and will attack him with something loose from the bucket when he is freed from the fetters. It is very funny to watch the most famous vampire in the world, executed ridiculously, performs cumbersome counting operations in a second. No action movie, no mystery, no horror, so thank you for the comedy. It makes no sense to talk about the seriousness of events - there is no such thing. There's no mood or atmosphere here either. Special effects are zero. Makeup and props, well, wherever it went, tolerated. In any case, when the whole film is complete nonsense, in it, out of boredom, you begin to look for reasons to endure to the end. Not scary, not fascinating, not mystical, not clever, and funny. And as a rule, the sequels are worse than the originals, but the situation here is not very simple. Again, Dracula 2000 and Dracula 2: Ascension are films of different quality categories, and comparing them seems unfair. But the first not only makes you yearn, but also repels unjustified stylistic excesses such as demonstrative blood in the frame. But the second-rate continuation can at least cheer up! So this sequel is no worse than the original, and just as bad, just a mixture of unsuccessful decisions in it is in other forms and concentrations, and the general situation is simply bad.
In search of a serious vampire movie that can plunge into a world of mysticism, mystery, and unbridled fear of Evil, this film should be paid attention to one of the last queues. But not the very last one, because there’s Dracula 3, and there’s utter squalor that’s really worth avoiding. Looking for a vampire action movie? No, not here either, definitely. But to compare this nonsense with real stories about Dracula, it would be a disgrace. This film and its two relatives (previous and subsequent films) have nothing in common with Dracula and his style except the title.
3 out of 10