Wonderfully offbeat film!

Excellent, smart action film.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

"Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood" is one of the better erotic vampire films out there.**SPOILERS**Awakening from a hundred-year old slumber, Count Dracula, (Tony Clay) finds himself in California, and sends servants Martine, (Eyana Barsky) and Renfield, (Del Howison) to bring back Vampire Lord Ruthven, (Arthur Roberts) and starts to adjust to life in the 20th Century. Upon learning of a curse placed on him that renders him unable to drink blood, Lord Ruthven reluctantly revives sister Diana, (Glori-Anne Gilbert) so that he can drink blood again. Seducing her way through the LA nightlife, eventually getting stronger and stronger with each kill. Discovering that past love Roxanne, (Kennedy Johnston) is alive, both begin mad pursuit to reclaim her love.The Good News: A rather decent entry in the erotic vampire sub-genre, this one at least does what's expected of that genre quite well. The women are all pretty well-endowed, making their frequent disrobing a pleasant sight to see. It's really hard to pick out who comes out best in this, as nearly every woman in the cast joins in at least one such scene, with several being in a couple each. The best part is that none really seems out of place at all, and instead of being inserted for the purpose of getting as much nudity as was humanly possible out of the plot, these never seemed heavy handed at all. It was nice to see that they didn't just throw them in randomly. That means that it's heavy on the eroticism, and is a rare rarity that a film is able to achieve that without being cheesy or corny. The fact that it actually has a plot to speak of does wonders for it as well, and it makes for a long stretch of time in the first half where we actually get exposition instead of a repeated series of random erotica rather than set-up a device that can pay-off in that area later. This also keeps the vampiric element in the front, rather than it just being a side-plot that does nothing for what the film will be about. This is actually surprising and makes it a little better than the average film in this genre.The Bad News: There really isn't a lot to dislike here, other than the fact that the horror elements, other than the fact that the leads are vampires, does this come anywhere close to being considered scary. It plays around with skulls and blood and even features a cameo role from horror great Paul Naschy, but there's nothing remotely scary about this is. There's a little bit of suspension of disbelief that's hard to get over and it sticks out as very obvious, but these are clearly minor issues aside. This wasn't all that bad of a film.The Final Verdict: Naturally, if looked at as an erotic film starring vampires, this does have some redeeming qualities to it that places it at the very front of the pack in this particular sub-genre. If this appeals to you in any way shape or form, then give it a go, but if you prefer the dark, brooding vampires, then exercise caution. Naturally, prudes need not apply at all.Rated UR/NC-17: Frequent full Nudity, frequent Sex scenes and erotic themes, Language and Mild Violence

*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT* I don't know about you but when I hear the title "Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood" I have no choice but to run right out and buy the movie immediately. Oh sure, I know that I'm more than likely going to be let down but I don't care. I couldn't possibly be a B-movie fan if I didn't have the stamina to put up with bad movie-making now and again.So Countess Dracula has a thing for women. She is resurrected in present day L.A. and goes on the prowl. Her vampire brother needs her to go out and stalk for her. So she heads out and rounds up as many prostitutes as she can find. Much blood sucking and lesbian couplings follow. Soon the vampire siblings will focus on one girl who reminds them of a long lost love. More blood sucking and lesbian couplings follow.I was slightly disappointed with this one. Glori-Anne Gilbert, (Countess Dracula), is not the most convincing sex performer I've ever seen. All of her girl/girl scenes were kind of a letdown. She didn't look like she knew what she was doing. Her kissing scenes definitely needed work. Basically, she sticks her tongue out and then hopes that something connects to the other end. Hey, if you're going to kiss someone, use the whole mouth, not just the tip of the tongue. I'm picky about these things. Most of the other sex scenes were OK. The best was at the end with Eyana Barski and two other girls.On the plus side, there is a lot of nudity. Gilbert is a giant of a woman with appropriate giant-sized breasts. Most of the other women were pretty hot as well. "Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood" had many pleasant B-movie elements. Vampires, strippers, prostitutes, blood sucking etc. If you're not overly picky, it's probably worth a look.

