Sangue per Dracula

While I rate Paul Morrissey's 'Flesh For Frankenstein' just a little higher than this one, it is without a doubt a vampire trash classic, and highly recommended viewing. Morrissey once again teams the legendary Udo Kier ('The Story Of O', 'Suspiria') with Warhol superstar Joe Dallesandro, and the creepy Arno Juerging (Otto from '...Frankenstein'), and adds to the strong supporting cast Italian veteran Vittorio De Sica, and even a cameo from director Roman Polanski. '..Dracula' features a similar mixture of horror and camp to the earlier movie, but this time the emphasis is more on sex and decadence than gore and humour. Dallesandro's performance is below par as a Communist servant, but Kier once again excels in the title role, creating some genuine sympathy as the sickly, desperate Count who can't get enough "wer-gins" blood to sustain himself. 'Blood For Dracula' is essential viewing for all 1970s cult movie buffs.

Count Dracula (Udo Kier) can only drink the blood of virgins or he becomes violently ill. He comes upon a family with a bunch of virgin daughters. He plans to have each of them but the family's horny gardener (Joe Dellesandro) is after them too...for sex!

Silly but you just can't stop watching. Like it's companion piece ("Andy Warhol's Frankenstein") the story is silly with over the top acting and gore. Kiers convulsions after drinking the blood of non-virgins is SO disgusting they're hilarious. And (in the X rated version) there are some fairly explicit sex scenes between Dellesandro and the daughters. And Dracula's death at the end is just great! Silly and stupid but very funny. Try to catch the X rated version.

I was intrigued when I heard about Andy Warhol producing 'Blood for Dracula,' and 'Flesh for Frankenstein.' I planned on watching both of them, starting with 'Blood for Dracula.' This movie is just very entertaining, strange, and artistic. The story is like no other Dracula film. With Udo Kier as Dracula this was bound to be good for me. I first saw Udo in Gus Van Sant's 'My Own Private Idaho,' (which many people probably had the same experience as me.) I thought he was good at first sight. Then I watched an interview with director Gus Van Sant, where he was talking about first seeing Udo in 'Flesh for Frankenstein,' and 'Blood for Dracula.' Naturally, I had to see them. It was exciting to know that this movie existed. So this was interesting. I don't think it was great, I don't think it could've been better, it's just good the way it is. You just kind of have to see it yourself.

Not nearly as disgusting as its closely made forerunner Flesh for Frankenstein, Blood for Dracula has some nice, stylistic moments, excellent period piece settings and costumes, wild overacting from Udo Keir as Dracula(subdued though when compared with his performance as Dr. Frankenstein) and a non-performance by Joe Dallesandro, a sluggish pace at times and, of course, lots of gratuitous sex scenes. Dracula must go south for his health and find a virgin(for he can only drink the blood of a virgin girl). He chooses Italy and finds a family with three beautiful, unwed daughters all professing innocence of man. A swarthy gardener(Dallesandro) works there. Add two and two and you have the basic premise of the film. For me, and let me say that I get what camp is and what the filmmakers were trying - TRYING - to do, the best part of this film is easily the brief cameo of Roman Polanski as a man in the pub playing a game of do-what-I-do. Polanski has brilliant comic timing, and he reinforces my opinion that he was and could have been a very good actor. I am thankful he still directs though. As for Blood of Dracula, it will definitely take a bite out of your time.

This very free and rather deranged interpretation of Bram Stoker's legendary Dracula tale by Paul Morrissey is one of the best independent vampire stories I've seen so far. The sheer brilliance of this film completely lies in the characterization of the bloodsucking count. Dracula no longer is a vile and overruling monster here, but a sickly and almost pathetic weakling. He and his assistant (Renfield with brains!) flee from the Romanian castle to settle in rural Italy where families are believed to be particularly religious. This is essential to the count because he can only feed on virgins' blood. The count and his assistant are homed by a family with 4 four marriageable daughters, pretending to be wealthy. However, the girls aren't as 'pure' as they're supposed to be (these cuties like to screw around with the revolutionary servant boy) and the impure blood of the girls only causes to the count to get weaker. Despite of its filthy reputation, this film isn't that gory or nauseating. The finale is pretty blood-soaked but the film is overall more absurd and eccentric than it is gore. Blood for Dracula is an outstanding trash-film! The humor is black as the night itself and the substance is essential viewing for every cult cinema admirer. Udo Kier is terrific as the needy count while pretty boy and Morrissey regular Joe Dallesandro has the time of his life portraying the manly skirt-chaser. The budget of Blood for Dracula was low (almost non-existing), yet the set pieces and atmosphere-creating elements are great! The musical score in particular is beautiful and contains a few gripping piano compositions.

In conclusion, Blood for Dracula is outrageous fun and a must-see for everyone whose tired of the same old unsatisfying horror films. It might not fit for all audiences but I'm sure the more developed genre lovers will love seeing Udo Kier licking a virgin's blood of the floor. Equally recommended is the Morrissey variant on that other classic tale, Frankenstein. That film is even more extravagant and a whole lot nastier. You can either take that as a recommendation or a warning.