Avaliações de usuários

This flick came out way before the VHS rage and is still unavailable on any format. You can try to track it down on VHS but even then you will have some care to take to find an excellent copy. Why? If you just look at the names of the actors than you know enough, Jamie Gillis (Dracula), Anette Haven (Mena) and Selena (Lucy) are all well known for their performances in porn flicks and that's exactly what Dracula Sucks is.

But Dracula Sucks do had it's problems. Before going to the theaters it was released as a 108 minutes Dracula spoof. But that version never made it and it was cut down to 82 minutes. Most XXX theaters showed this version under the name Love At First Bite. It was later that it was re-edited to a version without the XXX scene's as Dracula Sucks (87 minutes). So both versions are interesting because combined you will see the whole movie as it was in his 108 minute version.

Made in a period were porn was the big thing it do had a story. It is loosely based on the story of Bram Stoker's Dracula. The opening credits of Dracula Sucks even mentioned his name. Seen both versions the Dracula Sucks story is easier to follow. LAFB jumps from one scene to another but the opening sequence says enough, we see Dracula go lickety-split. The XXX scene's are a bit tame for the time it was made. There are almost no pussies shown, just one in a lesbian scene. It's funny to see the difference in one notorious scene. Lucy is going for a pee and Dracula appears. In the DS version he just bites her breast but in the LAFB version he also bites her breast but before that he gives her his love juice all over her face. And the human juices do flow everywhere. The effects used are simply done with lighting of editing effects but the flying bat is really Ed Wood style.

Also notable is the way they made use of the lighting. It do has his creepy moments and when Dracula bites it's really like Bela Lugosi is talking. It isn't a roughie like Forced Entry or a brutal porn like Waterpower. As I said it before, for being made in the era of roughies it's rather tame but still watchable, there's a scene of necrophilia in it and an incest scene.

And just for the 70's porn lovers, Seka (Nurse Betty) has a small performance and went further to the classic Ultraflesh (1980) as Ultraflesh as did Serena as the Blond Fleshette. She also just performed as Lorelei in The Abduction of Lorelei (1977) but was credited as Jenn Gillian. Jamie Gillis died in 2010 and was seen in his last flick made Die You Zombie Bastards (2005) as Stavros. Maybe he was one of the best known porn actors even playing in a full soda-masochistic gay porn not performing but still. He also was seen in Ultraflesh as Sugarman and had a small cameo in Nighthawks (1981), yes the Stallone flick.

Overall, worth mentioning if you can track it down. To find an official release you have to search the VHS copy. Not a classic but with classic porn actors. There's acting in it but not Oscar worthy. A must have.

Gore 0,5/5 Nudity 5/5 Effects 0/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

Bram Stoker's Dracula has long been considered a tale of repressed eroticism, and horror cinema has frequently exploited this aspect of the classic story to get bums on seats. It was only a matter of time before an enterprising porn director took the sexuality of the vampire to its logical conclusion. Dracula Sucks see the infamous Count going hardcore, no longer satisfied with just biting his victims on the neck. Jamie Gillis takes the titular role, the vampire resurrected by the crazed Renfield (Richard Bulik), who has been admitted to the Seward Sanitarium, a castle-like structure in the middle of a desert (Castle Ranch in California, also the location for Al Adamson's Blood of Dracula's Castle) neighbouring the Count's home of Carfax Abbey. One by one, the staff and patients of the sanitarium fall foul of vampirism, but Dracula has his sights set on one particular person: the lovely Mina (Annette Haven).

