Blood for Dracula (1974)

Captivating movie !

Boring

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.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

"Blood for Dracula" clearly has its fans, hence its relatively high IMDb rating (for a horror movie) and the many positive comments describing it as a clever satire.Alas, I would consider it a poor satire -- and a smug Z-movie that's more concerned with being "subversive" and "shocking" than telling a decent story with good characters. Some reviewers claim it's a masterpiece of camp, but somehow I don't see it as camp. Adam West's Batman is camp, while this thing is far more...what's the word? Blargh, that's it. Not camp, but blargh.Not that "Blood for Dracula" doesn't have a few good points. The location filming (I presume actually in Italy) is gorgeous, and once in a while, the script serves up a clever line or a glimmer of proper characterization. But none of the good parts last. About 90% of the film's running time consists of repetitive nude scenes, boring exposition, casual sexism, and Dracula writhing while coughing up blood. Suddenly, "Dracula AD 1972" doesn't look so bad!Bizarrely, two great directors appear in cameo roles: Roman Polanski as a local rube who sasses Dracula's incredibly annoying servant (a very enjoyable moment), and Vittorio De Sica as a hammy patriarch with florid speech patterns. It says something awful about the movie that these two cinema giants, chiefly known for their skills behind the camera, are in fact the best actors in the whole thing! Try not to compare their relative naturalism to Arno Juerging and Maxime de la Falaise, who have much bigger roles but can't act their way out of a wet paper bag.As for Udo Kier as Dracula -- gosh, what can I say. He looks pale and depressed the whole time, as he frets and longs for a taste of "wurgin" (as in, virgin) blood. And his dialogue consists of very non-Dracula observations, such as "it's very important for a girl to study homemaking." Or something like that. Move over, Bram Stoker, your brilliant undead aristocrat had been replaced by a pallid wimp who loses a fight to a communist farmhand. (If only I could purge that image from my memory!)Of course, the film's fans will tell you that its awfulness is all deliberate. Like Andy Warhol stacking his soup cans, the people who made this travesty were playing a brilliant joke on us all, and we're just too dumb to figure it out! Silly us, expecting things like a compelling plot and decent acting. We're all so bourgeois and unimaginative, we just don't deserve a great movie like this.Okay, rant over. To be honest, I didn't totally hate this thing, I was just...reduced to a state of shock and wonderment by it all. Could such a movie actually exist? And could people actually consider it good? Well, well. What a wide and weird and wonderful world we live in. But you'll forgive me if I prefer Horror of Dracula -- it's due entirely to my middle-class lack of bad taste!

Blood For Dracula is a gorgeous looking piece of cinema that succeeds even though it has some real weaknessesThe story tells of Count Dracula coming to Italy to look for a virgin bride in an aristocratic family with four daughters. Sadly (for him), the first two daughters offered to him have already lost their virginity to the randy gardener. This much is predictable, but what awaits the remaining two girls makes for an interesting conclusion to the story.The movie looks stunning. Whatever faults it has, the cinematography is not one of them. Beautifully shot on location in an ornate villa, every shot drips with elegance. The whole thing looks consistently lavish. It even has a delicate and wonderfully nuanced musical score. Not overly gory (a million miles from it's partner "Flesh For Frankenstien"), only a couple of pretty realistic blood-vomiting scenes and an over- the-top axe chopping conclusion would give the squeamish any trouble.What lets things down here is the acting. All the cast look great, Udo Kier is effective as the ailing count, and Arno Juerging is hilarious as the manservant, but the rest of the performances are terrible. The four daughters are certainly beautiful but the way they read their lines is appallingly stilted and often very difficult to understand. And Joe Dallessandro provides his usual wooden performance, although he does contribute to the frequent and lengthy sex scenes. There is a LOT of (female) nudity in the movie, and even today it still seems quite excessive. Apart from the excellent photography, the film shows little originality, but I particularly liked the budding friendship of Dracula and the prudish, oldest sister, who never gets offered as a romantic option, but is actually the best match for the eccentric count. There are tender moments between the two that were quite touching.The movie is still worth watching. "Flesh For Frankenstein" has become the more notorious of the two, but Dracula still has it's moments.

I'm not really a fan of Warhol. When seeing him portrayed by a few other actors, he's one out there cat. Like Flesh For Frankenstein, which I hold in better regard to this, these flicks are way better than a lot of his other stuff, I imagine, as seeing Heat and Trash, and being less than happy, let me tell you, the one which especially, which involved daddy feeding his infant milk, over silence. This is where Warhol's talents really lie, with these flicks, though really there's nothing exceptional about this one, that takes it's time before the real gore comes flowing, outweighed by sex scenes and nudity, a lot of lesbianism. The count Dracula (Udo Kier who I love in these roles) desperately needs blood, from that of a virgin, so he travels to this castle in France, masquerading as someone else, with his chauffeur as you will, the same guy who co starred with Kier in FFF. Striking out with two girls, non virgins, he goes after the last who hasn't been deflowered and she's only 14 (and the rest) where it becomes a race against time. Joe Dallesandro as the handyman, got really annoying, with his dialogue, all delivered in angry tones, had me thinking, what makes this frickin' guy tick. In one way, the real gore came all too late, this one, kind of boring and testing in bits, where they threw in the sex to hold us over. Don't expect another Flesh And Frankenstein here, in a Dracula that really doesn't impress, where we really don't see nothing new. Only if you like lesbianism and nudity, that's fine.

"Blood For Dracula" (aka. "Dracula Cerca Sangue Di Vergine... E Morì Di Sete!!!") of 1974 is, after "Flesh For Frankenstein" (1973) the second bizarre take on a classic Horror tale by the team Paul Morrisey (director), Udo Kier and Joe Dallessandro (stars) and famed artist Andy Warhol (co-producer and prominent name). While this film is, in my opinion, not quite as great as the insanely brilliant "Flesh for Frankenstein" it is yet another beautifully bizarre, atmospheric, amusing and highly unusual vision of a Horror classic."Blood for Dracula" introduces the most pathetic version of fiction's most famous vampire. The great Udo Kier plays a sickly, sniveling Count Dracula, who thirsts only for the blood of virgins, as any other blood makes him fatally ill. Aided by his servant (Arno Juerging, who also played Frankenstein's demented assistant in "Flesh for Frankenstein"), Dracula goes to Italy, where people are supposed to be religious and unmarried women are supposed to be virgins. Claiming to be looking for a bride, the Count approaches the aristocratic Countess Di Fiore, who has four beautiful teenage daughters - unmarried daughters which are supposed to be virgins. However, virginity does not last long when the super-potent handyman (Joe Dallessandro) is around... As its predecessor "Flesh For Frankenstein", "Blood For Dracula" has a delightfully absurd storyline, which is very well brought to screen. Udo Kier is once again great in the villainous role, the sickliest vampire ever seen in cinema, as is Arno Juerging as his exaggeratedly weird assistant. Joe Dallessandro once again plays the hero who has sex with every female that crosses his path. The daughters are very beautiful (except for one), the youngest being played by the ravishing Silvia Dionisio (who plays a 14-year-old although she clearly is in her 20s). As "Flesh for Frankenstein", the film is beautifully shot and director Paul Morrisey delivers a great visual style and thick atmosphere. As its predecessor, the film is sleazy and quite gory (though not nearly as outrageously gory as "Flesh for Frankenstein". The film's greatest quality is its outrageously funny and very dark sense of black humor. Overall, this is another great film by the Morrisey/Kier team, though "Flesh for Frankenstein" is even more essential in my opinion. My rating of "Blood For Dracula": 9/10