A Taste of Blood

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.

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!).

The director of what is widely considered the first splatter film ever made(Blood Feast) directed this film about a man, through drinking a brandy laced with blood and his ancestral relationship to Count Dracula, that turns slowly into a vampire and begins to kill the relatives of the six men that killed the famous count. If you are looking for the typical Herschell Gordon Lewis trademarks of great quantities of un-realistic blood, super bad acting, gobs of intestines and the like, inferior lighting, and a litany of other flaws in film-making that seem to find such a home in Lewis's work, you might be disappointed. This is easily Lewis's best film in terms of direction and acting. The actors in here are average. No small feat for a Lewis film. Even Bill Kerwin(one of Lewis's regulars) does a decent job! The female lead was also average, and that says a lot for a Lewis film. Usually he just puts pretty girls with no acting talent in his films like Connie Mason, but sexy Elizabeth Wilkinson has some acting talent(albeit not a lot) as well as boobs! Bill Rogers makes an adequate vampire as well. Not only are the actors decent, but the script is interesting. Donald Stanford used some interesting tie-ins with the novel by Bram Stoker for the names of the relatives. I thought it was a fairly unique concept. The film is two minutes shy of two hours, and it is a tad long. It is very apparent though that Lewis wanted to make this film the best that he could. It shows. It shows he has some talent as well. Lewis also has a bit part as a sea captain affecting a working-class English accent. He is pretty good too. There is not much in the line of killing or gore though. The film shows far less blood that you would see in your typical Hammer feature. There are some obvious budget concerns with sets, etc..., but all in all this is a decent film about the vampire myth in a modern setting.

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.

This is Herschell Gordon Lewis' "Epic" movie. This is the film with, according to Lewis, the highest production value and budget of all of his "gorror" (a term coined by Lewis describing the gore genre of films that he created) films. Despite this, I found this film to be slightly disappointing. Anyone, viewing this film expecting to see something along the lines of "Blood Feast" or "The Wizard of Gore" as I did would be slightly disappointed. The gore is kept to a bare minimum in this film and it appears as if Lewis was trying to make a legitimate horror movie without all the stomach-churning effects of his classic work. Although the storyline is fascinating, the bad acting and hideous effects do not serve this film very well, even though this is what most Lewis fans have come to expect from him. It doesn't quite work in this one, because it seems to have been the intention of Lewis to try to provide his audience with a legitimate scare. For Lewis fans, this film is still worth viewing but for those who have not seen his work before I suggest you first watch a couple of his classics such as the previously mentioned entries.