Blood for Dracula (1974)

While I rate Paul Morrissey's 'Flesh For Frankenstein' just a little higher than this one, it is without a doubt a vampire trash classic, and highly recommended viewing. Morrissey once again teams the legendary Udo Kier ('The Story Of O', 'Suspiria') with Warhol superstar Joe Dallesandro, and the creepy Arno Juerging (Otto from '...Frankenstein'), and adds to the strong supporting cast Italian veteran Vittorio De Sica, and even a cameo from director Roman Polanski. '..Dracula' features a similar mixture of horror and camp to the earlier movie, but this time the emphasis is more on sex and decadence than gore and humour. Dallesandro's performance is below par as a Communist servant, but Kier once again excels in the title role, creating some genuine sympathy as the sickly, desperate Count who can't get enough "wer-gins" blood to sustain himself. 'Blood For Dracula' is essential viewing for all 1970s cult movie buffs.

Fmovies: This film opens with a close up of Udo Keir, possessor one of the most beautiful male faces of the era, applying makeup in front of a mirror. The camera then reveals that being Count Dracula, like all vampires, he has no reflection! thus the humorous tone is set for the rest of the film. The dialogue is wild and delicious, helped along by hugely overstated accents of all kinds and exaggerated overacting and in many cases - no acting at all. The film is stunningly photographed and is often beautiful to look at when you can, but you may find it difficult to watch Dracula regurgitate gallons of impure (i.e. non-virgin) blood or watch him lick pure virgin blood from the floor. Much more easy on the eye is the sight of a naked Joe Dallesandro, the camera drinks it's fill of this guy and many close-ups of his amazing face fill the screen. There is also an excellent cameo from Roman Polanski who challenges Count Dracula to an amusing game in a bar. The climax is blood soaked and bizarre and like the whole movie, way over the top. A hugely entertaining film providing you have the stomach for it!

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.

Blood for Dracula fmovies. Count Dracula (Udo Kier) can only drink the blood of virgins or he becomes violently ill. He comes upon a family with a bunch of virgin daughters. He plans to have each of them but the family's horny gardener (Joe Dellesandro) is after them too...for sex!

Silly but you just can't stop watching. Like it's companion piece ("Andy Warhol's Frankenstein") the story is silly with over the top acting and gore. Kiers convulsions after drinking the blood of non-virgins is SO disgusting they're hilarious. And (in the X rated version) there are some fairly explicit sex scenes between Dellesandro and the daughters. And Dracula's death at the end is just great! Silly and stupid but very funny. Try to catch the X rated version.

In this retelling of the story of Dracula, the world's most famous vampire (Udo Kier, in a breathtaking and charismatic role as the count) lives in rapid deterioration in Romania with his watcher, Anton. Dracula is nearing death due to the fact that he needs the blood of a virgin in order to survive as tainted blood makes him deeply ill. Dracula decides to travel to Italy after burying his sister because Anton tells him that there are many religious girls there who value their virginity and do not have sex until marriage. The plan makes sense, but problems arise when Dracula and Anton take shelter in the home of a religious family consisting of a greedy and thoughtless wife, a bitter husband, their four daughters, and their communist worker (played by the consistently memorable Joe Dallesandro). The plan is to pretend to be an aristocrat looking for a virgin bride, but issues arise when Dracula discovers that the daughters are not as innocent and as virginal as they are reputed to be, thanks to their worker, in this bizarre and extremely bloody vampire fable.

