The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

"Blood for Dracula" clearly has its fans, hence its relatively high IMDb rating (for a horror movie) and the many positive comments describing it as a clever satire.Alas, I would consider it a poor satire -- and a smug Z-movie that's more concerned with being "subversive" and "shocking" than telling a decent story with good characters. Some reviewers claim it's a masterpiece of camp, but somehow I don't see it as camp. Adam West's Batman is camp, while this thing is far more...what's the word? Blargh, that's it. Not camp, but blargh.Not that "Blood for Dracula" doesn't have a few good points. The location filming (I presume actually in Italy) is gorgeous, and once in a while, the script serves up a clever line or a glimmer of proper characterization. But none of the good parts last. About 90% of the film's running time consists of repetitive nude scenes, boring exposition, casual sexism, and Dracula writhing while coughing up blood. Suddenly, "Dracula AD 1972" doesn't look so bad!Bizarrely, two great directors appear in cameo roles: Roman Polanski as a local rube who sasses Dracula's incredibly annoying servant (a very enjoyable moment), and Vittorio De Sica as a hammy patriarch with florid speech patterns. It says something awful about the movie that these two cinema giants, chiefly known for their skills behind the camera, are in fact the best actors in the whole thing! Try not to compare their relative naturalism to Arno Juerging and Maxime de la Falaise, who have much bigger roles but can't act their way out of a wet paper bag.As for Udo Kier as Dracula -- gosh, what can I say. He looks pale and depressed the whole time, as he frets and longs for a taste of "wurgin" (as in, virgin) blood. And his dialogue consists of very non-Dracula observations, such as "it's very important for a girl to study homemaking." Or something like that. Move over, Bram Stoker, your brilliant undead aristocrat had been replaced by a pallid wimp who loses a fight to a communist farmhand. (If only I could purge that image from my memory!)Of course, the film's fans will tell you that its awfulness is all deliberate. Like Andy Warhol stacking his soup cans, the people who made this travesty were playing a brilliant joke on us all, and we're just too dumb to figure it out! Silly us, expecting things like a compelling plot and decent acting. We're all so bourgeois and unimaginative, we just don't deserve a great movie like this.Okay, rant over. To be honest, I didn't totally hate this thing, I was just...reduced to a state of shock and wonderment by it all. Could such a movie actually exist? And could people actually consider it good? Well, well. What a wide and weird and wonderful world we live in. But you'll forgive me if I prefer Horror of Dracula -- it's due entirely to my middle-class lack of bad taste!

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.

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

"Blood For Dracula" (aka. "Dracula Cerca Sangue Di Vergine... E Morì Di Sete!!!") of 1974 is, after "Flesh For Frankenstein" (1973) the second bizarre take on a classic Horror tale by the team Paul Morrisey (director), Udo Kier and Joe Dallessandro (stars) and famed artist Andy Warhol (co-producer and prominent name). While this film is, in my opinion, not quite as great as the insanely brilliant "Flesh for Frankenstein" it is yet another beautifully bizarre, atmospheric, amusing and highly unusual vision of a Horror classic."Blood for Dracula" introduces the most pathetic version of fiction's most famous vampire. The great Udo Kier plays a sickly, sniveling Count Dracula, who thirsts only for the blood of virgins, as any other blood makes him fatally ill. Aided by his servant (Arno Juerging, who also played Frankenstein's demented assistant in "Flesh for Frankenstein"), Dracula goes to Italy, where people are supposed to be religious and unmarried women are supposed to be virgins. Claiming to be looking for a bride, the Count approaches the aristocratic Countess Di Fiore, who has four beautiful teenage daughters - unmarried daughters which are supposed to be virgins. However, virginity does not last long when the super-potent handyman (Joe Dallessandro) is around... As its predecessor "Flesh For Frankenstein", "Blood For Dracula" has a delightfully absurd storyline, which is very well brought to screen. Udo Kier is once again great in the villainous role, the sickliest vampire ever seen in cinema, as is Arno Juerging as his exaggeratedly weird assistant. Joe Dallessandro once again plays the hero who has sex with every female that crosses his path. The daughters are very beautiful (except for one), the youngest being played by the ravishing Silvia Dionisio (who plays a 14-year-old although she clearly is in her 20s). As "Flesh for Frankenstein", the film is beautifully shot and director Paul Morrisey delivers a great visual style and thick atmosphere. As its predecessor, the film is sleazy and quite gory (though not nearly as outrageously gory as "Flesh for Frankenstein". The film's greatest quality is its outrageously funny and very dark sense of black humor. Overall, this is another great film by the Morrisey/Kier team, though "Flesh for Frankenstein" is even more essential in my opinion. My rating of "Blood For Dracula": 9/10