Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

jacobjohntaylor1 This movie as to mush sex. To mush nudity. And is not very well acted. There are a lot of great Dracula movies out there. And this is not one of them. Pooh pooh. Pooh pooh pooh pooh. Do not wast your money. Do not see this movie. Pooh. It was badly acted and not very scary. It is difficult to watch at time. And a Dracula movie should not be difficult to watch. Don't see it. Don't see it. Don't see it. Don't see it. Wast of time. Dracula 1931 is great. So Dracula 1979. But this is pooh. It is not scary. Not scary not scary not scary not scary not scary. Not scary not scary not scary. Pooh pooh and pee pee. Not scary not scary. It is a very bad movie.

Red-Barracuda 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.

ptb-8 Unevenly entertaining and often just plain boring, this visually beautiful Paul Morrissey Dracula drama rattles on for 103 minutes instead of 73 minutes, as there is little more than an hours worth of interest here. The film improves considerably each time Joe Dallasandro loses his clothes but his hilarious NooYawk accent jars with the seductive and plaintive voices of the gorgeous women in the film. Costumes and villas are magnificent, Udo Keir is gasping ridiculous, his butler simply high school camp, and music good and the production quite acceptable. But over all and before Joe grabs the axe, the film is one long serious tedious scenes of what Dracula wants to eat for dinner, and silly long scenes of the Countess moaning about suitors. Edited back to 73 minutes with all the sex and gore left in, would make this not so difficult to find the juicy bits. Sex scenes are eye popping. Some rough which is irritating, but mostly quite watchable. I think I saw it in 3D in 1975. The DVD I have now is just a transfer with no restoration of materials. It is quite grainy.

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