A Taste of Blood

Bill Rogers gives a good performance as John Stone, a successful businessman who is turned into a blood sucker by drinking tainted brandy. It's all part of his legacy as the descendant of Count Dracula. He then goes about administering revenge on behalf of his ancestor, slaughtering the descendants of the Counts' old foes (Van Helsing, Morris, Harker, et al.), while also trying to make his young hottie wife (Elizabeth Lee) just like him. Doctor Hank Tyson (William Kerwin), a friend of the couple who has always been in love with the wife, must team with a Doctor Howard Helsing (Otto Schlessinger) to vanquish the undead fiend.

Something of an outlier in the Herschell Gordon Lewis filmography, this is because the legendary originator of "splatter cinema" decided that he wouldn't just settle for "good enough" here. He wanted to make this effort as great as it could possibly be. For once, he puts lots of stress on story and character. The movie periodically gives us the kind of gory moments that we can expect from HGL, but these are never the movies' sole reasons for being. He even assembled a bunch of actors that are a shade better than you'd typically find in his work. The handsome Kerwin, a regular in HGL movies, is of course always good value as he plays the romantic lead here. Lee is okay, basically fulfilling her duty as eye candy. Stone, who was likely a contender for his role due to a passing resemblance to Sir Christopher Lee, is good ghoulish fun as the tragic protagonist-turned-villain. Some of the on screen talent also worked behind the scenes (Kerwin was the production manager), with HGL himself turning up on screen as the sailor with the ridiculous "limey" accent.

All in all, this is decent entertainment, basically for doing something different. HGL fans hoping for hilariously awful acting and excessively tacky violence won't get much of that here. Granted, it's not without flaws. At just shy of two hours, this goes on much longer than any drive-in movie really should. Just when the pace should really be picking up, HGL introduces some lame comedy relief with some dopey guy and his unreliable dog. And the music isn't always that effective, becoming repetitive quickly.

Perhaps most indicative of the higher degree of quality in this filmmaking is the fact that Roger Corman saw this one, and was impressed enough to offer HGL some employment, which the Godfather of Gore politely turned down.

Seven out of 10.

A Taste Of Blood, is about a businessman named John Stone, who one day receives a package in the mail. In the package are two bottles of brandy and the letter that comes with it says he is a great relative of a rather famous family. John, starts to drink the brandy and soon his wife Helene, notices how much he has changed. He is very cold and distant from her and he sleeps all day and works only at nights. John, soon travels to London where the package came from and learns that he is a descendant of Count Dracula, the vampire and now he is going to kill off everybody who tried to or is related to somebody who tried to kill Count Dracula. Meanwhile back home a man named Dr. Howard Helsing, visits Helene and her friend Dr. Hank Tyson, and tells them that Helene is in great danger and he is too because John wants to kill him too because his ancestor killed Dracula. Not believing at first soon Hank follows Howard, because he notices changes in Helene and does not want to see any more people dead. A Taste Of Blood, is directed by cult filmmaker Herschell Gordon Lewis, who is known as "The Godfather Of Gore" for giving us such films as Blood Feast, 2000 Maniacs, Color Me Blood Red and The Gruesome Twosome. I have seen many of Herschell's films (and have liked them all) but A Taste Of Blood, is different than his usual horror films. One reason is because there is hardly any gore in this film at all. There is maybe three scenes with some very light blood so gore fans might have to look elsewhere for some of his regular gore. Also most of Herschell's films are under 90 minutes running time and this one is 118 minutes, just two minutes short of two hours. The film is well done but it is quite slow moving and doesn't have the same camp value as Herschell's other films and plays more like a straight faced horror film. It is very slow moving but at the same time I was interested in the film and wanted to see how it would carry out. It is not my favorite Herschell film but I still liked it and die hard fans of Herschell will probably like it as well if they don't mind the slowness of the film or it's no violence.

Like others on this site, I really like low budget gore movies from the 1960s and 1970s. I can usually look past the terrible sets, dialog and acting if there's a sufficient amount of blood and guts.

Sadly, I must say this movie is the weakest of the H.G. Lewis films I've seen. To repeat what other people have said, it is WAY too long for this type of movie. The acting itself is no worse than his other movies. And the plot is similarly ridiculous. But there's almost no blood or other ghastly effects at all. Some seriously twisted gore would have made this more bearable. Graphic violence made "Blood Feast", "The Wizard of Gore", and "The Gore Gore Girls" pretty entertaining viewing experiences.

Maybe he was trying a more serious approach with this film. Who knows? I love his films, but I don't recommend spending 118 minutes of your life watching this one.

A Miami businessman, John Stone (Bill Rogers, "Santo Versus the Vampire Women"), receives a parcel from England containing two old bottles of Slivovitz brandy from his recently deceased ancestor, and after drinking both bottles, becomes a vampire.

The story started from a screenplay by Donald Stanford (his only credit), who claimed to Lewis that he intended this film to be a vehicle for Frank Sinatra. Originally, the film had a title referencing "Dr. Alucard", which is now fairly well-known to be "Dracula" backwards, and it was wise to change this.

Interestingly, the film was originally intended by H. G. Lewis to be about 90 minutes, which would already be long for him, but Lewis found it made more sense to pace the story more slowly to give it a serious nature than to be "frantic". This was also wise, and makes it a better film. Shooting took three weeks, the longest Lewis ever spend on any film. All of this shows.

Judging by IMDb, this film is not very appreciated and not as respected as Lewis' other work. Even "Gruesome Twosome" seems to fare better, which surprises me because the two are worlds apart. "Gruesome" is a mess, whereas "Taste" shows real talent and I can see why Lewis considered this his masterpiece. In what world is a film that shows real skill rated lower than one of Lewis' more slap-dash efforts?

Yes, "Taste" is still flawed, with some cheesy lighting and makeup effects. The blue spotlight is rather silly. And yes, I am pretty sure that at one point the actors forget the lead is supposed to be "John" and instead call him "Dan". But the plot, production value and acting are all better than the average Lewis film. Bill Rogers is great, and Thomas Wood is really quite incredible. He could have been a leading man in any Hollywood production.

The film is available from Arrow Video as part of their "Feast" collection, on the same disc as "Gruesome Twosome". The special features are covered in my review of the other title. The audio commentary on "Taste", among many other things, talks about Lewis' interactions with other low-budget icons, specifically Roger Corman and Bill Rebane; we also hear about how films such as these can go through various owners who you've never heard of (like how this one is or was owned by one Norm Seinfeld). If you have a love for the history of low budget (and no budget) film, the commentary alone is like a master class in the topic.

Part of the problem is its length: "A Taste of Blood" clocks in at a whopping two hours. Lewis tended to wrap up his films in about 80 minutes, and certainly "Taste" would have benefited from a shorter running time. But content-wise, too, this is one of Lewis' weaker efforts. The script was written by someone (namely, Donald Stanford) outside the HGL inner circle, and it shows; these 120 minutes are dour and talky, with none of the gallows humor that characterizes Lewis classics like "Two Thousand Maniacs!" and "The Gruesome Twosome". Finally, in a bid for respectability, the Godfather of Gore kept the blood and guts to a minimum, and a movie as monotonous as this one really could have used a little more action. "Almost a step into the mainstream," Lewis said of this film when he was interviewed for an episode of "The Incredibly Strange Film Show" in 1989, "(and) it was a mistake, because that step into the mainstream gave me a picture that was neither fish nor fowl." The film is beautifully photographed, and there is one bang-up gore effect (when vampire Bill Rogers has his way with a blonde stripper), but "A Taste of Blood" is for Herschell Gordon Lewis completists only. Casual viewers will not be amused.