Watchable

BaronBl00d

Not nearly as disgusting as its closely made forerunner Flesh for Frankenstein, Blood for Dracula has some nice, stylistic moments, excellent period piece settings and costumes, wild overacting from Udo Keir as Dracula(subdued though when compared with his performance as Dr. Frankenstein) and a non-performance by Joe Dallesandro, a sluggish pace at times and, of course, lots of gratuitous sex scenes.  Dracula must go south for his health and find a virgin(for he can only drink the blood of a virgin girl).  He chooses Italy and finds a family with three beautiful, unwed daughters all professing innocence of man.  A swarthy gardener(Dallesandro) works there.  Add two and two and you have the basic premise of the film. For me, and let me say that I get what camp is and what the filmmakers were trying - TRYING - to do, the best part of this film is easily the brief cameo of Roman Polanski as a man in the pub playing a game of do-what-I-do. Polanski has brilliant comic timing, and he reinforces my opinion that he was and could have been a very good actor.  I am thankful he still directs though.  As for Blood of Dracula, it will definitely take a bite out of your time.

score /10

BaronBl00d 30 July 2004

Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw0134105/