Rating: 
Summary: funny, sexy dracula film
Review: the most unique Dracula film i've ever seen. this low budget film was directed by Paul Morrissey and "presented" by Warhol, although apparently the latter had nothing to do with the actual making of the film. this film shows us a very different Dracula, more a victim than a villian. worth watching; my guess is you'll love it or hate it. does not follow the regular Dracula story line much at all, but that's what i like about it.
Rating: 
Summary: Boring, pompous and about as scary as "My Three Sons".
Review: The tag-line for this movie should be changed to "Who Kier's?".
BLOOD FOR DRACULA is a major disappointment, especially compared to its companion film FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN. In this painful bore from director Paul Morrissey, Dracula (Udo Kier in a blank, mechanical performance which makes the viewer pine for Christopher Lee or Gary Oldman) heads to England in search of "where-gin" blood. The only problem is, the Count winds up in a house full of promiscuous young women, who are of no use to him. Sounds good so far doesn't it? Well yer wrong bucko!
There's not enough blood & gore- especially compared to FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN. There's a decent amount of female nudity but nothing that stands out enough to make you want to punish yourself by sitting through the whole movie. This is nowhere near as bad as Warhol/Morrissey's collaborative non-movie TRASH, but it's still no good. The movie is not a recommended starting point if you're a "where-gin" to horror films; even though BLOOD FOR DRACULA is a "horror" in every other sense of the word.
If you're after an interesting, original & entertaining vampire film I recommend the 1987 Kathryn Bigelow movie NEAR DARK or the 1974 Hammer film LEGEND OF THE SEVEN GOLDEN VAMPIRES, which successfully combined the horror & kung fu genres. But don't waste your time with this- unless you happen to be a pretentious, quiche-eating ponce. But what would you expect from a movie presented by a guy who managed to turn a Campbell's Soup Can (of all things) into serious "ART"?! (Maybe I should put one of my empty Speights bottles in a glass case and pay gullible schmucks two bucks apiece to look at it).
BLOOD FOR DRACULA doesn't really qualify as horror or softcore erotica. Its touches of "humor" aren't funny, so the end result is a cheap, boring and poorly acted snoozefest. There ARE some boobies but nothing to justify sitting through this. If that's what you're after you'd probably be better off renting ELVIRA: MISTRESS OF THE DARK (even though its a comedy) and pausing the tape at regular intervals. At least we can remain thankful that the Warhol/ Morrissey camp didn't get to have their wicked way with R.L Stevenson's DR JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE or Gaston LeRoux's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA!
Rating:
Summary: Boring, pompous and about as scary as "My Three Sons".
Review: The tag-line for this movie should be changed to "Who Kier's?".
BLOOD FOR DRACULA is a major disappointment, especially compared to its companion film FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN. In this painful bore from director Paul Morrissey, Dracula (Udo Kier in a blank, mechanical performance which makes the viewer pine for Christopher Lee or Gary Oldman) heads to England in search of "where-gin" blood. The only problem is, the Count winds up in a house full of promiscuous young women, who are of no use to him. Sounds good so far doesn't it? Well yer wrong bucko!
There's not enough blood & gore- especially compared to FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN. There's a decent amount of female nudity but nothing that stands out enough to make you want to punish yourself by sitting through the whole movie. This is nowhere near as bad as Warhol/Morrissey's collaborative non-movie TRASH, but it's still no good. The movie is not a recommended starting point if you're a "where-gin" to horror films; even though BLOOD FOR DRACULA is a "horror" in every other sense of the word.
If you're after an interesting, original & entertaining vampire film I recommend the 1987 Kathryn Bigelow movie NEAR DARK or the 1974 Hammer film LEGEND OF THE SEVEN GOLDEN VAMPIRES, which successfully combined the horror & kung fu genres. But don't waste your time with this- unless you happen to be a pretentious, quiche-eating ponce. But what would you expect from a movie presented by a guy who managed to turn a Campbell's Soup Can (of all things) into serious "ART"?! (Maybe I should put one of my empty Speights bottles in a glass case and pay gullible schmucks two bucks apiece to look at it).
BLOOD FOR DRACULA doesn't really qualify as horror or softcore erotica. Its touches of "humor" aren't funny, so the end result is a cheap, boring and poorly acted snoozefest. There ARE some boobies but nothing to justify sitting through this. If that's what you're after you'd probably be better off renting ELVIRA: MISTRESS OF THE DARK (even though its a comedy) and pausing the tape at regular intervals. At least we can remain thankful that the Warhol/ Morrissey camp didn't get to have their wicked way with R.L Stevenson's DR JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE or Gaston LeRoux's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA!
