Welcome to MUBI.
Your online cinema. Anytime, anywhere.

Reviews of Blood for Dracula

Displaying all 2 reviews

back to Blood for Dracula

Picture of tonymurphylee

tonymur​phylee

17Oct10

In this retelling of the story of Dracula, the world’s most famous vampire (Udo Kier, in a breathtaking and charismatic role as the count) lives in rapid deterioration in Romania with his watcher, Anton. Dracula is nearing death due to the fact that he needs the blood of a virgin in order to survive as tainted blood makes him deeply ill. Dracula decides to travel to Italy after burying his sister because Anton tells him that there are many religious girls there who value their virginity and do not have sex until marriage. The plan makes sense, but problems arise when Dracula and Anton take shelter in the home of a religious family consisting of a greedy and thoughtless wife, a bitter husband, their four daughters, and their communist worker (played by the consistently memorable Joe Dallesandro). The plan is to pretend to be an aristocrat looking for a virgin bride, but issues arise when Dracula discovers that the daughters are not as innocent and as virginal as they are reputed to be, thanks to their worker, in this bizarre and extremely bloody vampire fable.

Excuse me for seeming rather melodramatic for saying this, but this has got to be one of the most depressing horror films I think I have ever seen. The idea of Dracula being a terrifying and intimidating demon of a human being is completely altered here. Dracula is no longer the great monster that legend states, but rather a frail and deteriorating creature who is weak and pitiful. Call me crazy, but to me this idea is truly heartbreaking. This is a very tragic, pessimistic, and cruel film, and watching it is like watching a weak old man slowly bleed to death in a creek after getting in a bicycle accident. It is basically the mental equivalent, and as a result I would highly suggest that folks who aren’t privy to films about tragedies better steer clear of this. For everyone else, however, who is a 70s grindhouse horror fan, fans of erotic horror cinema, and fans of Euro-trash, there is a lot here to recommend. For starters, Udo Kier as Dracula. Oh my god can this man tug at the heartstrings. His performance as Dracula is as pitiful, feeble, and tortured as you can ever imagine. Say what you will about his theatrical line delivery, but I found myself tearing up just looking at the guy. The opening scene in which we watch him cover his old frame with make-up is one of my favorite opening scenes in horror. It is sad, it is tranquil, and it is classy all at once. Udo Kier has such gentle and expressive eyes that help give the character a sense of lost humanity that I found incredibly poignant.

Arno Juerging as Anton is also astounding. He allows his character to be somewhat charming and timid while still allowing him to show a vicious tendency. He’s an unusually memorable aspect of the film that certainly helps to differentiate this picture from other films of it’s nature. Joe Dallesandro is a lot funnier and has a lot more fun with his role here than in the past, but above all he just looks great on camera regardless of the quality of film stock. He has such a wonderful presence here, and his character is a lot more interesting and clever than you would expect from this type of role. Above all, however, he’s a hero who you don’t feel entirely comfortable rooting for. He’s a main character whom the writer doesn’t mind showing you his sleazy side. He’s not an entirely likable protagonist, and I always appreciate when filmmakers have the balls to do that. It worked in 2009 with District 9, and it works just as brilliantly here. The musical score by Claudio Gizzi is one of the great haunting horror film scores of the 70s. This score, as well as his equally powerful score in Flesh For Frankenstein, are two of my favorite music scores of all time. It fits the sadness of the film like a glove.

If there is anything I can say against this film, it is that it’s audience is severely limited. This is not going to be the kind of horror film that many, if not most, will appreciate. It has such a sleazy, zany edge to it mixed with such a theatrical architecture, and as a result it will just seem weird to many. This is a film that is considered by scholars and by moviegoers alike to be a horror comedy. However, it is a comedy free of humor and a horror free of scares. It is a film that only exists as a horror comedy in theory, but in execution it strives more to tell a story and less to be a genre picture. Yes, there may be moments and sequences that may be viewed as humorous, such as the gradual dismemberment of a character and the subsequently gratuitous blood spray that occurs. Yes, there may be moments and sequences that may be viewed as terrifying, such as when a character first notices that Dracula has no mirror reflection. However, the film itself, much like Flesh For Frankenstein, is more Shakespearean in execution. Watching the scene in which Dracula vomits tainted blood out into a bathtub is surprisingly disgusting as well as heartwrenching. I applaud Paul Morrissey for allowing the audience to feel so vulnerable at the idea that one of the greatest movie monsters, as well as a source of many nightmares, has been reduced to a sad and pathetic joke of a creature who gets sick to the point where they can barely even move without falling to the ground and puking out all the blood in their body.

This is one of my favorite vampire films and one of my favorite films of it’s kind. It’s not going to appeal to everyone, especially the easily offended, but it is a tremendous piece of horror filmmaking that I personally think deserves it’s place in film history. Best of all, it is a vampire film that, like the 2008 Swedish film Let the Right One In as well as the 1996 actioner From Dusk Till Dawn, follows all the basic rules in vampire lore. This film also includes a cameo by Roman Polanski, and to this day I think it’s one of the funniest and most intelligent cameo appearances of all time. What more can I really say? This is a cult classic of the highest caliber. It’s beautifully shot, it’s evenly paced, it’s gory as hell, it’s genuinely erotic, and it’s not afraid to break your heart. If you are a fan of cult horror and you haven’t seen this, you are seriously missing out.

  • Currently 4.0/5 Stars.
Picture of Christopher Smith

Christo​pher Smith

18Dec08

Like its companion piece ‘Flesh for Frankenstein’, it has all the elements of a cult classic, but is far too slow and talky for it to come together. Udo Kier is superbly over-the-top as the undead count, there’s an abundance of nudity and some great gory moments, and the production values are much more polished than ‘Frankenstein’ – but it doesn’t get really interesting until the last 15 minutes or so. In the end, I’d have to say the flawed ‘Frankenstein’ is the better of the two.

  • Currently 2.0/5 Stars.