So Uffizi is evil now? Is that right?
If so, what made him evil... because he took of Dracula's blood, or simply because he killed Dracula and took the mantle?
Also, since he was sitting on the throne at the end, I assume he's not leaving with Luke?
Thanks for any insight.
Probably all the subject of a possible someday sequel.
It is left open what Uffizi will do. But his life came to a turning point. His ties to the Church were strained and finally broken, he lost his trust and faith in it. He wanted to end Drac's reign, and all the suffering he liked to inflict. It was his life's mission, plus he was loosing the fight with his "illness". And he had met someone who touched him deeply. But he reached his limit, being shot and thrown down. To finally face Drac, to beat him, and save the girl, he needed to embrace what he feared becoming. In doing so he finally defeated Drac.
But he also opened himself to the temptations that come and took the mantle (What comes from knocking off the King of the Mountain). But what comes next? I woud like to imagine that he sees himself as better than Drac. Someone who can do the right things, and good things. But perhaps the opinion of the storyline is that all vamps are corrupt through and through. Still perhaps Uffizi will delude himself, or perhaps just be different (a new generation of vamp?). And what of Luke that, I imagine would be part of the plot. Does he go to war with Uffizi, does he try to keep him good (be a conscience for him), or flee him and play fugitive before allying with a new holy vamp hunter?
Lotta choices.
Wow, excellent explanation. Thanks.
I think I would hate to see another sequel, if that means Uffizi would be the villain (or even semi-villain). It's been a great b-movie series--really great. I guess that is an excellent ending point, should they decide to do so.
remember...there was a scene where the old preist said that dracula has tained Uffizi and remember now that dracula has many faces and other stuff like that. so im thinking that when the sun shined on draculas eyes it went from purple to green and then if u look carefully Uffizi's turned purple making Uffizi now Dracula. Uffizi was himself till at the end where he bite Julia to let her stay alive.
share[deleted]
Uffizi is not evil. Yet he isn't good (and perhaps he never was). He is now true only to himself. He has surrendered all he ever believed in to achieve his goal. His final look, that unflinching stare, is into the future. He's waiting for it to make the first move. But look closely at the expression on Julia's face. She's the one to watch out for. The potential Lady MacBeth. Her love for Uffizi will be fierce and unflinching. Yet his immortality, even if it's filled with noble intentions, will be tainted by his inherent ruthless nature, now amplified by his vampiric state. What happens next?
Luke is picked up by the remaining hunters under the Cardinal's dwindling sect. With Luke, they will track down Uffizi, hoping to destroy him. And while Uffizi may resist killing his old comrades, Julia will not. The future will continue to twist and unravel around Uffizi and the legacy that Dracula left him.
[deleted]
Well there is a line, albeit a thick one. Clearly there are traits that could be considered 'evil' and ones that are 'good'. Compassion, kindness, mercy etc. What gets irritating is when they portray all vampires as totally 'evil'. You'd imagine the person inside survives and makes it much more interesting if Father Uffizi has a conflict within himself. He of course will have primal urgers and may succumb to them but then being a man of 'God', does this somehow fit into his plan?
If impersonating a Police Officer is an offence, shouldn't actors be imprisoned?
Well look at Mary from Dracula 2000, she wasnt really evil right?
share[deleted]