Dracula Sucks

Having seen the full, 95 minute version of "Dracula Sucks," I was impressed by the professional job they did here. Yes it is a sex film, but you will be surprised to see just how faithful this flick is to Bram Stoker's book. And while there is some comic elements to be found, it doesn't go overboard in that department. Of course the best thing about the film is Jamie Gillis and his very good portrayal of the Count. With his black hair and chalk white skin and piercing eyes, Gillis was the perfect choice to play the part. And there is no doubt that this hardcore film performer had genuine acting skills. He could have easily crossed over into mainstream film. John Holmes turns up in a minor role as a doctor who is changed into a bloodsucker after being bitten on the penis by a female vampire. That probably had something to do with the fact that Holmes' penis is larger than some people's necks. In this sexualized retelling (of an already very sexually erotic tale), the Count must mix his semen with the blood of his victim in order to change them into the living dead. Apparently urine works too, as Dracula is shown urinating on one victim, depending on which version you see. Jamie Gillis was known to be an adventurous performer and no strange fetish was off the table for him. Basically following the Bram Stoker tale from start to finish, this one is on par with some of the Hammer productions of Dracula filmed throughout the 70's. This is a very entertaining movie for adult audiences with a sense of humor, and who have higher standards than what most Adult films offer. Of the genre, "Dracula Sucks" is among the best..

Excellent spoof of Dracula/1931. Jamie Gillis is great as Dracula and there is a non-credited actor in the role of Prof. Abraham Van Helsing who is a dead ringer for Edward Van Sloan in the original.

Serena, as Lucy Weston and Annette Haven, as the virginal lead are perfect. I think this was shot on location at Scottie's Castle, in Death Valley.

A very entertaining spoof of Tod Browning's Dracula. I'd recommend this low budget porn film over Paul Morrissey's version. Jamie Gillis does an excellent portrayal of Dracula, giving superb homage to Bela Lugosi, "Children of the night, what music they make". Richard Bulik has Renfield's insane laugh down, "My cries at night, they might disturb Miss Mina." Even the fake flapping bat on a string is perfect. Reggie Nalder plays an excellent Dr. Van Helsing, and the music score, largely classical, is well chosen. Periodically an intercom interjects with odd comments, "Dr. Silver report to room 22 for a lobotomy".

Apparently a few scenes involving urination have been cut, but be prepared for incest scenes between John Leslie and 'sister' Kay Parker, as well as a necrophilia scene with Mike Ranger and the 'undead' Serena. These are all played tongue in cheek, and work well within the context of the film. Seka has a brief, but luminous, appearance. John Holmes, whose acting is limited to his impressive endowment, has two scenes. Annette Haven is lovely as always, Serena is superbly sexy, and John Leslie is the suave lead. Apparently filmed at Scotties Castle in Death Valley. Highly recommended.

Lust at First Bite (1978)

Dracula Sucks (1980)

** (out of 4)

Dracula (Jamie Gillis) tries to find fresh bait at a sanitarium while Dr. Van Helsing (Reggie Nalder) tries to find and destroy him.

This porno spoof of Tod Browning's Dracula was originally made in a 108-minute version but apparently none or at the most a couple theaters got this version. The XXX version was edited down to 82-minutes and released as LUST AT FIRST BITE while a softcore/horror version was released a couple years later as Dracula SUCKS and clocking in at 86-minutes. Which of these two versions you choose to watch will be up to your taste in terms of wanting to see hardcore sex or something closer to Bram Stoker's novel done in a more serious tone.

Both versions are clearly the same movie but whereas in the hardcore version we'll get sex in the softcore instead of that we'll cut to scenes of violence. This often means that Dracula attacks his female victims and quite often just bites their breasts. It's funny because in the hardcore version he's usually doing something else to the breasts if you know what I mean. I think both versions contain some good things but most of the credit has to go to Gillis who is actually pretty good spoofing Bela Lugosi. I thought the actor looked quite natural in the role of Dracula but he's also clearly viewed the Lugosi version because of the speech pattern. I was really surprised to see how well the line delivery was and this is especially true for the "Children of the Night" speech. The supporting players are also pretty good in their roles with Richard Bulik doing a memorable turn as Renfield. The horror version features quite a few scenes that you're not going to see in the hardcore one. For starters, the before mentioned scenes of the breasts either bleeding or squirting blood. It appears that these scenes were shot after the original movie because quite often they feature a jump cut to where we get a quick view of the blood and then it's back to the normal scene. There are also a few other horror elements in this version including Dracula's red glowing eyes and another sequence where he "sees" people in a burning red flame. The hardcore version features a few added scenes with John Holmes that I didn't spot in the softcore version.

The film even has the guts to credit Stoker at the start of the film. Both versions feature some humor thrown in but most of the time it's just wacky dialogue featuring a lot of cussing. It sounds as if this too was added to the film after the production. Even in their shorter running times both versions seem to run way too long at both become rather tiresome as they move along. With that said, I think both versions are still pretty fascinating especially to those who would like to compare them. Who knows how the original version would have ran but I'm going to guess that it was cut down for good reasons.

Much confusion surrounds this title, not helped by the fact that seemingly there are at least three distinct versions. Others have tried to clarify this so i shall just make my comments on Lust at First Sight. This is not the horror version so although atmospheric and with some gore and much talk of bats, vampires and things that go bump in the night, this is there version where we can appreciate more of Annette Haven than her acting ability. Actually her performance and most of the others is admirable but the most amazing thing about this version is the number of adult stars are performing together here. Haven is the star but Gillis is a marvellous Count Dracula as everyone would expect. There are some limp moments but for the most part this is very well staged and some most rewarding scenes. Its all a bit cut up but then if you are going to get three films from one I guess thats inevitable and the big plus is that no scene goes on and on forever. Excellent - I must get round to watching the horror version!