A Taste of Blood

A Miami businessman, John Stone (Bill Rogers, "Santo Versus the Vampire Women"), receives a parcel from England containing two old bottles of Slivovitz brandy from his recently deceased ancestor, and after drinking both bottles, becomes a vampire.

The story started from a screenplay by Donald Stanford (his only credit), who claimed to Lewis that he intended this film to be a vehicle for Frank Sinatra. Originally, the film had a title referencing "Dr. Alucard", which is now fairly well-known to be "Dracula" backwards, and it was wise to change this.

Interestingly, the film was originally intended by H. G. Lewis to be about 90 minutes, which would already be long for him, but Lewis found it made more sense to pace the story more slowly to give it a serious nature than to be "frantic". This was also wise, and makes it a better film. Shooting took three weeks, the longest Lewis ever spend on any film. All of this shows.

Judging by IMDb, this film is not very appreciated and not as respected as Lewis' other work. Even "Gruesome Twosome" seems to fare better, which surprises me because the two are worlds apart. "Gruesome" is a mess, whereas "Taste" shows real talent and I can see why Lewis considered this his masterpiece. In what world is a film that shows real skill rated lower than one of Lewis' more slap-dash efforts?

Yes, "Taste" is still flawed, with some cheesy lighting and makeup effects. The blue spotlight is rather silly. And yes, I am pretty sure that at one point the actors forget the lead is supposed to be "John" and instead call him "Dan". But the plot, production value and acting are all better than the average Lewis film. Bill Rogers is great, and Thomas Wood is really quite incredible. He could have been a leading man in any Hollywood production.

The film is available from Arrow Video as part of their "Feast" collection, on the same disc as "Gruesome Twosome". The special features are covered in my review of the other title. The audio commentary on "Taste", among many other things, talks about Lewis' interactions with other low-budget icons, specifically Roger Corman and Bill Rebane; we also hear about how films such as these can go through various owners who you've never heard of (like how this one is or was owned by one Norm Seinfeld). If you have a love for the history of low budget (and no budget) film, the commentary alone is like a master class in the topic.

Of all the horror directors to ever tackle a Dracula movie, 'godfather of gore' Herschell Gordon Lewis has got to be one of the most unlikely, his previous stock-in-trade being nudie cutie features and trashy splatter flicks—pure exploitation with a side order of schlock. For A Taste of Blood, Lewis tones down his usual boobs and blood technique for a more sedate, considered approach, the emphasis being on character development and atmosphere; the result is quite possibly the most boring Dracula movie I've ever seen.

Technically, the film is fairly accomplished for a Lewis film, the director coaxing bearable performances from his better than usual cast, managing to keep most of his shots in focus, and even experimenting with lighting; however, at almost two hours long, A Taste of Blood is an endurance test even for Lewis aficionados, with only curvaceous blonde star Elizabeth Wilkinson's impressive cleavage and the occasional unintentionally funny moment to alleviate the extreme monotony.

For those brave souls who intend to stay the distance, here's my I-Spy checklist of amusing/interesting details to help keep you awake: director Herschell Gordon Lewis providing what must be the worst ever London accent in the history of film; the world's largest letter knife; John's lighter, set to 'flamethrower' mode, his 'beautiful' ring, and his remarkable ability to memorise a telephone number and address; Mrs. Stone's extraordinary large knocker (the one on her door!), her scary drawn on eyebrows, and her inability to repeat everything as ordered; repetitive music on a constant loop; the letter supposedly sent from London that uses the US convention for setting out a date.

2.5 out of 10, rounded up to 3 for Elizabeth Wilkinson's big old knockers (the ones straining to stay inside her dress!).

Like others on this site, I really like low budget gore movies from the 1960s and 1970s. I can usually look past the terrible sets, dialog and acting if there's a sufficient amount of blood and guts.

Sadly, I must say this movie is the weakest of the H.G. Lewis films I've seen. To repeat what other people have said, it is WAY too long for this type of movie. The acting itself is no worse than his other movies. And the plot is similarly ridiculous. But there's almost no blood or other ghastly effects at all. Some seriously twisted gore would have made this more bearable. Graphic violence made "Blood Feast", "The Wizard of Gore", and "The Gore Gore Girls" pretty entertaining viewing experiences.