Rating: 
Summary: Camp and Melancholy and The Best Score Ever
Review: There is something decidedly sad about this film. Despite all the trappings of gross, gore and camp humour (so many wonderfully daft quotable lines) the film runs a bittersweet line about class and sexual mores that underplays everything. Okay, the politics may lean a little towards being non-sympathetic to the left, but who can deny the sadness of a scene where Dellasandro, the socialist hunk of the film, sneers over a vomiting and weak Count? Especially when the scenes are accompanied by that beautiful theme from Claudio Gizzi? Indeed, the opening credits, with Kier applying black dye to his peroxide white hair and blood red to his lips as the camera languidly pans around to show no reflection - are one of the most wonderful I can think of. The theme is played in full here, modulating upwards, lilting, slightly hopeful, slightly doomed. Terrific. "Blod for Dracula' is not for everyone, sure, but nonetheless it remains a strange, 'silly and yet' kind of film.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad but amusing...
Review: This film was amazingly bad, but was fun to watch with a group of people. I could definately see it on MST3K :) It was good for conversation. You should see what happens to the vampire when he drinks certain blood. I don't want to give away plot points, but the bad effects are truly amusing.
Rating:
Summary: Propably the best dracula adaption ever!
Review: This is simply one of the best and weirdest films I have ever seen! A must see.
Rating:
Summary: Save your money...
Review: This movie stinks. The Criterion case talks about it being an "outrageous cult classic" and I've enjoyed nearly all of the movies they're brought to DVD, but this movie isn't good on any level. The acting is horrible and the plot isn't even up to porno standards. It does have gratuitous sex scenes (which are explicit enough to give this movie an "X" rating), but the women aren't attractive (my wife thought the guy was ok - good abs) and the sex is uninspiring unless you're a virgin. Horror fans will be disappointed because there is none (unless bad acting scares you), and Dracula fans will be disappointed because the entire study of the mythos consists of him needing to drink virgin blood and he doesn't have a reflection in a mirror. Of course, he has no problem picking up a crucifix, walking in sunlight, and is only slightly put out upon entering a chapel. Perhaps the worst part is that this movie doesn't even click as one of those horrible movies that suck you in because you're amazed at how bad they are. I bought this movie because of the reviews below - don't make the same mistake - rent it first. Or better yet - get Rocky Horror if you want to watch a cult classic.... If you want horror, get Scream, Psycho, etc. If you want Vampires, watch Interview With the Vampire.
Rating:
Summary: another unusual film.
Review: This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD version of the Film.This film, another by Paul Morrissey and Andy Warhol is less disturbing than their previous release, "Flesh for Frankenstein." This film is also a loose adaptation of the book.
Set in the 1920's or 30's Dracula is dying. To survive he must drink the blood of a virgin. He has become too notorious in Romania to approach any women and there are few virgins there. So he and his caregiver drive to Italy as they believe that there are more virgins there. He stays with a family that has 4 daughters, when asking some them if they are virgins, they lie and he becomes very sick from drinking their blood. The film has excellent music which deserves to be in a better film. The Criterion collection special features are sudio commentary by cast and crew. There is also an 11 minute slideshow of production and publicity photos backed with selections from the musical score.
Rating:
Summary: another unusual film.
Review: This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD version of the Film. This film, another by Paul Morrissey and Andy Warhol is less disturbing than their previous release, "Flesh for Frankenstein." This film is also a loose adaptation of the book.
Set in the 1920's or 30's Dracula is dying. To survive he must drink the blood of a virgin. He has become too notorious in Romania to approach any women and there are few virgins there. So he and his caregiver drive to Italy as they believe that there are more virgins there. He stays with a family that has 4 daughters, when asking some them if they are virgins, they lie and he becomes very sick from drinking their blood. The film has excellent music which deserves to be in a better film. The Criterion collection special features are sudio commentary by cast and crew. There is also an 11 minute slideshow of production and publicity photos backed with selections from the musical score.
Rating:
Summary: not as bad as frankenstein but still disturbing. Great Music
Review: This review is for the Criterion Collection edition of the film. This film, also recieved an X rating by the MPAA and was heavily cut for the R rated version. The film is a loose and more modern adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. In this version set in 1920's Europe, Dracula is dying. He must drink the blood of a female virgin to survive. Hhe is too well known in Romania to get close to any women and virgins are rare, so he and his servant drive to Italy as they believe the influence of the Roman church would encourage women to remain chaste. He then stays in the home of a family with 4 daughters. He interviews them, but they lie about being virgins and Dracula gets very sick from drinking their blood. The film is violent and has several disturbing sex scenes in it. The music in the film is very nice though and it seems unfit for a movie of this type. The DVD special features include audio comnmentary and an 11 minute slide show of publicity photos with the excellent musical score in the backround.
|
