I admit that I was too hard on the original "Dracula 2000" even though I still believe I didn't like it. This is a fairly pointless movie. It features an entirely new cast and there's no real main revelations about Dracula. The first one at least had an interesting twist. The worst part of this movie is probably the ending. It features the main hero being defeated and Dracula just leaves and doesn't kill him.The entire movie comes off as pointless. There's this other guy who deliberately becomes a vampire because he just wants to be immortal or something. This is one of the few times it's mentioned vampires are obsessed with counting. That's how we got the Count from "Sesame Street"! The characters bring Dracula back and it's mostly out of stupidity. I wish they'd thought this more through. *1/2

This an awesome movie. 4.7 is underrating it. It is very scary. This a great Dracula sequel. This movie as a great story. I line it also has great acting. It also has great special effects. This movie is a must see. It is not as good as Dracula 2000. But still a good movie. It is pretty scary. Stephen Billington is very scary in this movie. Jason Scott Lee is a great actor. This is a great movie. Great movie great movie great movie. Diane Neal is a great actress. She is very pretty. This movie is scarier then a Nightmare on elm street. Patrick Lussier is great film maker. This is a great vampire story. This one of the scariest movie from 2003.

While "Dracula 2000" didn't quite set the box office on fire, it did well enough to warrant a sequel – two, as a matter of fact. Released straight to video, "Dracula II: Ascension," finds everyone's favorite bloodsucker in the custody of a group of med students, following the events of the first movie. When experimenting with his charred corpse in hopes of helping their crippled professor turns out to be a bad idea, all Hell breaks loose and things get rather nasty, as you would expect.Director Patrick Lussier returns to the director's chair, and perhaps the biggest difference with this installment is its surprisingly restrained style. Less action packed and not as flashy in the visual department, the film is a more straight-up Dracula flick that gets its job done efficiently and in a timely manner. It also boasts a lot less star-power, in spite of a brief appearance by the late Roy Scheider. You'll spot a few C-list stars (Jason London, anyone?) but the big surprise is Jason Scott Lee, who plays a vampire hunter and virtually carries the film on his shoulders. It's a crime, then, that his character isn't given as much time as the over-dramatic students that drive the plot.Of course, the film was shot back-to-back with the third sequel, and it shows. The thing that keeps it from being as good and as complete as it should is that too much time is spent setting up the next installment and not enough time giving the film enough meat and potatoes to stand alone. Also, it doesn't help that this version of Dracula (re-casted from Gerard Butler to Stephen Billington) is slightly neutered and isn't given much to do. If you can forgive its shortcomings, though, you'll find it to be a fair sequel that is at least a lot better than a lot of direct-to-video fare and serves as a decent enough way to whittle away 80 spare minutes.

To be honest, I expected so much worse. The sequel to Dracula 2000 was almost satisfying... Even though it's much more about the concept of vampirism then it's about Dracula.Dracula wasn't really important in this movie, most of the time he was dried of blood and ugly. But during the sex scene, you can see the beauty Stephen Billington brought to Dracula. Though it's short and insignificant, it's worth paying attention.Jason London's presence in the movie was almost fun, he's adorable, while his character was cute. Luke isn't a coward in my eyes, he is rather cautious. He reminds me of Shaggy (Scooby Doo), but he's much more courageous then him.I was surprised by their choice of filming locations. They filmed in my country and the selected mostly old places, like the Mogosoaia Castle (when Father Uffizi was walking in a flashback with another priest and they were discussing Dracula). They filmed in the old center of Bucharest, Lipscani (some of the streets shown)... And then it's that big white mansion it was also used for the filming of "Blood and Chocolate", but I have no idea what that is.All in all, "Dracula II: Ascension" was an interesting sequel, I'm glad they had the same director for all three movies.