Blood for Dracula - Criterion Collection

Rating:
Summary: Astute parody, serious art film and B-movie schlock.
Review: A completely unique film which is many things at once: sometimes it is a biting parody of pretentious Italian neo-realist cinema, other times it presents thought-provoking social criticism and yet other times it is a raunchy, campy gross-out crowd pleaser. The music/montage is great, as is Paul Morrissey's and Udo Kier's commentary, the "restoration" quality varies but is dazzling compared to the grainy VHS release. You decide if it's art or schlock.

Rating:
Summary: BLOOD FOR DRACULA
Review: A different take on the Dracula saga. However, hot babes a'plenty!!! Refreshing to see this story told a different way. You gotta add this one to your drac collection, it simply would not be complete otherwise. This is a keeper!

Rating:
Summary: Turn the ax on yourself!
Review: All right, lets begin with the admission. I hated Blood for Dracula. I'm going to say some bad things about Blood for Dracula. Maybe you liked it. Maybe you might think I missed the point. Put simply, it was terrible, and not in the good way. I love camp and absurdity. I love movies that are so bad they're good. But this movie was so bad it went past good and just got bad again. Why? Let's start with our "hero" Mario the handyman or "Vampire Hunter Stalin" As I call him. Mario engages in a threesome with two incestuous, bi-sexual sisters (which, amazingly, is not even close to cool enough to redeem the film in any way) and casually tells them of their youngest sister, "I'd sure like to rape the hell out of her!" He starts to rape one of those sisters later on and stops only when she puts him out of the mood by saying, "I love you." (Or something to that effect, I believe, as the sound quality was not top notch it was tough to tell.) In addition to this he applies absurdly uneducated interpretations of the communist revolution to his every social interaction. He interrupts having sex with a woman to inform her that when the revolution comes she'll be poor and powerless (apparently he can't even keep it up without talking about communism). He rapes the aforementioned little sister (a fourteen year-old girl) and justifies it to her own mother who catches him in the act by saying it's better then her being food for the virgin-hungry Dracula. (This scene, by the way, is carried from beginning to end, with no sense of directorial restraint; it even goes so far as to have Dracula lick her "virgin blood" from the floor after they leave.) Of Mario's two major positions in life (pro-rape, pro-communism) only his communism receives any moral opposition and his rape of the little girl only upsets her own mother because he's a handyman and thus of low status. The movie portrays the most absurdly powerless and ineffectual Dracula ever, who seems identifiable with only in comparison to his Marxist, rapist foe. When the latter kills the former I was torn between jubilation at the death of the one and anger that the other would likely survive. I found myself wishing he'd turn the ax on himself, but no such luck. I was really hoping that the film could end in the death of every single character. As Mario wanders off with the fourteen year-old girl (presumably to rape her again while explaining the importance of destroying the aristocracy) I could only take comfort in the fact that the movie was actually ending. The characters were terribly developed and entirely unlikable. The sex and nudity, which seems to be many people's major selling point for the film, is random and unimportant to the "plot" and to be quite frank, not that sexy. The acting was poor, even in light of the fact that they were obviously directed to overact. Of the characters, the only one I could identify with in the slightest was Dracula's sister. Instead of going with him to find virgin blood, she decides she'd rather just stay home and die. Bravo! I think she must have read the script.

Rating:
Summary: Turn the ax on yourself!
Review: All right, lets begin with the admission. I hated Blood for Dracula. I'm going to say some bad things about Blood for Dracula. Maybe you liked it. Maybe you might think I missed the point. Put simply, it was terrible, and not in the good way. I love camp and absurdity. I love movies that are so bad they're good. But this movie was so bad it went past good and just got bad again. Why? Let's start with our "hero" Mario the handyman or "Vampire Hunter Stalin" As I call him. Mario engages in a threesome with two incestuous, bi-sexual sisters (which, amazingly, is not even close to cool enough to redeem the film in any way) and casually tells them of their youngest sister, "I'd sure like to rape the hell out of her!" He starts to rape one of those sisters later on and stops only when she puts him out of the mood by saying, "I love you." (Or something to that effect, I believe, as the sound quality was not top notch it was tough to tell.) In addition to this he applies absurdly uneducated interpretations of the communist revolution to his every social interaction. He interrupts having sex with a woman to inform her that when the revolution comes she'll be poor and powerless (apparently he can't even keep it up without talking about communism). He rapes the aforementioned little sister (a fourteen year-old girl) and justifies it to her own mother who catches him in the act by saying it's better then her being food for the virgin-hungry Dracula. (This scene, by the way, is carried from beginning to end, with no sense of directorial restraint; it even goes so far as to have Dracula lick her "virgin blood" from the floor after they leave.) Of Mario's two major positions in life (pro-rape, pro-communism) only his communism receives any moral opposition and his rape of the little girl only upsets her own mother because he's a handyman and thus of low status. The movie portrays the most absurdly powerless and ineffectual Dracula ever, who seems identifiable with only in comparison to his Marxist, rapist foe. When the latter kills the former I was torn between jubilation at the death of the one and anger that the other would likely survive. I found myself wishing he'd turn the ax on himself, but no such luck. I was really hoping that the film could end in the death of every single character. As Mario wanders off with the fourteen year-old girl (presumably to rape her again while explaining the importance of destroying the aristocracy) I could only take comfort in the fact that the movie was actually ending. The characters were terribly developed and entirely unlikable. The sex and nudity, which seems to be many people's major selling point for the film, is random and unimportant to the "plot" and to be quite frank, not that sexy. The acting was poor, even in light of the fact that they were obviously directed to overact. Of the characters, the only one I could identify with in the slightest was Dracula's sister. Instead of going with him to find virgin blood, she decides she'd rather just stay home and die. Bravo! I think she must have read the script.

