I was intrigued when I heard about Andy Warhol producing 'Blood for Dracula,' and 'Flesh for Frankenstein.' I planned on watching both of them, starting with 'Blood for Dracula.' This movie is just very entertaining, strange, and artistic. The story is like no other Dracula film. With Udo Kier as Dracula this was bound to be good for me. I first saw Udo in Gus Van Sant's 'My Own Private Idaho,' (which many people probably had the same experience as me.) I thought he was good at first sight. Then I watched an interview with director Gus Van Sant, where he was talking about first seeing Udo in 'Flesh for Frankenstein,' and 'Blood for Dracula.' Naturally, I had to see them. It was exciting to know that this movie existed. So this was interesting. I don't think it was great, I don't think it could've been better, it's just good the way it is. You just kind of have to see it yourself.

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.

Andy Warhol's Dracula isn't that bad of a film. It isn't great but it actually isn't terrible. Udo Kier's acting is very amateurish and I'm starting to think that the only reason he ever got roles was because of his striking blue eyes and unusual features. He was handsome when he was young but he can't act. The rest of the actors are comparable to very good porn actors. Joe Dallesandro actually doesn't do too bad here although he seems bitter. Maybe even he knew that this was yet another low budget, strange, tacky and disgusting Warhol film. Don't get me wrong-I like most Warhol films-Bad is one of my favorites. The problem I have with this is there are scenes of Dracula having seizures that are very poorly done and scenes of him vomiting blood that go on way, way too long. If these scenes had been edited shorter I could have handled them. Also, Dracula, like Frankenstein, contains some stomach turning scenes. I literally spoke out loud and said, "no, no, he isn't going to do that, no". Ah yes, now I know why some Warhol films were rated X. Joe Dallesandro does his usual nude scenes and looks good as always. As I said before the film isn't terrible. It actually has some interesting scenes, sets and some good acting. But some of this is just awful and ruins whatever good the filmmakers had achieved.

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