patorange 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.

John Edward O'Brien Review may contain spoilers.Udo Kier doesn't play a very convincing Count Dracula. He cannot turn into a bat, nor a wolf, nor ethereal mist. He doesn't have a hypnotic effect on his victims like previous vampires. His assistant isn't a mentally disturbed man from an asylum, but rather a well dressed socialite with perfectly styled hair. In an ironic twist, the peasant servant of the castle has more of a predator like hunger for the females living there then the count does. The male servant's libido is off the charts as he has sex with 3 out of the 4 daughters of a rich aristocrat. The main idea behind this plot seems to be to cram in as much sex as possible into the total viewing time. In one scene two of the sisters engage in a passionate kissing session with each other. There is no reason for this except to try and increase lust on the part of the viewer. The Count has to feed but can only suck the blood of virgins, and believes he has found some highly available ones in the mansion. In his first attack on one of the girls, he sucks so much blood for so long that it would have at the very least caused her to lose consciousness or at the most die from rapid blood loss. His second attack is a little more believable because he doesn't suck in as much blood. But in both cases, the vomiting scenes afterwards are a huge turn off. The only thing more repulsive then those scenes are when the count laps up virgin blood off the floor left behind by the youngest daughter after the male servant sexually violates her. In the end, when the count is hacked to death by the ax wielding servant, I hoped that there was no way he could be resurrected for a continuation of this story in a second film. So far to date I have been right.

Red-Barracuda Blood for Dracula is the companion piece to the other Andy Warhol produced horror film, Flesh for Frankenstein (1973). It was made at the same time so shares a lot of the cast members, while it's twisting of its traditional source material is equally demented. Different people prefer one or the other and I personally prefer Flesh, finding its content so wonderfully over-the-top in so many outrageous ways that it entertains on several levels. Blood for Dracula, on the other hand, is a fairly restrained film by comparison. Although this is a relative statement because going by any other standard this is a quite delirious version of Dracula. Needless to say, it entirely ignores the original novel and furrows its own path, updating the character quite successfully for its 70's time-frame. In this sense, Dracula is what can best be described as a blood junkie. He spends considerable screen-time vomiting up unpure blood and generally is more akin to a drug addict than the gallivanting count of old. The story has him moving from Romania to Italy in search of fresh virgins. He is welcomed by a down-on-his-luck marquis who actively encourages him to marry one of his four daughters. Before long he is feeding off them but, unfortunately for him, a local handyman has been going around systematically de-purifying them!You've got to hand it to Paul Morrissey; he has directed another bona fide cult classic with this one. It's very interesting how the traditional myth has been twisted into the tale of a junkie vampire. Its Cinecittà origins also ensure that this is an exploitation film that has the added advantage of looking quite sumptuous. But much of the strengths here, like its sister film; can be found in the campy deadpan performances and insane dialogue. Udo Kier is on form again as Dracula in another commendably committed performance, his assistant is played by Arno Juerging in an eye-poppingly bizarre way and Joe Dallesandro under-acts spectacularly again as the somewhat questionable 'hero' Marxist handyman who at one point rapes a young teenage girl in order to make her unsuitable prey for the dastardly count! This latter scene is topped off with Dracula licking blood off the floor that was discharged on account of it being the girl's first sexual encounter. Yech! Look out too for a humorous cameo performance from Roman Polanski and a rare chance to see future Suspiria actress Stefania Cassini speak her dialogue in her real voice, usually she is dubbed but here her very heavy and quite beautifully exotic Italian accent is on full display (as well as pretty much every other part of her it has to be said).This is probably as much a sexploitation film as it is a horror movie. There are significant amounts of screen time dedicated to naked fumbling. This approach, along with the film's generally quite transgressive content does make for a pleasingly in-your-face viewing experience. But, while it may not have been as horror-oriented as you may have expected, this situation is addressed in quite spectacular style in what can only be described as a hilariously OTT gory finale that really has to be seen to be believed.

disinterested_spectator There is usually a sexual element in vampire movies, but in this one, Count Dracula must have the blood of a virgin. Although set in the early twentieth century, times have changed so much that there just aren't many virgins anymore, and the Count is dying of malnutrition. He and his henchman leave Romania and go to Italy, where they think the strong religious traditions of that country will provide him with plenty of virgins to pick from. Boy, has he got a lot to learn.One family in particular is aristocratic but hard up for money, and they are more than willing to let Dracula, who is quite wealthy, have his pick from their four daughters. Unfortunately for him, Mario, the budding proletarian communist who works for the family has already has his way with a couple of the sisters, who are quite slutty. They present themselves to Dracula as virgins, and he believes them. Oh well, even men who are not vampires have fallen for that line. But in each case, when he plunges his fangs into their necks and drinks their blood, he becomes violently ill and starts throwing it all up.When Mario realizes what is going on, he nobly saves the fourteen-year-old sister, who is still a virgin, by busting her hymen, thereby spoiling her for the Count as well. And in a really gross scene, Dracula licks the blood from the floor where the deflowering took place. Unfortunately, the remaining sister, who was also a virgin, gets fanged by Dracula and becomes a vampire herself, and so she tries to save him from being hacked to pieces by an ax-wielding Mario. When the ax breaks, he drives the handle/stake into Dracula's heart, and then the newly minted vampire sister impales herself on the stake as well. Mario has been dreaming of the coming revolution when all the aristocrats will be wiped out and the workers will take over, and thus he gets to act that out in his own small way.Original, funny, and entertaining, this is one of the better vampire movies.