Dracula leads vampire hunters Father Uffizi and Luke back to Eastern Europe, and a country plagued by civil war.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Very disappointing...
Strong and Moving!
It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.
Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.
Jason Scott Lee is back as the weapon's master Father Uffizi in hopes to put a final end to the vampires once and for all. The third installment of the Dracula 200 series, Dracula III: Legacy, is not as good as Dracula II: Ascension (which I liked the best of the series) but much better than other horror films I have seen in my time.This movie is not bad if you catch it one late night or on a boring afternoon. It has it's moments of action and thrills - mainly from Jason Scott Lee - but the story is lagging a bit in my opinion. I would not watch this movie with expectations of it being a bad or a good film... instead watch it with no expectations and you may be surprised. 5/10
Naturally, Dracula III picks up from the cliffhanger ending of Dracula II with a mercifully brief montage covering the ending of the previous film. From there, Legacy fast forwards several years in the future where Luke and Father Uffizi attempt to track down Dracula, himself, by "interrogating" vampires.Jason Scott Lee and Jason London return in the lead roles to track down the infamous count across the Romanian country side in a buddy-cop meets Heart of Darkness sort of way. Of course, I applaud the film's wisdom in choosing a more patient path over a 90 minute confrontation with Drac; however, at the same time I'm not entirely sure that Patrick Lussier and Joel Soisson chose the best route (especially since it might draw comparisons to a certain Coppola film.) The journey these characters take never piqued my interest very much, probably because the previous film lead up to a false climax with Dracula only to have him vanquish the heroes for now and escape. Now, in Legacy, the characters essentially restart their journey from square one, getting to Dracula to confront him once again (whoa, déjà vu -- am I playing CastleVania?). Even though Lussier took two totally different routes with the two films, I can't help but feel like I waited in line for 20 minutes only to have to go stand in another line. I've been here. I've done this. I'm through with lines! I want to check out already.Another harmful factor lay in the clunky character development. Dracula, himself, is not only played by different actors in each film, but he also inexplicably takes on a completely new personality (not to mention new history) with each incarnation. The changeup comes so abruptly that it's jarring and distracting. It robs Rutger Hauer's performance of a being bored with his own existence but too proud to die. Perhaps my observation is unfair, but then again the movie does proudly wear the title "Dracula III" as in the sequel to "Dracula II" as in the second sequel to "Dracula 2000." Is it too much to ask for reasonable consistency from film to film? Luke and Uffizi, by contrast, both evolve consistently across two films, but the progression felt more like clumps of revelations falling out of the back of the plot's truck. Consistent, but clunky. People change, and people can change rather quickly. However, the torment of Uffizi's soul that Dracula II only hinted at comes front and center in Dracula III, once again jarring the viewer with its abruptness. One minute he's got it together, the next he's selling his soul.Despite that complaint, I still found Luke's evolution juxtaposed to Uffizi's evolution very intriguing. I especially loved the film's finale when the mentor, Uffizi, ultimately succumbs to the darkness within, brilliantly intercut with Luke who simultaneously gains the strength to do what must be done. I smiled with satisfaction that the filmmakers had it in them to end on a depressing, but fascinating ending. However, the smile turned to a frown and satisfaction turned to dismay as the film refused to leave a good thing alone. It proceeded to hammer home the obvious with an unnecessary image of Uffizi upon Dracula's thrown, holding his undead vampiric bride. And to further spell out the obvious, it superimposes the words, "The king is dead; long live the king" over Jason Scott Lee's eyes.Like the other films in Lussier's Dracula Trilogy, Legacy has a number of positive (dare I say "great") elements and ideas that suffer due to overdose or outright mishandling. Legacy, like its predecessors, would stand as a better film with a little restraint. The exploited clichés, the overused gimmicks, the binging on good ideas (the "you are forgiven" battle) to point the viewer wishes to purge ultimately brought down a series that clearly had potential to rise far above direct-to-video expectations.
I'm sure this was supposed to be a horror movie, or something like that? But no..it's not a horror movie about vampires...in fact, if you see this movie, you'll probably laugh the entire time, due to bad acting, and really really bad jokes, even Blade can do better cliché jokes. I think the gore parts are the only thing good about this movie, but I guess the director wasn't planning to make a gore movie. But heck, I really don't know what the director was trying to do..and I'm sure he was completely high when he hired those actors, specially Rutge Hauer, for the bloodsucking, Count Dracula. A old hag like that shouldn't have teeth at all. And please...the whole movie is a big cliché, nothing different, even the gore parts are hideous. The only reason I saw the entire movie, was because I wanted to make sure the film was bad until the end. And you better believe it was. Even the fight between the Chinese American priest vampire hero and Dracula, was awful. It looked like a handy cap match.. I'll be sure to lock the memories of this movie, in some dark corner of my brain. Warning: If you really like vampire movies, this one will go to the bottom of your list.
I'm amazed , one of the worst movies ever. Rutger plays like he drink-ed to much in the night clubs of Bucharest , the main actor is just another Blade , a vampire who is also a day walker. But Romania in a civil war , with rebels , with desert and , let's take the hypothetical scenario and believe it. Rebeles with crossbows armed ? I understand that the filming is more cheap in Ro but to play this bad and to mock the history and present of a country in a lousy movie? I wonder how much this film costed. The original things and new in it , were the vampire turned from a circus , a new weapon for the vampire slayer also combined with a bad whip. For those who know i must say one thing. Don't watch .. this ain't worth s**t .