Dracula II: Ascension

[Fearless Freep]

Last night I watched Dracula II:Ascension which is the sequel to Wes Craven's "Dracula 2000"

It's a quas-sequel actually.  It starts off with Dracula in the state he ended in the last movie, and continues the mythos established in the prevous film, but it also ignores some of the characters from the ending of the last movie.  here is a production commentary track on the DVD and at one point one person alludes to a possible, somewhat weak, explanation of how to reconcile them.

Dracula II: The Ascension was filmed at the same time as Dracula III: Legacy to make for a totla trilogy.

Note: explaining the plot of Dracula II provides spoilers for Dracula 2000, so if you have interest in the first, or the trilogy, avoid reading this

The general plot is that Dracula was toasted at the end of Dracula 2000.  So Dracula II starts of with the burnt corpse of Dracula in the morgue, where the two people working there realize that something is strange about this body...

So they kidnap the body to sell it, and end up hooking up with a paralized doctor with a degenerative disease who wants to discover the secret of what makes Dracula immortal.  But reviving a dead Dracula is not the wisest thing to do, and then there is Jason Scott Lee as the Catholic priest/vampire huner who wants to be sure that Dracula has his Last Rites

The movie was not bad.  Fairly entertaining and it kept moving.  The character motivations as to what to do with Dracula, and whym were conflicted with each other adding a seperate aspect of tension.

I also liked  that in this movie the motivation of the church was not simply to destroy Dracula as an evil monster, but to redeem him and offer him Christ's forgiveness and send his soul to heaven even as they destroyed the body.

All in all, I enjoyed it, but then..I like Vampire movies as a genre.  I think it was well done with an innteresting story and some good characters and at least an attempt at an original plot in the Dracula saga.

[Scott]

Fearless Freep DRACULA II: ASCENSION was a good Dracula film. Better than DRACULA 2000 in my opinion. What I liked about the second film was the connection between Dracula and Judas Iscariot. How Dracula not liking silver due to the betrayal long ago.

[plan9superfan]

Just what we need, a sequel to that awful movie....

[Fearless Freep]

What I liked about the second film was the connection between Dracula and Judas Iscariot.

Actually, that was brought up in the first movie.  I remember it being talked about toward the end and thinking "well that's a new twist on the whole thing"

Other than that, I don't remember the first one well enough to really compare them, but I did enjoy watching this one..but I remember watching Dracla 2000 as well so...

[dean]

The only thing vaguely interesting about the first one was that whole religious side, which was a nice change from the 'chemical/virus' vampire films I had been watching alot of at the time.

The second one may be an interesting viewing, but beyond that I really don't expect much.

On a side note I watched Dracula 3000 shortly after 2000 thinking it was a sequel and was interested in how different it was.

What a bad choice that was!!!!  Any film that needs to explain to it's characters who this 'God' fellow was, is quite frankly, a silly, stupid [in a bad way] film.  

[plan9superfan]

I'm telling you right here, right now: Count Dracula is NOT Judas Iscariot.

Never has been, never will be.

[dean]

plan9superfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm telling you right here, right now: Count
> Dracula is NOT Judas Iscariot.
>
> Never has been, never will be.


But you have to admit, it is a nice deviation in vampire myth and is actually a very creative idea in an otherwise not very creative film.

Even a self-professed hater of remakes such as yourself has to appreciate new ideas rather than the pointless rehashing old ones [regardless of whether you think it works or not]

[raj]

"The only thing vaguely interesting about the first one was that whole religious side, which was a nice change from the 'chemical/virus' vampire films I had been watching alot of at the time"

I hate the 'chemical/virus' take on vampires, just like I hate the DNA explanation for The Force.  I much prefer some mystical/supernatural take.  

[plan9superfan]

When Bram Stoker wrote the book, he did NOT intend for Dracula to be Judas.

When Tod Browning made the '30s movioe (therefore kickstarting the Dracula movie genre), he did NOT intend for Dracula to be Judas.

Dracula was NEVER Judas, nor he should be.

That's like turing Frankenstein (the monster) into Moses.

[Fearless Freep]

Dracula did not really have a backstory and a lot of retellings of the tale have tried to come up with interesting ways to try to fill it in.

Dracula as Judas is one of the more creative and interesting

[plan9superfan]

"Dracula did not have a backstory"


Ever heard of Count Vlad Tepes?

[Fearless Freep]

Ever heard of Count Vlad Tepes?

Sure, he was a bit of an inspiration for the man, but not a back story for the mythology of the vampire being

[plan9superfan]

I take you haven't seen Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula", have you?

[Fearless Freep]

That was a 90s remake.  90s remakes suck

[dean]

Fearless Freep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was a 90s remake.  90s remakes suck
>
> =======================
> Going places unmapped, to do things unplanned, to
> people unsuspecting


Wait a minute...

Oh I get it: Vampire movie, the word suck...  


[I'm so tired right now]