Rating: 
Summary: And now for something completely different...
Review: Different is what this movie is. I liked the movie for one, it dares to go off in directions the mainstream of film makers usually don't go. The second, I agreed with one reveiwer that you either like the film or you don't. The traditional Dracula plot is non-existent (He can only survive on the blood of virgins and for some reason there are none in his own home town). This movie is more of a parody and is fun to watch if you enjoy the unusual world of filmdom offerings. I would highly recomend this film in DVD format for the director commentaries and publicity stills included. Viewers should also be aware, this movie is not for the younger viewers, due to high explicit sexual content and nudity.
Rating: 
Summary: This film started it all!
Review: I first saw this film on a local cable late-night scarey movie show. This was years ago, and I never knew the name of it... and so could never find it...untill Udo turned up as a psyciatrist in "Armegeddon". I have been a huge fan of vampire films, and everything else vamp ever since seeing this one. In fact, this is the first movie that ever turned me on. If you are a vamp enthusiast... SEE THIS FILM!
Rating:
Summary: A WONDERFULL VAMPIRE MOVIE
Review: I just want to say that this film is one of the best Paul Morrisey ever made. The Criterion edition is fantastic. For people who want to see something different.(And, by the way, i just want to say to some of the other reviewers that Andy Warhol had nothing to do with the movie. NOTHING!!! He simply put his name on it to help the film make money.)
Rating:
Summary: A film to watch over and over.
Review: If you are tired of seeing vampires portrayed as some kind of gods,"super strength,fly through the air etc." then this is the Dracula for You. Here Dracula is presented as if ,oh lets say a wolf. It is not his fault He has a rather strange diet, He only feeds for his survival. With his creepy sidekick trying to provide virgin blood for the Count, You kind of hope He succeeds.But alas, the Count is to weak and pathetic to accomplish his quest, which is why I like the film,it does not glorify the Prince of darkness. Oh and yes, Ilove the ladies in the film,and the sets as well. VHS version.
Rating: 
Summary: Strangely dark, yet campy adaptation of classic story
Review: If you have a good sense of humor you could laugh at parts of this film. Really only for the die-hard Andy Warhol/Morrissey fan, this film really focuses on the whole sexual side of the Dracula legend--graphically at some points. Good for a laugh.
Rating:
Summary: "Dracula" is Awesome!
Review: In my opinion, the best B-Movie ever.
Udo Kier is frighteningly realistic. Joe Dallesandro is perfect!
You can tell how little it cost them to make this movie, but the cinematography is amazing. The music by Claudio Gizzi is gorgeous! The artistry behind _everything_ is fantastic!
The FACES in this movie are AMAZING to watch.
Realistic, scary, funny, and sexy. I started this movie thinking it was going to be a _B_ movie. When it was over, I felt more fulfilled than after I left Titanic. See it. It's awesome.
Rating:
Summary: "Don't you know what happened in Russia, you dope?"
Review: Joe Dallesandro's surly Communist peasant answers his own question: "They had a revolution, that's all." He tells this to a pair of decadent Italian sisters in bed, between bouts of antagonistic, power-tripping sex. Meanwhile, Count Dracula (a moaning and groaning Udo Kier), in another wing of the house, is a guest under what turns out to be false pretenses: he's been lead to believe that Italy is full of virgins ("because of the Italian church," huffs his manservant) and that this old estate in particular has 4 juicy virgins to choose from. According to director Paul Morrissey, the fact that his Dracula can subsist ONLY on the blood of virgin girls proves how out-of-date his vampire is. (The story takes place in the 1920's -- "the beginning of the modern era", as Morrissey sniffs on the DVD's commentary.) That this traditional figure of evil is too "moral" for his modern, corrupt prey is a rather heavy-handed point, perhaps. (Certainly for the horror genre.) And the contrast between the sensitive Dracula and the rather vicious Communist gardener who works on the estate makes Morrissey seem like just another political spin doctor. Equating Communism with Dallesandro's rapist mentality in the movie is pretty easy for an American who's never had to live with Europe's unique social problems. This lack of subtlety in regards to its themes is why I don't think *Blood for Dracula* is quite as satisfactory as its sister production, *Flesh for Frankenstein*. *Dracula* was made right after *Frankenstein*, and the resultant deflating of energy and inspiration is obvious. But NOT deflated altogether. The re-imagining of the vampire myth is quite inventive: I LOVE the virgin-blood business, even though it leads to at least 2 scenes of Udo Kier vomiting up "impure" blood for minutes at a stretch. (But, as Kier points out in the commentary track, "Vomiting looks great if you're wearing a tuxedo.") This Dracula, LIKE THE ORIGINIAL IN THE BOOK, by the way, CAN stand sunlight -- Kier simply shields his face with his hat when he steps outside. And he doesn't shriek in horror at the presence of a crucifix: it merely leads him to hide the thing in a dresser-drawer, while pouting, "This room is TERRIBLE!" Indeed, our affection for Drac here is due mostly to the delightful Udo Kier.
Rating:
Summary: The blood of these w####s is killing me!!!
Review: Maybe you would have the same effect watching this expecting a five star winner, but it's Warhol. What do you expect? Udo Kier's DRACULA who has the uncanny ability to groom himself in front of a mirror that casts no reflection of him needs to blood of "where-gins" to live. Not to find any in his native Romania, he travels with his brash servant Arno Juerging to Italy where a noble Marquis and Marquisa have brought up three virgin daughters fresh for the jugular, but Joe Dallesandro's fussy gardener character beats Dracula to the punch...or the - sorry I can't say it here! Which leaves Dracula to regurgitate tainted blood. How much can he stand? How much do you think YOU can stand? Whether it's black humor or blood or gore you see this as. Maybe you see it as a work of art. It is certainly a more tamer setback to Warhol's far more gory FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN made the same year, with same cast and crew. Just try to withstand the promiscuous sex scenes and go along with the uproarious dialogue. Here's my favorite..."Perhaps you're right." - "Of course, I am!" Did YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN rip that off?
Rating: 
Summary: An X-rated Dracula !!!!!!!!!!
Review: Paul Morrisey and Andy Warhol make another film with gory drama
just like the 'Flesh for Frankenstien' that I have seen. Count
Dracula(Udo Kier)is never getting enough blood for him to live
so he can take care of his sister who is also ill from low
blood "income"...
Rating:
Summary: Do You Have Any Wirgins?
Review: Some people may ask about the title of this review, and all I have to say is, watch the movie. Everything campy and cheesy is present here, including completely hammed up accents. While "Flesh For Frankenstien" felt more like a horror movie, this film comes off as something of a soft core porn romp with a character who only slightly resembles Dracula. Instead of the pure Mina we are given incestuos bi-sexual sisters. Instead of a noble Dracula, you get a whinny, sickly Dracula. And instead of the usual dashing hero you get a rapist with a thick Brooklyn accent. And on the subject of our hero. I have never wanted to kill the hero in any movie more than this guy. The actor, who appears to be a pet of Warhol's, does a decent job (he actually was much better in Flesh for Frankenstein) but is character is disgusting. He forces himself on at least three girls in the whole movie (numours times, as well as one being a 14 year old). If it wasn't for the hero of the story I would have given this movie four stars, but as it is, well, it falls flat and to be honest, at times becomes nothing but a cheap 70's porn flick. I would suggest Flesh For Frankenstien over this one any day.
| 
