Watch Dracula III: Legacy For Free

You won't be disappointed!

Lack of good storyline.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This is not a great movie by any means but it still is certainly a good and entertaining watch. No matter how weak and silly the movie seems at times, you'll still enjoy watching it.This is pretty much a direct sequel to "Dracula II: Ascension", even though its being set at different locations and follows a different story. It still focuses on the same characters and is connected to the events of the second movie. But oh well, you don't necessarily need to see "Dracula II: Ascension", in order to understand this movie.Like must cheap straight-to-video horror flicks made these days, it got shot in Romania. However when your movie is about Dracula this is of course also not an unlikely place to set your movie in. For more than halve of the movie it still doesn't look like it's going to be a Dracula movie though, since the character gets introduced quite late into the story, as if they could not afford to have Rutger Hauer on the set for more than a week or so.But let me tell you that Rutger Hauer still really leaves a lasting impression with his role. I was quite surprised at how great he was. The two other big names of the movie are Jason Scott Lee and Roy Scheider, though none of them were of course quite the best or biggest names the movie industry had to offer.The story is of course nothing to special but it's all being still quite good and I liked its approach. All the movies out of the series always have been a modern take on the Dracula legacy and it's perhaps in this movie that this approach works out the best and most refreshing.It's still a quite weakly directed, cheap looking B-horror flick, with some not to impressive actors but it's a good and entertaining little guilty pleasure to watch.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

this sequel to Dracula II:Ascension,which is sort of a sequel to Dracula 2000,has much more story than either of the other tow.almost too much,in fact.it moves at a pretty slow pace,then,just when you think you can bear no more,something interesting happens to keep you watching.Two of the main characters from Dracula II are more fleshed out,and there is a wee bit of humour to lighten things up on one or two rare occasions.near the end,when i thought it was over,i was thinking how anti climatic it all was.but i realized it wasn't quite over,and the actual ending is brilliant.it begs for a sequel,which is not likely to happen.and yet,it's also a perfect conclusion.the ending(well,that and Rutger Hauer as Dracula--a stroke of genius)is what elevated the move for me.otherwise,i would have given this 2 or 3 stars less.as it stands,i give Dracula III:Legacy a 6/10

Dracula III: Legacy starts as part Vampire, part man all Vampire hunter Father Uffizi (Jason Scott Lee) & his new sidekick Luke (Jason London) manage to learn that Dracula (Rutger Hauer) has returned to his homeland of Romania, Father Uffizi wants to destroy him once & for all while Luke wants to rescue Elizabeth (Diane Neal). They arrive in Romania & quickly discover that Dracula is using rebels to collect victims for him & his Vampires & using the civil war as a cover, it's up to Father Uffizi & Luke to stop him once & for all...Co-written & directed by Patrick Lussier this is the straight-to-DVD sequel of Dracula 2000 (2000) & Dracula II: Ascension (2003) which this was shot back-to-back with. For some reason the title character of Dracula is played by different actors in all three films, Gerard Butler in the first, Stephen Billington in the second & Rutger Hauer here in the third without any real explanation given for it. Anyway the script by Lussier & Joel Soisson brings the Vampire legend bang up to date & places Dracula in a modern war torn Romania using the chaos caused by fighting rebels & the like as cover for his Vampiric activities which is a novel idea I suppose but one which not much is made of. The film moves along at a decent pace, there's a few good set-pieces & the like but I never felt particularly emotionally involved with anything or anyone, I was just sat there waiting for the next Vampire to show up rather than being enthralled by the story. Dracula III: Legacy is a reasonable film, it passes the time harmlessly enough but I just felt it was a little bit too 'middle of the road' as it were & ultimately a bit forgettable.Director Lussier does a decent job, there's some nice camera angles & well lit scenes but apart from the occasion sporadic piece of stylish film-making it's pretty routine. The gore levels are a little low, there's some melted faces, some dead mutilated bodies, arms & head whipped off & a few largely bloodless staking, some priests impaled on huge stakes & little else. There's a bit of nudity as well but not enough to get excited about. Dracula III: Legacy (Legacy by the way is a word the makers have seemingly plucked out of the air at random because it 'sounded' cool) is maybe the one & only time in cinematic history that someone is attacked by a Vampire walking on stilts! I wouldn't say it's overly scary or exciting but it does have a bit of mood to it.With a supposed budget of about $3,200,000 this was shot at the same time as Dracula II: Ascension in 2002 but remained unreleased until 2005. Actually shot on location in Bucharest in Romania this looks nice enough with decent production values. The acting is alright but no-one is going to win any awards, Roy Scheider turns up in a (very) small role.Dracula III: Legacy is a perfectly entertaining way to pass 90 odd minutes without ever really getting one worked up too much, I liked it but didn't love it & doubt I would ever want to see it again & I will probably have forgotten all about it by the end of the week.

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