everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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.

Blood for Dracula is the companion piece to the other Andy Warhol produced horror film, Flesh for Frankenstein (1973). It was made at the same time so shares a lot of the cast members, while it's twisting of its traditional source material is equally demented. Different people prefer one or the other and I personally prefer Flesh, finding its content so wonderfully over-the-top in so many outrageous ways that it entertains on several levels. Blood for Dracula, on the other hand, is a fairly restrained film by comparison. Although this is a relative statement because going by any other standard this is a quite delirious version of Dracula. Needless to say, it entirely ignores the original novel and furrows its own path, updating the character quite successfully for its 70's time-frame. In this sense, Dracula is what can best be described as a blood junkie. He spends considerable screen-time vomiting up unpure blood and generally is more akin to a drug addict than the gallivanting count of old. The story has him moving from Romania to Italy in search of fresh virgins. He is welcomed by a down-on-his-luck marquis who actively encourages him to marry one of his four daughters. Before long he is feeding off them but, unfortunately for him, a local handyman has been going around systematically de-purifying them!You've got to hand it to Paul Morrissey; he has directed another bona fide cult classic with this one. It's very interesting how the traditional myth has been twisted into the tale of a junkie vampire. Its Cinecittà origins also ensure that this is an exploitation film that has the added advantage of looking quite sumptuous. But much of the strengths here, like its sister film; can be found in the campy deadpan performances and insane dialogue. Udo Kier is on form again as Dracula in another commendably committed performance, his assistant is played by Arno Juerging in an eye-poppingly bizarre way and Joe Dallesandro under-acts spectacularly again as the somewhat questionable 'hero' Marxist handyman who at one point rapes a young teenage girl in order to make her unsuitable prey for the dastardly count! This latter scene is topped off with Dracula licking blood off the floor that was discharged on account of it being the girl's first sexual encounter. Yech! Look out too for a humorous cameo performance from Roman Polanski and a rare chance to see future Suspiria actress Stefania Cassini speak her dialogue in her real voice, usually she is dubbed but here her very heavy and quite beautifully exotic Italian accent is on full display (as well as pretty much every other part of her it has to be said).This is probably as much a sexploitation film as it is a horror movie. There are significant amounts of screen time dedicated to naked fumbling. This approach, along with the film's generally quite transgressive content does make for a pleasingly in-your-face viewing experience. But, while it may not have been as horror-oriented as you may have expected, this situation is addressed in quite spectacular style in what can only be described as a hilariously OTT gory finale that really has to be seen to be believed.

this movie is quite different, I think, from "flesh for frankenstein" which is much campier and sort of tongue in cheek. even though the films are on the surface so similar. this has always been my feeling anyway. I don't know what the intention was but this movie is much more poignant and scary and overall has much more emotional impact.it's not without campy humor but on a horror movie level it still ranks very very high up with "Let the Right One In" and the original Draculas well above the vast majority of vampire films, of which, when you get right down to it, there are very few that are not profoundly disappointing. For one thing, Udo Kier's performance is spectacular, really breathtaking. Gary Oldman's Dracula may be virtuosic, but it's not that gripping there's not so much feeling coming from him. You really see what a great actor UK is in this film and what a stage actor he could be if he wanted to be. It's amazing how he moves, how physical his performance is. You can see in this film that he could do really well with Shakespeare. One of the problems with all vampire movies even the original is that they are almost all period pieces in essence even when set in the present day, because they are alway so self censored and Hays Code ready. This movie, set in the late teens/roaring 20s, is much more involving for its grappling with certain issues that movies did not whatsoever up till the 60s and 70s - as the petit bourgeois finally caught up with what the lower and upper classes were up to in the silent film era. Most vampire movies deny not only the virginal thing but really even sex itself. An even more fundamental drawback, making vampire movies by and large so unsatisfying, is well illustrated by something I remember hearing Clive Barker say at some talk I heard him give "Who wouldn't want to be a vampire? You can live forever f*** whoever you want just by looking at them from across the room!" etc etc. That's the problem with most vampire movies - they don't give you any sense of what the drawbacks are of vampirism so there's nothing not to like about it. Ya get to fly like a bat and turn into mist and well you have to get shaved by a barber I suppose is the only drawback. This Warhol Morrissey version and "Let the Right One In" are the first two to convey that there is "conflict" in the whole vampire lifestyle and so they are by leaps and bounds more powerful than any others that I can think of offhand.

Another movie that i was banned to see along with flesh for Frankenstein back in 1974.This the first Dracula movie that i ever saw where the Count is in search of a pure virgin,daylight don't bother him,dosen't sleep in his coffin,drink blood from the floor,if i'am correct that was some kind of blood discharge after a virgin is being broken in..very sick.once again overacting on Udo and his co-helper,the eyes,just like flesh for Frankenstein.and of all Dracula movies,this is the first time i see Dracula get all chopped up and brutally helpless.Udo play Dracula fine but his crying talk was childish.this is one Dracula mixing it up and looking for Cinderella before the big bad wolf get her..i gave it 8 stars because it was different,sexy,sick and for adult only.