GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

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

paudie This film was made immediately after "Flesh for Frankenstein" with some of the same cast and much of the same crew. Dracula, the last of his family, can't find any more "werrgens" (as Udo Kier memorably puts it) in Romania so his servant has the idea of going to Catholic Italy, where they must be growing on trees. In Italy he gets himself invited to visit a poor noble family and their four unmarried daughters. The parents are delighted that the supposedly rich Count may marry one of their daughters and boost the family coffers. However the Count is only after virgin blood! Unfortunately thanks to Dallesandro's character who works on the estate, the middle 2 daughters no longer qualify as virginal.However the Count has to find that out the hard way, leading to much vomiting and blood regurgitation. Not surprisingly after this he is found out and the films heads towards it's OTT climax. I preferred it to "Flesh for Frankenstein" for a few reasons. The story is better, there isn't as much "horror" and the characters are (slightly) more realistic. It is interesting to see the Dracula story taken out of Transylvania and to see the Count portrayed as unwell. There aren't as many funny one liners as in Frankenstein but the behaviour of the characters is quite amusing. Director Paul Morrissey still includes some striking scenes e.g. the opening credits where the sickly Count dyes his white hair black and reddens his pale lips. The four daughters are also interesting characters in different ways. Their parents are a bit mad, especially the father, and provide some comic relief.The acting is pretty good. Udo Kier is more low key than in Frankenstein as the ill and melancholy vampire, though he certainly gives it his all in the blood vomiting scenes! Arno Juergens again plays his servant, a much stronger character than in Frankenstein. Here the Count relies on him completely to arrange his life and most importantly provide food and drink. The daughters are all played well. Milena Vukotic as the eldest, resigned to being a spinster. Dominique Darel and Stefania Casini work very well together as the more liberated middle daughters. Silvia Dionisio plays the youngest daughter and though she doesn't look 14 as the character is supposed to be she has the right air of innocence. Maxime McKendry plays the Marchesa di Fiori. Her very English accent is a bit offputting at times but her practical attitude to the families situation contrasts with her husband,the Marchese, played by famous Italian director, Vittorio Di Sica. The director's commentary tells us that Di Sica wrote his own lines and this is easy to believe as he comically rambles on about the suitability of "Dracula" as a name for his daughter's potential suitor, even before he has met him. The revelation that he is responsible for the family's poverty isn't surprising. You get the impression Dallesandro is playing himself as the last estate worker and he does a good job of looking brooding and serious, spouting Communist theory while rolling in the hay with a daughter or two. The director's commentary on the DVD is quite interesting. Morrissey reveals that there was all of an hour between the end of Frankenstein and the beginning of Dracula, enough time for Kier and Dallesandro to change hairstyles. He also says that he loves using actors with varying accents together. He certainly hit the jackpot in this regard with Dracula. Another revelation is that Morrissey went to Italy to make Frankenstein only, but he asked producer Carlo Ponti for so little money to make it Ponti suggested he make two films for a little more money. When pressed for another story Dracula was the first thing that came into his head. Most surprising of all is that Udo Kier was not first choice to play the Count but only came in at the last minute when Srdjan Zelenovic, who played the male creation in Frankenstein, wasn't able to stay in Italy. Morrissey says Zelenovic had the aloofness and distance he wanted for Dracula, though, having seen him in Frankenstein, I'd describe his acting style as wooden. The film isn't meant to be taken too seriously but I certainly enjoyed it. Harmless fun!