Dracula III: Legacy
Dracula III: Legacy, the third installment coming Wes Craven's Dracula 2000, went directly to video -- for a reason. It was poo-poo. It was shot back-to-back with Dracula II: Ascension -- or shot as one movie that was split -- and maybe I should have seen the second movie before seeing the third, but I doubt that would have helped very much. The storyline was passable -- it's a vampire story -- as long as you have the right elements, you can't go wrong. The movie couldn't decide if it wanted to be tongue-in-cheek or serious. It tried to be both. Which didn't work for me. You're either one or the other, not both. It confuses the viewer. I'm sure I laughed and cringed in the wrong parts. It was a bit embarrassing watching the actors trying to deliver their lines -- especially Rutger Hauer, who played Dracula. (I personally think Hauer has been dealt a bad hand by Hollywood -- he's a very capable actor -- he just doesn't get the good roles.) The action, the effects and the cinematography were OK. Nothing special, which is in keeping with the straight to video destination of this film.
Wes Craven kept his hands quite clean from this movie -- and still there were too many cooks already in the kitchen for the movie. This should tell you what kind of movie this is, and when you should be watching it: Friday night, when you practicing at being an insomniac.
Wes Craven kept his hands quite clean from this movie -- and still there were too many cooks already in the kitchen for the movie. This should tell you what kind of movie this is, and when you should be watching it: Friday night, when you practicing at being an insomniac.
Comments
Post a Comment