Desejos à Primeira Mordida

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.