Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

BA_Harrison Dracula III: Legacy starts immediately where Dracula II: Ascension left off, with Dracula and his new 'bride' Elizabeth (Diane Neal) fleeing the USA, Luke (Jason London) and Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) in hot pursuit, their journey taking them to Romania for a final confrontation with the legendary vamp (now played by Rutger Hauer) in his castle lair.Filmed back-to-back with part II of the Craven/Lussier series, this chapter is naturally very similar in style and tone, a slick, contemporary blend of action, gore, and humour. Luke and Uffizi's Romanian road-trip is perhaps not as loaded with vamp action as I would have liked (they seem to have just as many problems with the local humans as they do with bloodsuckers), and its a long while before we get to see Hauer as Drac, but there is enough fun throughout to make this a satisfying end to the series.The pairing of Lee and London works particularly well, the latter ably playing comedy sidekick to Lee's bad-ass priest/vampire killer with a troubled soul, and some welcome girl-power comes in the form of Alexandra Wescourt, who plays feisty news reporter Julia Hughes. Rutger Hauer is always cool in my book (and he has previous experience at playing a vampire), but as much as I enjoyed his performance, he does look a bit too 'weathered' here to be playing Dracula (what's with the messy stubble?), especially considering that Stephen Billington and Gerard Butler played the character in the earlier films.For me, the best thing about the film is the gore, which includes a juicy 'spear in the eye' gag, a macabre display of impaled priests, a bit of face melting with holy water, Father Uffizi whipping off heads and limbs right, left and centre, and in my favourite moment—an attack by a pair of creepy circus vampires—the cutting in half of a female acrobat and the ingenious staking of a clown on stilts.6.5 out of 10 (rounded up to 7 for the cool ending, which I won't spoil by describing here).

ctomvelu-1 Dracula is back for one last bite in this second sequel to Dracula 2000. Sadly, neither this nor the first sequel comes close to the original, possibly because of the actor playing Dracula in the original. This time around, Dracula is played by Rutger Hauer, and as much as I like Hauer, this is hardly his finest hour (that would be THE HITCHER and BLADE RUNNER). Rutger was just picking up a paycheck and getting to see Romania. Jason Scott Lee is a defrocked priest hot on Drac's trail, and Lee is all pop-eyed and frizzy-haired and high energy -- and about the only reason to watch this bloody but unnecessary romp. Shooting in an old castle or whatever it was in Romania didn't do anything toward guaranteeing a quality picture. I did sort of like the very ending, but see it for yourself and decide. Jason London is woefully miscast as a secondary hero to the proceedings. You want Dracuia, watch one of the Chris Lee Hammer flicks.

gerrardwaylover-1 I've got to admit i wasn't sure if i was going to like this film because they had yet again changed the actor for Dracula. I was though pleasantly surprised not only was it a good film but Dracula was amazing.I was glad to see that they had kept most of the same cast as they all are amazingly talented actors and actresses.I was glad to see DG (I cant spell his actual name) back and as brooding as ever, he is defiantly my favourite character in the film and has been ever since i saw ascension. It Made Me Laugh and It Made Me Cry. Which to be honest is exactly what i have come to expect from these films. This film is exactly what Blade Trinity should have been instead of the crap that it has become.I highly recommend it to any fan of vampire films. It is well worth watching :).

Coventry After the events in "Ascension", Dracula returns to home sweet home Romania with the beautiful Elizabeth being one of his new bloodsucking brides. The country is torn apart by war, Dracuala's minions are everywhere and yet Father Uffizi and his comic relief sidekick Luke are determined to reach the vampire's castle and to destroy him once and for all. Uffizi has become so obsessed with his mission that he even stepped back as a priest. Patrick Lussier somewhat pleasantly surprised horror fans with his original "Dracula 2000", but why the hell did he ruin this by making two unrelated and entirely redundant sequels? "Legacy" has little to offer, apart from some nice gore and an ingenious sequence featuring circus-vampires on stilts. Admittedly, that was pretty cool to look at. The rest of the movie is an unexciting mess with bad acting performances and a severe lack of continuity. The set pieces and filming locations appear to nice, but the lousy camera-work and under-exposure makes it impossible to be sure. Throughout the whole movie, everybody is driveling about how almighty Dracula is, but when he finally makes an appearance (in the shape of B-movie veteran Rutger Hauer), he turns out to be a lame philosopher who prefers to plea instead of to kill. Yawn!