DRACULA II: ASCENSION

New Orleans. A charred body, found hanging from a cross, is transported to the morgue. The two young doctors on the night shift who receive the corpse soon discover that it is the body of a vampire and decide to hide it with the intention of studying it, to find a phantom serum of immortality. Soon, the two young people are contacted by a mysterious individual who, in exchange for the corpse, offers them a considerable sum of money, but the young people decide to warn their friends from the medical school, as well as one of their professors, to conduct private research. Gathered in an old villa, the group attempts to bring the vampire back to life; but meanwhile, a mysterious and ambiguous man of the church sets out after them. Produced solely for the home video market, "Dracula 2" is the sequel to the rather uninspiring "Dracula's Legacy", a vampiric action film produced by Wes Craven in 2000. One thing must be made clear: "Dracula 2 – Ascension" is the first part of a diptych that finds its conclusion in "Dracula 3 – Legacy", but the latter has not yet been released in our country! Therefore, venturing into watching "Dracula 2" without having the possibility of witnessing, in the immediate future, its conclusion, is an action that has the consequence of an inevitable sensation of "bitterness in the mouth". However, this sense of dissatisfaction goes beyond the real incompleteness of the work (it is quite certain that Buena Vista Italia will soon distribute the third chapter), because it also involves the quality of the work itself. The director is the same as that of "Dracula's Legacy", Patrick Lussier (trusted editor of the work's financier, Craven), who does not do too badly behind the camera, also thanks to the support of an elegant, at times gothic, photography that places great importance on antithesis color schemes: from the cold blue/gray tones alternated with the bright red of other situations. However, the cast is composed of a group of rather mediocre actors, starting with Jason Scoot Lee ("Mowgli – The Jungle Book"; "Talos – The Shadow of the Pharaoh"), an actor whose expressiveness is comparable to that of an onion, in the unlikely roles of Father Uffizi (?). All the characters lack any psychological characterization, they are simple caricatures in the service of an anemic story that does not do justice to the famous and appreciated character who gives the title to the film. Rather irritating is the fact that Dracula does practically nothing throughout the duration of the film, remaining chained to a post in the center of an empty pool, while the "doctors" are busy elaborating medical/folkloric hypotheses about his nature. It is only for a few minutes at the end of the film that the lord of all vampires will be free to let loose, but too little for over 90 minutes of footage. It is needless to add that the actor who plays Dracula in this sequel is particularly unsuitable for the role and it is not Gerard Butler (the actor who played him in the first film), surely more credible in the role of a vampire, but an athletic bleached guy really unlikely in that role; moreover, the replacement was motivated by the screenwriters with a ridiculous explanation (which makes us intuit that in the third film there will be a different actor again in the role of the vampire). Naturally, the strong point of the previous film, that is, the historical/religious hypothesis on the genesis of Dracula, here is now a well-known story, although the screenwriters insist on proposing it with so much emphasis as if it were a novelty. In conclusion, "Dracula 2" is a useless and boring vampiric pastiche that does not stimulate the curiosity to venture into a third and final chapter at all. Not recommended even for the most ardent fans of the famous bloodsucker Dracula.