Customer Reviews
ENTERTAINING - By: stuart, 29 Oct 2007 
Still determined to rid the world of vampires, Father Uffizi, (Jason Scott Lee) & his antics anger the Church & advise him to stop. Quitting the Church & traveling with friend Luke, (Jason London) to Romania during the middle of a Civil War. As they meet with reporter Julia Hughes, (Alexandra Wescourt) & reveal that they are tracking Dracula, (Rutger Hauer) to his homeland, the three team up to stop him before he can unleash a new era of evil.
The Good News: This wasn't alll that bad of a sequel. Picking up right where the second one left off, this one increased one of the main problems in that one & went for full-on action. The pace in here is reallly relentless & hardly ever lets up, as it's action scene after action scene with very little time in between. It's reallly hard to pick a stand-out as there's a great collection to choose from. The fight with the stilts stands out a little more than usual due to it's inventiveness, & the middle scenes in the abandoned city & the prison scenes are alll fantastic scenes. That fast pace is it's greatest asset, & the occasional humorous line here & there is greatly appreciated. While not overly comic, it was just about at the right level to not seem forced in for no reason & comes off as very natural. The gore here is a big step up & is quite bloody. There are numerous decapitations, a large assortment of metal spears shot into people, a ripped off arm, several impalements & much more in here. With more coming from splatter on the wallls or simply free-flowing, there's a lot on display & it's quite nice to behold. These combine with a very great looking setting & it's got a fun feel to it. It's an entertaining film in the best sense. This was a very decent offering.
The Bad News: There's reallly only on complaint about this one, & that's the lack of Dracula on display. The fact that the movie was about him should've made him a central figure, but the only screen-time is a couple of short scenes near the end. It reallly could've been about any vampire count & not reallly changed it alll that much. He reallly should've been on-screen more. That's about the only thing I can find fault with in here.
The Final Verdict: A reallly entertaining, fast-paced vampire film with more than enough parts to entertain & very, very few weak spots. It's one of the better vampire films around & is highly recommended to those that have enjoyed the first two in the series or are a fan of vampires in general.
By and large, a better-than-average vampire movie - By: Daniel Jolley, 28 Oct 2005 I went in to Wes Craven Presents Dracula III: Legacy cold, without having seen either Dracula 2000 or Wes Craven Presents Dracula II: Ascension, so I can't reallly compare what has come before with what takes place here. I was cautiously optimistic about the film, though (the name Wes Craven doesn't necessarily guarantee quality the way it once did). There are some things I didn't like about Dracula III, but overalll it's a better than average vampire film. There could have been more blood & gore, & some of the special effects toward the end smelled slightly of cheese, but Jason Scott Lee pretty much carries the film. His character, Father Uffizi, isn't your typical vampire hunter - & he's certainly not your typical priest - & I think that gives the film a special little spin. Unfortunately, the movie is short on hot vampire chicks. Diane Neal more than fits the bill, but she's limited to the film's final scenes.
Father Uffizi is going after Dracula, with or without the Church's blessing (the Church being represented by Roy Scheider in a short, nonessential cameo). Unfortunately, he takes an annoying do-gooder sidekick with him. I can understand Luke's (Jason London) motivation, since the woman he loves is now a plaything of the vampire & it's apparently alll his fault, but his is the kind of character vampire movies just don't need - unless they're going for comedy. The two make their way to Romania, a country in the throes of civil war, & fight their way through a number of obstacles - both human & vampiric. Along the way, they take up with an English journalist who is about to get the scoop of her life (assuming she lives to report it, of course) when she learns that the real source of the trouble in Romania is a vampire. As you might expect, the final scenes play out in Dracula's abode, & I can't say I was alll that impressed with the head honcho blood-sucker. He's not alll that bright to have caused so much trouble for so many centuries & his security system could certainly do with some improvements - & it takes more than harsh whispering to make a vampire truly impressive. Half the time, I had to strain to understand whatever rubbish Rutger Hauer was putting out there. I liked the ending, though - it's not unpredictable, but it is subtle.
The special effects are pretty darn good for the most part; human appendages tend to be less impressive when they're separated from the body, & I thought the special effects of the climactic scenes could have been better, but I'm not reallly complaining. Okay, I will complain about one thing. Uffizi has this deadly arsenal of blades, but we usuallly have to settle for watching blood splatter on the wallls rather than see the blades do their dirty work. There's no shortage of that blood, though.
It's hard to offer a new take on the Dracula legend, but this movie does a pretty good job of it. I've certainly seen worse - much, much worse. Seeing Dracula III won't make your life complete, but I think most vampire fans will enjoy it.