Rating:
Summary: A very laughable Dracula
Review: An X-rated Dracula...well, I just had to see it. It was remarkably tame though which caused it to be boring for the most part. It came across to me, however, as being quite hilarious at times. But its all unintentional. The premise is very questionable, the acting is etrotious, and the dialouge is inane and completly unbelievable. Kiers performance as the count is utterly rediculous. The most memorable scene was when the count's assistant was socializing with the locals in a tavern over a friendly game of "do exactly what I do" ? Ok then. This inexplicably ends up in a fist fight, but also riotous laughter from this viewer. This film also boasts an outragous climax where Dracula is decapitated. The violent effects are laughaby pretentious but also quite amusing. Its worth a look just for the laughs.

Rating:
Summary: Not Worthy of Criterion
Review: Apart from the above average - though far from original -cinematography, this is a terrible film. The acting is quite awful with the worst accents ever put on film. The dialog is sophmoric and the plot dubious, even for the horror genre. Heavy with pretension and, except for one scene, lacking in wit, it fails as camp; lacking true insight and dedication to craft, it fails as art. The liner notes imply some of this was intentional, I find that assertion worthy of the greatest scepticism.

Rating:
Summary: Wirgins are hard to come by!
Review: Blood for Dracula is an interesting take on the Dracula legend. Dracula is in this film, a weak, sickly, even depressed vampire. who seems to detest everything in life except for his faithful assistant. They travel to early twentieth century Italy from Romania, in search of "Wergins", so Dracula can feed. They settle in an aristrocratic mansion, where the Lord of the Manor has three sexy daughters, and a 14 year old girl as well. Also, a "fieldhand", who enjoys getting it on with the daughters. This character is misplaced in the film, and his contemporary Brooklyn accent, along with his poor acting skills dont help the film. There is also a disturbing scene where he rapes the 14 year old, in order to deny Dracula her virgin blood. Other than that, the film is a hit. It is high on erotisism, and the two better looking daughters spend much of the film naked, and all over each other or the fieldhand. The neck biting scenes are some of the finest on film, but poor Dracula, he cannot live on tainted blood! All in all, a good film, funny, bloody, and a little sad even.

Rating:
Summary: classic film
Review: blood for dracula(aka- andy warhol's dracula) is a true masterpiece into the character study of dracula. it portrays his lonliness and sexuality. but the film does stray from the legend, but i dont think the film makers intended it to be another average dracula fim. the effects are a little corny but thats what you get with second rate horror. aside from that dracula is portrayed well by kier and you can feel for him in his lonley world. i would recomend this film to any fan of dracula films .a masterpiece

Rating:
Summary: Gross, Silly, Sexy & Surprisingly Thoughtful Dracula Parody.
Review: Co-directors Paul Morrissey and Antonio Margheriti started filming "Blood for Dracula" the day after they completed filming on "Flesh for Frankenstein", both "experimental" ventures for which Andy Warhol served in a vague capacity as producer in 1973. "Blood for Dracula" was shot in 3 weeks for $300,000 and borrowed 3 of its stars from the Frankenstein film: Udo Kier plays Count Dracula, Arno Juerging is his valet Anton, and Joe Dallesandro is their proletarian nemesis Mario. In this raunchy comedic take on vampirism, Count Dracula is withering away and will soon die if he isn't nourished with the blood of a virgin. Anton advises the reluctant Count to leave his ancestral home and venture abroad, to Italy, where Catholicism has surely preserved the maidenhood of many young women. The pair are elated to find just what they seek in the di Fiori family, an impoverished aristocratic clan with 4 daughters who can restore the family's fortune by marrying well. But the ladies are not as pure as Dracula had hoped. And the estate's intractable Marxist handyman, Mario, resents the Count's patrician presumption.

Paul Morrissey believed that a film could be interesting if the characters are, and "Blood for Dracula" might prove him right. This is an art house film from a more sybaritic era, full of hunky men and immodest women. It's frequently and deliberately in bad taste. But "Blood for Dracula" is a sharp commentary on class, family and sexual mores. The characters are campy, but committed performances make them surprisingly strong. Maxime McKendry and Stephania Casini are particularly effective as the class-conscious Marchesa di Fiori and as Rubinia, the cheekiest and raciest of the daughters, respectively. Arno Juerging propels the plot forward. Udo Kier's Dracula is alternately repulsive and sympathetic. In this case, experimental doesn't imply incompetence. Gianni Giovagnoni's art direction and Luigi Kuveiller's low-budget cinematography are surprisingly good. Paul Morrissey concluded that he had made "some sort of vampire film". I don't know exactly what "Blood for Dracula" is either, but it is certainly interesting.

The DVD: Bonus features include a "Stills Gallery" of on-set and publicity photos and an audio commentary by director Paul Morrissey, actor Udo Kier, and film historian Maurice Yacowar. The commentary was recorded for the laserdisc in 1996, and the three commentaries were taped separately, then combined on one track. It's a little awkward, but still a very interesting commentary.

Rating:
Summary: A Different kind of Dracula
Review: Count Dracula is a powerful, diabolical fiend whose inhuman craving for blood has frightened movie goers for years. "Blood for Dracula" presents a different type of Dracula. Udo Keir plays the count as a sickly, weak wimp whose craving for the blood of a virgin is like an alcoholic's craving for a highball. He must have blood of a virgin or he gets violently ill. There is a great scene where the count drinks the blood of an unchaste girl and he gets violently ill, spewing blood while rolling around on the floor of a beautiful marble bathroom. The acting in this movie is atrocious but it is hardly a complaint as it is so bad that it gives the movie a campy humor. There is plenty of gore to satisfy the gore hounds and naked flesh and sex to titilate the libido. Criterion has done their usual excellent job with the widescreen presentation of this film.