Watch Blood for Dracula For Free

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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.

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.

Here we are, the end of 2009, and Vampires have found their way back in style. Well, hot damn for them. We all knew it would happen sooner or later. Since Bela Lugosi redefined exactly what a Vampire is, back in the 30's, these guys are here to stay. However, the current crop of Vamp-entertainment has me a little worried. Twilight, eh? The Vampire Diaries? Oh yeah, I forgot, everything has to be targeted towards children now. I hate to admit it, but the so-called golden age of the 30's is a tad slow for my taste, and of course the fact that I'm an adult stands between me and the latest Vamp-craze. Fortunately, there was a period in between where they got it right. Enter Paul Morrissey, and his pal, Andy Warhol. The year is 1973, and rebelliously independent director, Paul Morrissey just wrapped up Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. Days later, Morrissey starts filming the logical next step, Andy Warhol's Dracula. Udo Kier (Mark Of The Devil) plays Count Dracula, and Joe Dallesandro (Andy Warhol's Trash) plays a guy who gets laid all the time. In this version of the legend, Dracula can only consume the blood of virgins, which is unfortunate for Udo because Romania has been sucked dry, so, now , the Count is headed to Italy in search of a nice, rich family, with nice, wholesome daughters. Once a destination is chosen, Dracula has high hopes of taking one of these pristine, young ladies back to Romania to marry (drain dry). The parents also think this is a swell idea, and the girls aren't putting up much of a fight. Only one problem, Joe Dallesandro is the live-in handyman, which means, yep, you guessed it, not a virgin in the house. Tough luck, Drac. Now would be the time to take this hopeless mission elsewhere, because if Joe finds out there's a Vampire about... It's on!!! Blood For Dracula is every bit the Masterpiece as Flesh For Frankenstein. Each one, a dismal, morbid work of art, although, this one is a bit more on the mean-spirited side. Udo Kier's portrayal of Count Dracula is so accurate, as if he were born to play the role. And Joe Dallesandro is always entertaining, with his acting issues and what not. Anyone out there who wants in on the latest Vampire craze, who isn't a pre-teen girl, HBO's Trueblood may be worth a look. And for the schlock lovers, you may want to check out Chris Seaver's latest masterpiece, Taintlight. although still semi-unknown, Paul Morrissey's version of Dracula just might be the definitive edition. Not bad for a guy who didn't do Horror. If you ask me, I could have totally gone for a few more of these. Imagine, the possibilities were endless. Maybe an Andy Warhol's Wolfman, or how about an Andy Warhol's Mummy? No, that would be stupid... I got it!! Andy Warhol's Jekyll & Hyde!! 10/10

This film was made immediately after "Flesh for Frankenstein" with some of the same cast and much of the same crew. Dracula, the last of his family, can't find any more "werrgens" (as Udo Kier memorably puts it) in Romania so his servant has the idea of going to Catholic Italy, where they must be growing on trees. In Italy he gets himself invited to visit a poor noble family and their four unmarried daughters. The parents are delighted that the supposedly rich Count may marry one of their daughters and boost the family coffers. However the Count is only after virgin blood! Unfortunately thanks to Dallesandro's character who works on the estate, the middle 2 daughters no longer qualify as virginal.However the Count has to find that out the hard way, leading to much vomiting and blood regurgitation. Not surprisingly after this he is found out and the films heads towards it's OTT climax. I preferred it to "Flesh for Frankenstein" for a few reasons. The story is better, there isn't as much "horror" and the characters are (slightly) more realistic. It is interesting to see the Dracula story taken out of Transylvania and to see the Count portrayed as unwell. There aren't as many funny one liners as in Frankenstein but the behaviour of the characters is quite amusing. Director Paul Morrissey still includes some striking scenes e.g. the opening credits where the sickly Count dyes his white hair black and reddens his pale lips. The four daughters are also interesting characters in different ways. Their parents are a bit mad, especially the father, and provide some comic relief.The acting is pretty good. Udo Kier is more low key than in Frankenstein as the ill and melancholy vampire, though he certainly gives it his all in the blood vomiting scenes! Arno Juergens again plays his servant, a much stronger character than in Frankenstein. Here the Count relies on him completely to arrange his life and most importantly provide food and drink. The daughters are all played well. Milena Vukotic as the eldest, resigned to being a spinster. Dominique Darel and Stefania Casini work very well together as the more liberated middle daughters. Silvia Dionisio plays the youngest daughter and though she doesn't look 14 as the character is supposed to be she has the right air of innocence. Maxime McKendry plays the Marchesa di Fiori. Her very English accent is a bit offputting at times but her practical attitude to the families situation contrasts with her husband,the Marchese, played by famous Italian director, Vittorio Di Sica. The director's commentary tells us that Di Sica wrote his own lines and this is easy to believe as he comically rambles on about the suitability of "Dracula" as a name for his daughter's potential suitor, even before he has met him. The revelation that he is responsible for the family's poverty isn't surprising. You get the impression Dallesandro is playing himself as the last estate worker and he does a good job of looking brooding and serious, spouting Communist theory while rolling in the hay with a daughter or two. The director's commentary on the DVD is quite interesting. Morrissey reveals that there was all of an hour between the end of Frankenstein and the beginning of Dracula, enough time for Kier and Dallesandro to change hairstyles. He also says that he loves using actors with varying accents together. He certainly hit the jackpot in this regard with Dracula. Another revelation is that Morrissey went to Italy to make Frankenstein only, but he asked producer Carlo Ponti for so little money to make it Ponti suggested he make two films for a little more money. When pressed for another story Dracula was the first thing that came into his head. Most surprising of all is that Udo Kier was not first choice to play the Count but only came in at the last minute when Srdjan Zelenovic, who played the male creation in Frankenstein, wasn't able to stay in Italy. Morrissey says Zelenovic had the aloofness and distance he wanted for Dracula, though, having seen him in Frankenstein, I'd describe his acting style as wooden. The film isn't meant to be taken too seriously but I certainly enjoyed it. Harmless fun!