Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Cineanalyst Filmed after "Flesh of Frankenstein" (1973), by the same director, Paul Morrissey, and much of same cast and crew, as well as, again, being advertised as produced by pop-art celebrity Andy Warhol, "Blood for Dracula" is only slightly amusing as a vampire burlesque, but is of more interest for its sexual and political allegory.As comedy, I prefer the Dracula-related parodies "The Dance of the Vampires," a.k.a. "The Fearless Vampire Killers" (1967), directed by Roman Polanski, who has a cameo in this film's tavern scene, and "Love at First Bite" (1979). Some of "Blood for Dracula" is funny, or at least absurd. I like the opening mirror scene where Dracula dyes his hair black. In Bram Stoker's novel, the Count's hair also changed from white to black, but there was no indication that he dyed it that way. And there certainly was no reason for him, as in this film, to do so before a mirror, which, of course, doesn't cast his reflection. This Count's vegan dietary restrictions, his distaste for Italian food, the actors' stilted performances and accents that are all over the place also add to the campiness. (What neorealist filmmaker Vittorio De Sica is doing among the cast in this assuredly non-realist film, I don't know.) The blood vomiting and the Grand Guignol finale are grotesquely over the top, and the nudity and sex scenes place the production firmly within the exploitation genre. Overall, the film's production values are good, the musical score is pleasant, and the cinematography has some standout moments, including Dracula's tracking close-up shot from a wheelchair.Although this Dracula is, unfortunately I think, part of the trend that gained momentum in the 1970s for sympathetic vampires, as well as being in the suave Count tradition of Bela Lugosi, he's not as wimpy as Hammer's vampires. Udo Kier's Dracula is sickly, uses a wheelchair and isn't especially physically strong, but, unlike Hammer's vamps, he doesn't roll over and die from a bit of daylight or the sight of a cross. His main weakness here is his restriction to the blood of virgins, which is proving more difficult in the sexually-promiscuous modern age, hence his feeble condition. "Blood for Dracula" isn't really an adaptation of Stoker's novel, but this bit regarding virgin blood does indirectly rework one of the central themes from the book. As many have claimed, Stoker's "Dracula" is subtextually about venereal disease (especially, syphilis, which may've affected Stoker himself). The vampire represented the carrier of VD, who polluted the blood and sexual purity of Englishwomen. "Blood of Dracula" reverses this, with Dracula being infected by the impurity of the blood of sexually-active female victims. His move to Italy also retains a bit of the book's invasion xenophobia, and it's humorously ironic because it's at the heart of Roman Catholicism, which, it turns out, is less concerned with chastity than is the Count.Meanwhile, the character who would be expected to be the traditional hero is a rapacious communist, the Italian family's handyman, who also regularly has sex, consensual or not, with the two incestuous sisters of the family. He rails against Dracula's aristocracy and has a hammer and sickle painted on his room's wall. The pun of him having an axe to grind with the aristocratic Count, as he literally chases Dracula while wielding an axe is one of the film's best gags.(Mirror Note: I already mentioned the amusingly-absurd through-the-mirror shot in the opening scene. There's also another mirror shot where one of the sisters discovers to her horror that Dracula casts no reflections.)

Eric Stevenson It's weird how Andy Warhol produced so many movies with naked women. I mean, he was gay! Well, this is more or less a retread of "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein". I realize that his movies where literally nothing happened were all made in the 1960's. I guess he decided to make movies that had stuff happen. It seems like he did better with Frankenstein than he did Dracula. This has the same effects with the blood and nudity. It still isn't as messed up, though. I admit that the budget looks pretty high and the sets and costumes are fun.There should have been more plot than just Dracula looking for a bride. Now, I do think it's kind of unique with the location. It just doesn't seem to do enough for a full length movie. The ending is fairly anti-climatic, but the overall acting isn't bad. It seems like the people who worked on this were trying pretty hard. It just doesn't seem to be sending any kind of new message, which you should do with a character this prolific. **1/2

videorama-759-859391 I'm not really a fan of Warhol. When seeing him portrayed by a few other actors, he's one out there cat. Like Flesh For Frankenstein, which I hold in better regard to this, these flicks are way better than a lot of his other stuff, I imagine, as seeing Heat and Trash, and being less than happy, let me tell you, the one which especially, which involved daddy feeding his infant milk, over silence. This is where Warhol's talents really lie, with these flicks, though really there's nothing exceptional about this one, that takes it's time before the real gore comes flowing, outweighed by sex scenes and nudity, a lot of lesbianism. The count Dracula (Udo Kier who I love in these roles) desperately needs blood, from that of a virgin, so he travels to this castle in France, masquerading as someone else, with his chauffeur as you will, the same guy who co starred with Kier in FFF. Striking out with two girls, non virgins, he goes after the last who hasn't been deflowered and she's only 14 (and the rest) where it becomes a race against time. Joe Dallesandro as the handyman, got really annoying, with his dialogue, all delivered in angry tones, had me thinking, what makes this frickin' guy tick. In one way, the real gore came all too late, this one, kind of boring and testing in bits, where they threw in the sex to hold us over. Don't expect another Flesh And Frankenstein here, in a Dracula that really doesn't impress, where we really don't see nothing new. Only if you like lesbianism and nudity, that's fine.

