ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






(Review originally written at 10 April 2010)

This is not a great movie by any means but it still is certainly a good and entertaining watch. No matter how weak and silly the movie seems at times, you'll still enjoy watching it.

This is pretty much a direct sequel to "Dracula II: Ascension", even though its being set at different locations and follows a different story. It still focuses on the same characters and is connected to the events of the second movie. But oh well, you don't necessarily need to see "Dracula II: Ascension", in order to understand this movie.

Like must cheap straight-to-video horror flicks made these days, it got shot in Romania. However when your movie is about Dracula this is of course also not an unlikely place to set your movie in. For more than halve of the movie it still doesn't look like it's going to be a Dracula movie though, since the character gets introduced quite late into the story, as if they could not afford to have Rutger Hauer on the set for more than a week or so.

But let me tell you that Rutger Hauer still really leaves a lasting impression with his role. I was quite surprised at how great he was. The two other big names of the movie are Jason Scott Lee and Roy Scheider, though none of them were of course quite the best or biggest names the movie industry had to offer.

The story is of course nothing to special but it's all being still quite good and I liked its approach. All the movies out of the series always have been a modern take on the Dracula legacy and it's perhaps in this movie that this approach works out the best and most refreshing.

It's still a quite weakly directed, cheap looking B-horror flick, with some not to impressive actors but it's a good and entertaining little guilty pleasure to watch.

6/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top