Director Phillip Marshak's movie is equal parts horror and sex, one of those rare pornos where a proper story drives the bump and grind. Of course, the acting, direction and production design isn't quite up to Hammer standards, but it's not as terrible as it might have been, the visuals reasonably atmospheric and the cast acquitting themselves surprisingly well even when they're not hard at it. Gillis makes for a very effective Dracula (even though the beard is a little off-putting), delivering his dialogue with relish (yes, even the famous "Children of the night..." line), while Bulik tries his utmost to match Dwight Frye (Renfield in the 1931 Universal version of Dracula) in terms of sheer madness. Comedy relief comes in the form of black taxi driver Jarvis (David Lee Bynum), who mercilessly lampoons the black stereotype of the frightened servant, stuttering and rolling his eyes like crazy after seeing a vampire. The unmistakable Reggie Nalder, who so memorably played the vampire Mr. Barlow in Salem's Lot, is on the side of good in this film, as legendary vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing (thankfully, he doesn't indulge in any of the sexy shenanigans).

In terms of horror, the action consists of some biting and a staking -- not particularly gory or nasty. The sex scenes are certainly more graphic, although far shorter than one would expect, and frequently bereft of the customary 'money shot'. Paul Thomas, as Jonathan Harker, receives oral from Lucy Webster (Serena); Dr. John Stoker (the legendary John Holmes) sees to a maid on a billiard table (and gets a bite on his member for his trouble); Stoker rapes a blonde nurse (Seka); a taboo-busting scene sees Dr. Arthur Seward (John Leslie) having sex with his sister Sybil (Kay Parker); and Dr. Peter Bradley indulges in necrophilia, making it with Lucy's body in a coffin. Gillis gets his big scene in the final act, where he finally diddles Mina, before being destroyed by the sun's rays (in what is, rather ironically, something of an anti-climax).

N.B. Not to be confused with vampire comedy Love At First Bite (1979), which had the working title of Dracula Sucks, or XXX horror Dracula Exotica (1980), which also stars Jamie Gillis as Count Dracula.

I first saw this in the early 90s on a vhs. I will never forget the rental shop's name n the incident surrounding the film's title. Growing up in the 80s n 90s was pure fun. I picked up the vhs thinking it to be a horror film but when i sat with my bunch of pals n started the vhs on the player, we all were laughing our guts out. One fella even suggested that the name shud hav been Dracula fucks n not sucks. Revisited the 94 mins version recently on a fast forward mode aft reading Ba_Harrison's review of this one. There is nothing horror bah this film apart from the comedic bite on the dick, tits n pussy. Here prof. Helsing played by Reggie Nalder (later he gets to play the vampire in Salem's Lot) looks more like a great grandpop due to the disfiguring burns on his face.

Recently saw the 74 mins version for the first time known as Lust at First Bite on a fast forward mode. It has more hardcore n lengthier sex scenes n that too with copious amt of close up shots n does gets gross at times. This version is nothing but pure xxx stuff and without the bites of the vampires. This version starts with the sex scene from the original version's ending scene where Dracula is performing cunnilingus n sex in his cave. The endings r different though.

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.

DRACULA SUCKS is, as you would expect, a pornographic version of the Bram Stoker story that sticks closer to the original material than you might expect. Thus we get the presence of Dracula, Renfield (complete with the actor doing his very best Dwight Frye impression), a female Dr Seward, Mina and Lucy and Van Helsing himself. Other than that, the plot is very limited although some effort has been made to preserve the usual gothic trappings of cobwebby castles and coffins. There's a lot of sex, as expected, but a lot of it is very brief and almost subtle, with more of an emphasis on the acting. They manage to amass a huge amount of adult stars in this one, as well as a small but welcome role for the great Reggie Nalder as none other than Van Helsing. And no, he doesn't take part in the 'action'...

Basically it's all you could expect from a hardcore porn flick, meaning that there are lots of sexual acts are performed in this movie. Yet this movie offers still something extra as well.

Thing I can really appreciate about this movie is how professionally it got done. The movie almost gets approached like a 'normal' and more serious movie, meaning that it has some good camera-work and some great settings and costumes. It's an erotic take on the Dracula story, that's definitely not original or anything groundbreaking within its genre but the film-makers still did a good job at making it a quality production, with lots of time and effort put into it, which eventually all pays off for the movie in the end.