Ali Catterall Tartan Video 2006 Contents: Commentary featuring Paul Morrissey, Udo Kier and Maurice Yacowar, Screen-test, with commentary, Production stillsThe first striking thing about this extras package, is that director Paul Morrissey literally never stops talking - which suits our purposes just fine. The second is that director Paul Morrissey could talk the legs off a centipede which, again, suits our purposes down to the ground, as you learn a lot about this movie over a good two hours. In the screen-test we see footage of Flesh For Frankenstein's Srdjan Zelenovic auditioning for the role of Dracula (before Udo Kier ultimately stepped into his over-sized shoes). Morrissey was clearly very taken with the towering and aloof actor, who he recalls as having "an extraordinarily deep voice, as if coming from the grave. You pay attention to a man like that." We also learn that the aristocratic Zelenovic grew up in a "Soviet slave camp" (aka Yugoslavia), that his brother (who was just as tall) was a basketball player; and that his father was a general in Tito's army. The production stills segment (featuring some great photos of Morrissey and Kier) lasts a good 25 minutes, affording Morrissey more time to discuss casting, characters, and behind-the-scenes stuff. Among other things, we learn that cameo performer Roman Polanski wanted to write his own part, rather than improvise; and that Udo and Joe Dallesandro were given haircuts so they could start shooting the minute Flesh wrapped. A fan of spontaneity, Morrissey wasted no time in bringing his next project to the screen. "Dracula started shooting at 1pm after finishing Frankenstein an hour before. I suppose if they'd ask me to make a third right afterwards, I'd probably have done it." The real meat is in the director's commentary proper - which is slightly confusing until you work out these are three separately recorded interviews edited (not entirely seamlessly) together. Mostly, this works. Sometimes, as with the juxtaposition of crusty but avuncular film historian Maurice Yacowar and the more down-home Morrissey, it renders matters redundant. Kier's own introduction "I'm Udo Kier, I'm Dracula, I'm on the search for the blood of a virgin and I hope you enjoy it," comes quite out of the blue, and makes you jump out of your skin. "I didn't want to overplay it and play Dracula when I'd just played Frankenstein," Kier recalls. Once persuaded, Morrissey next explained he'd have to lose 10 kilos. "I said, 'I know how to do it.' I just didn't eat anymore." And he ended up in a wheelchair. Still, he appears to have relished the chance to star in something other than the more sombre fare he was used to. "Dracula was important for me, it was seen by a lot of people. If you make a film in German, where's the audience? Some old guys hiding away in Brazil, if you know what I mean!" Yes, Udo, we know what you mean. Some of those Nazis probably got off on Joe Dallesandro's heaving buttocks too. Elsewhere he comments that "vomiting blood looks so great when you have a tuxedo on. Look at the red... it's beautiful." Sometimes, Udo, you seem like a strange and scary man. Morrissey, often introduced by a disembodied woman's voice, reveals that the castle "belonged to someone who was in a madhouse and was rented out;" and that, "I did almost no research - I respect the legend, but I wasn't going to have my hands tied." Yacowar's commentary, though erudite, can occasionally become intrusive, and an unwitting parody of 'Cahiers Du Cinéma'-speak, for a discussion about what is essentially a trashy horror-comedy. "There's an inexplicable psychology between their stripping in the fields and their sexual banter," he notes of the Di Fiori sisters, while "the combination of blood and bread makes the scene an infernal parody of communion. Morrissey must really enjoy the sex scenes played with Marxist polemics. He is sexually exploiting the class that exploits him economically." "This sequence is so beautifully photographed," Morrissey interrupts. But Yacowar is far from finished. "For both of the vampire's climaxes Morrissey uses quiet piano music. This gives the blood-taking act the calm of satiety and culmination... the toilet is Morrissey's personal metaphor for the moral vacuum that has been created by liberal self indulgence." Later he'll concede, "Maybe I'm reading too much into that line. I usually do." He's mostly good value, however, especially for priceless stuff like, "This is a very elegant composition, with the little mound of breast in the foreground, romantically heaving." To summarise, then: Keir? "There's communism in it, there's sex in it, there's revolution in it, there's aristocracy in it, and there's a vampire in it." Thanks, Udo. Final thoughts, Paul? "It's looking for the ambivalence of serious and silly, the meaningless and meaningful." And last but not least, Maurice. Who, for once, seems totally lost for words. "Whatever it is," he reckons, "it's some sort of a vampire movie." Got that? "But it raises more questions than it answers." Yes? "It's a kind of strange tribute to the horror movie mentality." Uh-huh. "A little bit horrible in some parts, and enjoyable in others." Come, Maurice, you're simply not reaching. "It's not one simple thing." Bless.