Drácula

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.

I love this film.

It plays like a fantasy for decent perverts. That may sound like an oxymoron. You have 3 sexy daughters alone with their mother at some European manor. Of course there is the groundskeeper Joe Dallesandro, the hot stud who deflowers the "virgins", well, all except one daughter who seems to be holding out.

Udo Kier plays the perverted ill Dracula who needs virgin blood to gain strength. Guess who's coming to dinner at the manor house? One problem; he needs virgin blood to survive. Anything else proves lethal.

Young Joe has taken care of two of the daughters therefore Dracula gets a little sicker when he takes of their blood.

Does he get the youngest and prettiest who is the Virgin or does Joe take care of that as well.

Not big on budget. Funny at times. It is actually well filmed. Very campy and nasty.

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.

A well done film and Warhol's best improvement at making a film than just showing people with skin and fornicating all the time as whenever I saw his flicks it drove me nuts as it was so damn twisted! Of course we have Joe Dallesandro who plays a character who works for a mansion and molests some of the women there but ends up being a hero in the end and his acting is starting to improve as he was so awful in his past work (Probably he was getting off of drugs at this time) and he moved on to acting in non-Warhol films afterwards and doing well for himself. Scream king Udo Kier is great as Dracula and got alot of fans from this film. A film worth checking out and done in Italy where the horror population really lies for films.

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.