A great touch as well was the addition of some comedy. Lets face it, the movie porn industry often takes itself far too serious, while this movie seems to realize all too well that what they are doing is quite ridicules and nothing that would win them any awards, so they decided simply to have some fun with it. It really makes this movie quite an entertaining one.

It even makes you forget that the movie itself is far from a well constructed or told one. The movie does try to feature a sort of story in it but basically all there is to this movie, is the one sex scene after the other. It doesn't ever really makes much sense but than again, I wasn't looking for this movie to make sense, so I wasn't bothered that much by it. Besides, it's entertainment value compensates a lot and truly ensures that this is a good watch throughout.

Seriously, normally these type of movies start to annoy me after a while, also since it too often starts to repeat itself over and over again. I really didn't had this problem with this movie at all. It was divers enough with its settings and characters and besides also had some of the best use of classical music I have ever seen in a porn production (What a compliment to give!).

And it's definitely a '70's genre flick alright, featuring some of the typical '70's stars. So expect lots of facial hair and hair at other places. Also the dubbing during all of the sex scenes are present in this movie but again, it doesn't take itself too serious and you'll probably get a couple of, intentional, laughs out of it.

It was also awesome to see Reggie Nalder in this. This old guy had a real special look to him, with burn scars all around his mouth and a thick Hungarian accent, which made him perfect for the horror genre. I had seen this guy before in several other more serious horror flicks and at one point in his career he even starred in a Hitchcock movie. No idea how he got mixed up into this movie but I'm sure he still had lots of fun with it. And don't worry, he doesn't star in any of the sex sequences, that would had been just too creepy!

For its genre this is simply a more than good movie!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Phillip Marshak's "Dracula Sucks" (1978) is an intriguing blend of comedy and horror, serving up a unique take on the classic Dracula tale that's both amusing and slightly unsettling. The film, also known as "Nocturna" and "Love at First Bite," is a softcore pornographic spoof that doesn't shy away from explicit content, making it a niche choice for a very specific audience.

The film's strongest suit lies in its attempt to parody the traditional Dracula narrative. It's a daring move that results in some genuinely funny moments, thanks to the absurdity of the situations and the over-the-top performances. The stand-out scene involves a raunchy apple-eating contest that is as hilarious as it is explicit, showcasing the film's commitment to its comedic and adult themes.

The cast is a mixed bag, with some performances that hit the mark and others that fall flat. However, one actor who truly shines is Jamie Gillis in the role of Dracula. Gillis delivers a memorable performance, capturing the essence of the iconic vampire while adding his own comedic flair. His portrayal is a delightful mix of charm, menace, and absurdity, making him the film's undeniable highlight.

Despite its merits, "Dracula Sucks" is not without its flaws. The humor can be hit-or-miss, and the film's pacing is uneven, with some scenes dragging on for too long. Additionally, the explicit content may not appeal to everyone, and at times, it feels gratuitous rather than serving the narrative or the comedy.

In terms of production, the film's low budget is evident in the set design and special effects, which can be a distraction. However, the filmmakers make the most of their resources, creating a few visually striking moments that add to the film's overall charm.

In conclusion, "Dracula Sucks" is a unique and daring film that offers a fresh take on the Dracula story. While it's not for everyone, those who appreciate adult comedy-horror may find it an entertaining watch. Jamie Gillis's stand-out performance as Dracula and the memorable apple-eating contest scene are particular highlights. However, the film's uneven pacing, hit-or-miss humor, and explicit content prevent it from being a full-fledged success.

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.

Well-lit, good location, detailed costumes, and a stellar cast means a lot of effort went into this. It's a slick production, looking far better than most adult movies of its time. In fact, that's part of the problem with the 95 minute cut, available thru Vinegar Syndrome. Is it an adult movie? Had they taken this 95 minute cut and trimmed out the explicit sex, there would still be about a 90 minute horror movie left. The director probably would have wanted it that way. Also included in the VInegar Syndrome release is LUST AT FIRST BITE, a 74 minute strictly hard-core cut which is worth seeing as well.

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.

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!