The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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.)

A sickly Dracula (Udo Kier) and his loyal manservant Anton (Arno Juerging) travel from Romania to Italy in search of a 'wirgin' wife. At the villa of the Di Fiore family, the vampire is introduced to four sisters, but not all of them are as pure as they claim to be.The last five minutes of Blood For Dracula are great: handyman Mario (Joe Dallesando) chases Count Dracula with an axe and hacks off his limbs one by one, blood spraying everywhere. He then stakes the vampire's torso. Distraught, the eldest of Dracula's victims throws herself onto the stake, pinning herself to the dead vampire.If only there had been some of this OTT craziness throughout the preceding 100 or so minutes; instead, we get a rather restrained, slow moving story, the only exploitative content some soft-core sex, randy Mario seeing to several of the sisters (which allows for some full frontal female nudity), and the sight of Kier vomiting as he reacts to impure blood.A spot of subtle black humour and the constant mangling of the English language by the largely European cast provides a few giggles, but on the whole, this is a less satisfying effort than its companion piece, the outrageous Flesh for Frankenstein.

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

Andy Warhol's Dracula isn't that bad of a film. It isn't great but it actually isn't terrible. Udo Kier's acting is very amateurish and I'm starting to think that the only reason he ever got roles was because of his striking blue eyes and unusual features. He was handsome when he was young but he can't act. The rest of the actors are comparable to very good porn actors. Joe Dallesandro actually doesn't do too bad here although he seems bitter. Maybe even he knew that this was yet another low budget, strange, tacky and disgusting Warhol film. Don't get me wrong-I like most Warhol films-Bad is one of my favorites. The problem I have with this is there are scenes of Dracula having seizures that are very poorly done and scenes of him vomiting blood that go on way, way too long. If these scenes had been edited shorter I could have handled them. Also, Dracula, like Frankenstein, contains some stomach turning scenes. I literally spoke out loud and said, "no, no, he isn't going to do that, no". Ah yes, now I know why some Warhol films were rated X. Joe Dallesandro does his usual nude scenes and looks good as always. As I said before the film isn't terrible. It actually has some interesting scenes, sets and some good acting. But some of this is just awful and ruins whatever good the filmmakers had achieved.