Maybe he was trying a more serious approach with this film. Who knows? I love his films, but I don't recommend spending 118 minutes of your life watching this one.

Part of the problem is its length: "A Taste of Blood" clocks in at a whopping two hours. Lewis tended to wrap up his films in about 80 minutes, and certainly "Taste" would have benefited from a shorter running time. But content-wise, too, this is one of Lewis' weaker efforts. The script was written by someone (namely, Donald Stanford) outside the HGL inner circle, and it shows; these 120 minutes are dour and talky, with none of the gallows humor that characterizes Lewis classics like "Two Thousand Maniacs!" and "The Gruesome Twosome". Finally, in a bid for respectability, the Godfather of Gore kept the blood and guts to a minimum, and a movie as monotonous as this one really could have used a little more action. "Almost a step into the mainstream," Lewis said of this film when he was interviewed for an episode of "The Incredibly Strange Film Show" in 1989, "(and) it was a mistake, because that step into the mainstream gave me a picture that was neither fish nor fowl." The film is beautifully photographed, and there is one bang-up gore effect (when vampire Bill Rogers has his way with a blonde stripper), but "A Taste of Blood" is for Herschell Gordon Lewis completists only. Casual viewers will not be amused.

I have this little tradition that when an iconic horror veteran dies, and if I both respect and admire his work enormously, I try to watch one of his/her movies in the next few days following the sad news. Herschell Gordon Lewis passed away, and even though 90 years is a fine age I'd sign for immediately, it's still a great loss for the horror movie industry. Lewis was, and forever will remain, the man who brought gore and splatter to the movie and TV screens. And how! Titles such as "Blood Feast" (1963) and "Two-Thousand Maniacs" (1964) weren't just the first gore flicks; they still stand proud and strong even by today's gore standards. That being said, another trademark was that his movies were extremely low-budgeted and often so damn amateurish that they balanced on the verge of tolerability. His gory movies are great fun, but Lewis also made a number of drama/action movies without bloodshed or absurdity ("Just for the Hell of it", "Something Weird", "She- Devils on Wheels"…) and those are quite difficult to sit through. Mr. Lewis' departure also meant for me personally that I no longer had an excuse for postponing my viewing of "A Taste of Blood". I have this DVD lying in my closet for at least 12 years already, but I could never bring myself to actually watch it for one sole – and admittedly shallow – reason, namely … its length! "A Taste of Blood" has a running time of 118 minutes! Seriously, one hundred and eighteen minutes! In my humble opinion horror movies that last for almost two hours shouldn't exist. I can motivate myself to watch good movies that run more than 110 minutes, let alone to watch a lesser acclaimed H.G.L with a low gore factor!

Having completed my little tradition, I can gladly state that "A Taste of Blood" was better than I expected and a fairly entertaining horror movie; - but still too damn long of course! Easily 30-40 minutes of poor, irrelevant and repetitive footage should have been cut, and then – probably – this would have been one of the director's better non- gory flicks. The story is pretty interesting and engaging, being a modern-day of vampirism and blood retaliation. Without knowing it himself, American businessman John Stone is the last living descendant of the legendary Count Dracula. He receives a package, from London solicitors, containing a few bottles of brandy, but doesn't know that the liquor is mixed with the authentic blood from the family line. Shortly after tasting the brandy, John loses complete interest in his beautiful wife who worships him and his job he was previously so obsessed about. All he can think of right now is exterminating the descendants of the bastards that killed Dracula, and he travels to England to extract his bloodline's vengeance. The last heir of Dr. Abraham Van Helsing seeks the help of Stone's wife and best friend in order to stop him. "A Taste of Blood" definitely features a handful of bright ideas and memorable moments, but overall the pacing is too slow while the quality of sound and picture is too poor… Oh yeah, and it's far too long! Especially the dreadful love/friendship relationship between Stone's wife and best friend is incredibly tedious and redundant and even half of all the dialogs in general are unnecessary. The film is low on gore, but still HGL manages to insert a couple of gruesome moments of gratuitous bloodshed. For example, when THIS vampire feeds on the blood of a random go-go dancer, he doesn't leave two pathetic little holes in her neck but rips her entire throat wide open! He's to my knowledge also the only vampire ever who rams woods stakes through the chests of his enemies instead of vice versa!