Excuse me for seeming rather melodramatic for saying this, but this has got to be one of the most depressing horror films I think I have ever seen. The idea of Dracula being a terrifying and intimidating demon of a human being is completely altered here. Dracula is no longer the great monster that legend states, but rather a frail and deteriorating creature who is weak and pitiful. Call me crazy, but to me this idea is truly heartbreaking. This is a very tragic, pessimistic, and cruel film, and watching it is like watching a weak old man slowly bleed to death in a creek after getting in a bicycle accident. It is basically the mental equivalent, and as a result I would highly suggest that folks who aren't privy to films about tragedies better steer clear of this. For everyone else, however, who is a 70s grindhouse horror fan, fans of erotic horror cinema, and fans of Euro-trash, there is a lot here to recommend. For starters, Udo Kier as Dracula. Oh my god can this man tug at the heartstrings. His performance as Dracula is as pitiful, feeble, and tortured as you can ever imagine. Say what you will about his theatrical line delivery, but I found myself tearing up just looking at the guy. The opening scene in which we watch him cover his old frame with make-up is one of my favorite opening scenes in horror. It is sad, it is tranquil, and it is classy all at once. Udo Kier has such gentle and expressive eyes that help give the character a sense of lost humanity that I found incredibly poignant.

Arno Juerging as Anton is also astounding. He allows his character to be somewhat charming and timid while still allowing him to show a vicious tendency. He's an unusually memorable aspect of the film that certainly helps to differentiate this picture from other films of it's nature. Joe Dallesandro is a lot funnier and has a lot more fun with his role here than in the past, but above all he just looks great on camera regardless of the quality of film stock. He has such a wonderful presence here, and his character is a lot more interesting and clever than you would expect from this type of role. Above all, however, he's a hero who you don't feel entirely comfortable rooting for. He's a main character whom the writer doesn't mind showing you his sleazy side. He's not an entirely likable protagonist, and I always appreciate when filmmakers have the balls to do that. It worked in 2009 with District 9, and it works just as brilliantly here. The

Here we are, the end of 2009, and Vampires have found their way back in style. Well, hot damn for them. We all knew it would happen sooner or later. Since Bela Lugosi redefined exactly what a Vampire is, back in the 30's, these guys are here to stay. However, the current crop of Vamp-entertainment has me a little worried. Twilight, eh? The Vampire Diaries? Oh yeah, I forgot, everything has to be targeted towards children now. I hate to admit it, but the so-called golden age of the 30's is a tad slow for my taste, and of course the fact that I'm an adult stands between me and the latest Vamp-craze. Fortunately, there was a period in between where they got it right. Enter Paul Morrissey, and his pal, Andy Warhol. The year is 1973, and rebelliously independent director, Paul Morrissey just wrapped up Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. Days later, Morrissey starts filming the logical next step, Andy Warhol's Dracula. Udo Kier (Mark Of The Devil) plays Count Dracula, and Joe Dallesandro (Andy Warhol's Trash) plays a guy who gets laid all the time. In this version of the legend, Dracula can only consume the blood of virgins, which is unfortunate for Udo because Romania has been sucked dry, so, now , the Count is headed to Italy in search of a nice, rich family, with nice, wholesome daughters. Once a destination is chosen, Dracula has high hopes of taking one of these pristine, young ladies back to Romania to marry (drain dry). The parents also think this is a swell idea, and the girls aren't putting up much of a fight. Only one problem, Joe Dallesandro is the live-in handyman, which means, yep, you guessed it, not a virgin in the house. Tough luck, Drac. Now would be the time to take this hopeless mission elsewhere, because if Joe finds out there's a Vampire about... It's on!!! Blood For Dracula is every bit the Masterpiece as Flesh For Frankenstein. Each one, a dismal, morbid work of art, although, this one is a bit more on the mean-spirited side. Udo Kier's portrayal of Count Dracula is so accurate, as if he were born to play the role. And Joe Dallesandro is always entertaining, with his acting issues and what not. Anyone out there who wants in on the latest Vampire craze, who isn't a pre-teen girl, HBO's Trueblood may be worth a look. And for the schlock lovers, you may want to check out Chris Seaver's latest masterpiece, Taintlight. although still semi-unknown, Paul Morrissey's version of Dracula just might be the definitive edition. Not bad for a guy who didn't do Horror. If you ask me, I could have totally gone for a few more of these. Imagine, the possibilities were endless. Maybe an Andy Warhol's Wolfman, or how about an Andy Warhol's Mummy? No, that would be stupid... I got it!! Andy Warhol's Jekyll & Hyde!! 10/10