Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Michael_Elliott Blood for Dracula (1974) ** (out of 4)Count Dracula (Udo Kier) and his servant (Joe Dallesandro) head toward Italy where the Count needs a bride. it turns out that Dracula is quite ill so not any woman will work. No sir, he actually needs a virgin but finding one won't be too easy.Paul Morrissey's BLOOD FOR DRACULA and FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN were two films that I first saw as a rather young kid. Yeah, I was probably too young to be watching either of them but I didn't care for them. I decided to revisit them much later in life and I found FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN to be just about everything a fan of exploitation could want. When that film was a hit there's no question that a Dracula tale was logical but I still think this one doesn't work.I should point out that this is a beautiful looking film with some wonderful costume designs as well as locations that just leap off the screen. The cinematography is quite good and there's no doubt that Morrissey has created a great looking picture that is well-made. The only problem is that we've seen this vampire film way too many times before and the added sleaze just doesn't really do much.Whereas FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN went over-the-top in its use of gore and sleaze, that's not the case here. This film is a lot more mature, a lot more arthouse and it seems for the most part that they were trying to make a serious horror picture. There's nothing wrong with that except the film really drags with its 104-minute running time. Both Kier and Dallesandro are good in their roles and there's plenty of blood and nudity but it just isn't very entertaining.

adriangr Blood For Dracula is a gorgeous looking piece of cinema that succeeds even though it has some real weaknessesThe story tells of Count Dracula coming to Italy to look for a virgin bride in an aristocratic family with four daughters. Sadly (for him), the first two daughters offered to him have already lost their virginity to the randy gardener. This much is predictable, but what awaits the remaining two girls makes for an interesting conclusion to the story.The movie looks stunning. Whatever faults it has, the cinematography is not one of them. Beautifully shot on location in an ornate villa, every shot drips with elegance. The whole thing looks consistently lavish. It even has a delicate and wonderfully nuanced musical score. Not overly gory (a million miles from it's partner "Flesh For Frankenstien"), only a couple of pretty realistic blood-vomiting scenes and an over- the-top axe chopping conclusion would give the squeamish any trouble.What lets things down here is the acting. All the cast look great, Udo Kier is effective as the ailing count, and Arno Juerging is hilarious as the manservant, but the rest of the performances are terrible. The four daughters are certainly beautiful but the way they read their lines is appallingly stilted and often very difficult to understand. And Joe Dallessandro provides his usual wooden performance, although he does contribute to the frequent and lengthy sex scenes. There is a LOT of (female) nudity in the movie, and even today it still seems quite excessive. Apart from the excellent photography, the film shows little originality, but I particularly liked the budding friendship of Dracula and the prudish, oldest sister, who never gets offered as a romantic option, but is actually the best match for the eccentric count. There are tender moments between the two that were quite touching.The movie is still worth watching. "Flesh For Frankenstein" has become the more notorious of the two, but Dracula still has it's moments.

Eric Stevenson It's weird how Andy Warhol produced so many movies with naked women. I mean, he was gay! Well, this is more or less a retread of "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein". I realize that his movies where literally nothing happened were all made in the 1960's. I guess he decided to make movies that had stuff happen. It seems like he did better with Frankenstein than he did Dracula. This has the same effects with the blood and nudity. It still isn't as messed up, though. I admit that the budget looks pretty high and the sets and costumes are fun.There should have been more plot than just Dracula looking for a bride. Now, I do think it's kind of unique with the location. It just doesn't seem to do enough for a full length movie. The ending is fairly anti-climatic, but the overall acting isn't bad. It seems like the people who worked on this were trying pretty hard. It just doesn't seem to be sending any kind of new message, which you should do with a character this prolific. **1/2

Witchfinder General 666 "Blood For Dracula" (aka. "Dracula Cerca Sangue Di Vergine... E Morì Di Sete!!!") of 1974 is, after "Flesh For Frankenstein" (1973) the second bizarre take on a classic Horror tale by the team Paul Morrisey (director), Udo Kier and Joe Dallessandro (stars) and famed artist Andy Warhol (co-producer and prominent name). While this film is, in my opinion, not quite as great as the insanely brilliant "Flesh for Frankenstein" it is yet another beautifully bizarre, atmospheric, amusing and highly unusual vision of a Horror classic."Blood for Dracula" introduces the most pathetic version of fiction's most famous vampire. The great Udo Kier plays a sickly, sniveling Count Dracula, who thirsts only for the blood of virgins, as any other blood makes him fatally ill. Aided by his servant (Arno Juerging, who also played Frankenstein's demented assistant in "Flesh for Frankenstein"), Dracula goes to Italy, where people are supposed to be religious and unmarried women are supposed to be virgins. Claiming to be looking for a bride, the Count approaches the aristocratic Countess Di Fiore, who has four beautiful teenage daughters - unmarried daughters which are supposed to be virgins. However, virginity does not last long when the super-potent handyman (Joe Dallessandro) is around... As its predecessor "Flesh For Frankenstein", "Blood For Dracula" has a delightfully absurd storyline, which is very well brought to screen. Udo Kier is once again great in the villainous role, the sickliest vampire ever seen in cinema, as is Arno Juerging as his exaggeratedly weird assistant. Joe Dallessandro once again plays the hero who has sex with every female that crosses his path. The daughters are very beautiful (except for one), the youngest being played by the ravishing Silvia Dionisio (who plays a 14-year-old although she clearly is in her 20s). As "Flesh for Frankenstein", the film is beautifully shot and director Paul Morrisey delivers a great visual style and thick atmosphere. As its predecessor, the film is sleazy and quite gory (though not nearly as outrageously gory as "Flesh for Frankenstein". The film's greatest quality is its outrageously funny and very dark sense of black humor. Overall, this is another great film by the Morrisey/Kier team, though "Flesh for Frankenstein" is even more essential in my opinion. My rating of "Blood For Dracula": 9/10