jacobjohntaylor1 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.

elderado66-1 The movie was OK. The problem I had was that it was to be a sequel to Drac 2000. Problem was...no carry over characters and most importantly totally ignored how the first one ended. The only thing that attached was a brief flash back to the first one and that is it. No continuity. I can overlook a lot but continuity between sequels and prequels drives me bonkers. I can forgive editing errors. I can even forgive when things like a mic drop in a scene but if you are going to do multiples you must must must have concept and script continuity. If you don't you might as well have them as entirely different movies. I can understand why butler wasn't in this $$$$. I would have liked to seen Johnny Lee Miller and Justine Waddell. To some it up what do I know I am just a movie junkie with all the training and no place to use it

CountVladDracula This seriously hurts the Dracula myth. Dracula is NOT Judas. The very Dracula novel will tell you that he 'must be the Dracula who fought the Turks'. That's Vlad the Impaler, born 1431 and died 1476. NOT Judas. And I find the attempt to justify Dracula's limitations to tie them to the Judas story to be flawed at best. Okay, so he was paid in silver when he betrayed Jesus so he hates silver, he hates the sun because he tried to kill himself at dust... O...kay... and he hates crosses because of Jesus being crucified (long held guilt?). So how do we explain his aversion to Garlic? They had Italian at the last supper? Also I do NOT like the idea that Jesus would condemn anyone to be a vampire. Jesus forgave Judas. And why would he come to save humanity only to unleash the world's worst vampire on the Earth. That's a Messiah who gave us Count Dracula?! Some Messiah unleashing a monster on us. Thanks a lot! The plot of this film is painfully predictable and there are far more interesting films about a vampire in medical captivity. If you want to see that sort of plot a better low budget movie would be Demon Under Glass. At least that one was intelligently done.

Aura V 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.