Spoiler Alert! First and foremost, this is a 'sequel' to the 'Erotic Rites of Countess Dracula', a 'straight-to-video' lesbian gropefest, created by Don Glut for Seduction Cinema. Except for a few fang shots and some lovely ladies turned vampire vixens, there was nothing else here but girl-on-girl pairings which I'm sure made many pubescent teenage boys (and a few pubescent older men) happy--in more ways than one. I couldn't count myself among the few.With Frontline and Retromedia taking over distribution rights, one would think that Don Glut, the producer/director of the aforementioned, could make things a bit more 'horror'-fied, since he wouldn't be bound by Seduction Cinema's trademark "vampire girl meets regular girl,vampire girl seduces regular girl, vampire girl grabs/gropes girl like finicky shoppers going over cantaloupes in the produce department, vampire girl turns regular into vampire, more groping follows" formula. Plus, he has horror star Paul Naschy, whose done a fair number of good movies. In his comments, he says that the production values would be higher and the file would have a more 'Hammer-like' feel.Not the case....'Orgy of Blood', gives us the story of the vampiric Ruthven siblings, Byron and Diana, who have been chasing a comely lass named Roxanne Dumas,in a sibling rivalry attempt to make her one of their own. Naschy plays Father Jacinto, a priest who is down on his luck with God (and obviously the film industry, to accept working in this picture) who stops both of them from turning Roxanne into having a hemoglobin hankerin' and one overly sharp overbite. With faith restored, he asks to be allowed to walk the earth to insure that the Ruthvens evil never rises again. This takes place circa 1800's. Wanna bet the Ruthvens will be back with a vengeance? They are, and so is Roxanne, now in 'another life', in present day L.A. One thing to mention, the priest cursed Byron with a silver dagger, so that'd he never be able to taste the blood of innocents. Remember this...And that's the story--what I've written--no really--you don't have to watch....FINE! I'll continue...Anyway, Byron is resurrected, he misses Roxanne, he goes to get a 'bite' ,in the form of ex-prostitute-turned-stripper Lilith, he finds he cannot drink blood, the ghost of Father Jacinto utters his curse and urges Ruthven to do 'the stake thing', Ruthven discovers (via the Ruthvenian, the vampire bible--um, right) that he can drink blood filtered via another vampire, which causes him to resurrect his sister Diana (who was staked by Roxanne's brother--did I mention that), who turns out to be one depraved little sex monkey (but would probably do well on a FOX reality show),who goes out and begins giving girls the 'the big hickie', and so forth and so on...see? I told you the whole movie...I didn't?..You want to know more? Boy are you a glutton for punishment.And so, Diana finds Roxanne, seduces/gropes/ad nauseum Roxanne, brings her back to the lair (Lilith is already there, with pretty overbite and all), turns Roxanne, which angers Byron, who stakes Lilith, and then stakes himself when Roxanne rises as one of the undead, and only has eyes for Diana. And then all the vampire girls live happily ever, stroking,caressing,kissing....there. Movie over. Don't have to watch.My take? It was as bad as 'Erotic', though better lit in most scenes, had way too many unrelated scenes (the 'vampire dance' and the hot tub should have hit the cutting room floor, running), and the acting:Diana - actually, Glori-Anne Gilbert was pretty good, though she needed a bit less oversexed vampiress and a bit more seductive, sinister vampire queen (Glori-Anne, rent Vampire Lovers, watch Ingrid Pitt,see how it's done)Lord Byron - eh...Lilith - Okay, the 'sister' was pretty and all, but she appeared to have all the acting skills of a seriously injured boxing turtle. Her look, though, would have made a great second 'predatory vampiress'. Both she and Diana could have gone on the prowl. Ole' Ruthven could've have been cured twice as fast.Roxanne - quite good at looking vulnerable. That's it. Hey, you want vulnerable AND strong, go see Linda Hamilton in Terminator/T2.Minor girls turned vamps - They were minor girls turned into vampires... That's it. Hey, Diana's attack scenes on them were so hokey, I started laughing...Father Jacinto - Naschy. This could have been soooooooo much more... Alas and alack...In conclusion, I give 'Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood' and new title, 'Countess Dracula's Boring Gnash 'n' Bash'. If you want a hint of seduction/taste of lesbian horror, go Hammer. If you like watching girls feel each other like Play Doh, this is your movie.

Writer director Donald Glut is currently the last man standing in imaginative and intelligent erotic horror. His unfortunately titled "Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood" brings expertise and reverence to the vampire genre, plus a welcome heterosexuality that has been drained (pun intended) by the likes of Ann Rice, Clive Barker, David DeCoteau, and their imitators. Unlike the horror-ignorant productions from Seduction Cinema, Troma, Playboy Films, and lesser filmmakers that exploit the vampire form for dull, formulaic T&A; or the PC feminism of "Buffy" and "Angel"; Glut's eroticism rises FROM the sub-genre's conventions. He essentially brings out the sexuality which the Universal and even Hammer films could only hint at, making it delightfully profane. To that end he is wonderfully assisted by an amazing Glori Ann-Gilbert, whose unrestrained performance as a sexually insatiable, erotically beautiful vampire hits every fantasy mark. There is also a fleeting turn by iconic Spanish Horror star Paul Naschy as a tortured monk that provides a rewarding link to the past and reflects Glut's appreciation for it. Though the movie is hampered by low-budget realities and some unnecessary intentional campiness, it's the best erotic horror film in years, and a key step in Glut's ascent to major minor filmmaker.