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.

gavin6942 Count Dracula (Udo Kier) has encountered a problem of the modern world -- it is dreadfully short on virgins, and his desire to drink pure blood is becoming more difficult. His assistant Anton (Arno Juerging) suggests they go to Italy, because the country's Roman Catholic faith will be sure to keep the populace clean. This assumption may not be worth much.One may wonder about the beginning -- how can Dracula see what he is doing while he grooms himself in front of the mirror? But if thoughts like this trouble you, you are taking this film too seriously. This film is neither serious nor horror.Joe Dallesandro plays the servant who has studied Marxism and the Russian revolution, and tries to interject his thoughts on class and such throughout the film. Professor Maurice Yacowar believes his words "satirize the political pretensions of the European art cinema", which may be so. His beliefs translate to action in the latter part of the film. When he is is not talking, he is butt naked, making love to one sister while another watches and waits her turn. Sometimes the sisters love each other... and it is not as weird as it sounds for some reason.I am curious how this film connects to Dario Argento, if at all. The cinematographer is Luigi Kuveiller, who has worked with Argento. And both Udo Kier and Stefania Casini went on to make "Suspiria" together with Argento. Is this merely a coincidence, is the talent pool in Italy very small, or is there something more? Unfortunately, when I met Casini last month (March 2011) it did not occur to me to ask.I had picked up this film for the Roman Polanski cameo as a drinking peasant, as I am currently working through his filmography. Simply put, do not get this for Polanski -- a cameo is all you get. Luckily, it is enjoyable on its own. The humor is great, especially with the socially awkward assistant, the sex is as raw as you would expect fro ma Warhol-approved film, and seeing Kier so young and with his desirable accent is wonderful. Mike Mayo spreads the rumor that writer Paul Morrissey may not have been the actual director, with those duties being handled by Antonio Margheriti. I make no personal claim on that issue. The Criterion DVD has audio commentary with Morrissey and Kier... perhaps this clears it up? I would not say this is a "great" film by any means, but fans of Udo Kier or Stefania Casini need to see it. And it is a rare modern twist on the vampire myth that has some social commentary, though of what sort I am not sure... this is by no means a condemnation of immoral behavior, yet is it promoting such things? You will have to watch and judge for yourself.

matheusmarchetti Funny, gory, campy, sad and beautiful - all in the appropriate doses. People go see "Blood for Dracula" expecting a more serious work, and, as it turns out right from the amazing opening scene, it is not. It is a (very) dark parody of Stoker's tale, with an unusual sense of humor. That being said, it is not without it's own intellectual overtones. The story itself is basically a metaphor for socialism in 1920's Europe, as basically what Joe Dalessandro's character's motivations are that of destroying the "dying" capitalist society, represented by a shockingly weak and pitiable Dracula. This film has probably the most fresh and unique take on the classical vampire character, which makes it throughly more interesting. The role is played by German legend Udo Kier who plays it to perfection, delivering as many hysterical and memorable lines as he did in "Flesh for Frankenstein". Morissey's stylish direction and Claudio Gizzi's melancholic score give the film a sense of class and something of a twisted beauty, amidst it's strong sleaze element. Some have complained the story doesn't make any sense, and non-English speaking actors rather humorous attempt at the language. For me, these elements only enhance the film's intentional weirdness, and make it even more enjoyable. 10/10