Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Yvonne Jodi Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

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

disdressed12 this is a sequel to Dracula 2000,but not completely.it's still about Dracula,but it begins shortly after the first one ended.the thing is,***spoiler ahead*** it ignores the ending of 2000.if you paid attention to the very end of that film,you'll realize that the events in this one couldn't happen the way they do.end of spoiler***oh,well,that's life.it still has the same biblical bent to it.but this one lacks many of the things 2000 had.gone is Gerard Butler as the title character,a fairly big loss,in my opinion.this Dracula(the character)is not as compelling,nor did i feel he was seductive or charming.gone is also the visual style of 2000.there's also no macabre humour here.nor is there much action.what is added is some overacting by many of the cast involved.While i don't have anything against Jason Scott Lee,i feel he was trying way too hard to make the character serious.***minor spoiler***oh,and if you're expecting to see Roy Schieder(he is billed as being one of the stars of the movie)then you better not blink,or you'll miss him.overall,this entry is not as fun as Dracula 2000,but i still thought it was OK.For me,Dracula II:Ascension is a 6.6/10

susheelkumarbajpai Well,from the first scene it becomes clear that it is pretty interesting movie with high flying scenes. also the sequence involving Brande Roderick was breathtaking. Brende has amazingly well in this flick.ALso the Priest was very good.The researcher looked cool at all times. Dracula seemed to be judicious in eating the face of man who wanted immortality from him. The post-Morten scene was chilling as well. The end was as expected. all in all a brilliant performance by Brende Roderick & a treat for her fans. The background music was excellent. The script was tight &the plot was spellbinding.