Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

NateWatchesCoolMovies Dimension films made a few Dracula sequels following their solid 2000 effort starring Gerard Butler, most of which are meh. Dracula III: Legacy, however, has the ace-in-the-hole asset of having legendary cult thespian Rutger Hauer in the titular vampire role, and that alone makes it noteworthy. Even though the guy doesn't even show up until the third act, and isn't around for long, he's magnetic as the dark prince of bloodsuckers and not to be missed when rallying up the lengthy list of actors who have played the role. The film itself is grade A-cheese and hardly ever feels like a Dracula story, as well as being fairly incomprehensible in relation to the other handful of films in the franchise. I've got a weakness for Dimension horror films though, and they're particularly slick brand of schlock. Jason London, who we all wistfully remember as Randall Pink Floyd in Richard Linklater's Dazed & Confused, is some random vampire hunter, off trekking into the Eastern European alps with martial arts actor Jason Scott Lee to find the Vamp of all Vamps. They do find him, in the form of Hauer's entertaining fiend skulking around a derelict castle and... that's pretty much it. For Hauer fans, load up Final Cut Pro and edit a breezy short film with just his wicked good scenes. For fans of B Movie silliness, have a few beers first. Everyone else, keep on browsing the blockbuster shelf. Oh yeah, and Roy Scheider is in it too, and I've completely forgotten who he plays.

koditzadispater I am a Romanian guy (although I do not live in Transilvania or near Bran :)) and I live in Bucharest. Even if living in my country is not like living in Germany or UK or USA, we are not beggars... this movie is nothing but bad taste: bad directing (if you look close you will see the same old car filmed twice - for example), bad script and above all... bad acting. I do not even know what is the most disgusting thing: the offense brought to Romania and to its people or the stupidity of the story. Of course, they go hand in hand, but what can we expect from this kind of movie/actors/stuff. And for who wonders: I found the movie on a friend's DVD containing other important stuff and only curiosity led me to the end of this movie. As I said, a strong 1, because I can not note it bellow...

jaywolfenstien 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.

klercker I've just sat through all three movies and I have to say that the Dracula 2000-series' best before date was... well the year 2000.I chose to comment on the last movie since it's the one not deserving the rating it has here. My guess is it will go down quite a bit as more people actually have seen it.The first movie, although it did contain some really bad and ridiculous elements, still was pretty entertaining imo. The second movie was... decent at least. This was well below the line of what is acceptable. The story was rather dull and pointless and also full of clichés - bad one's that is.Furthermore, the movie never scared me. Well, there was one point where I wasn't prepared, but that was it. Isn't this still supposed to be a horror movie? I guess they tried to make sort of a surreal feel to the movie with the amusement park vampires and the setting in the ending with the blood hoses and that "orgie", but it all came out rather cheesy and silly to me - not frightening as intended.Also, the whole background story about a civil war (or whatever) in Romania and the resistance movement was totally ridiculous! And unnecessary. A simple straightforward we're-going-to-Dracula's-castle-to-finish-him-off-once-and-for-all approach would have sufficed actually. The focus of the movie was flawed in other words.... and who casted Rutger Hauer as Dracula??? Oh my god... And how did Dracula suddenly get so old after a couple of years? Compared to the second movie that is. The should have kept the same guy throughout the series instead.3/10