In 1897 Roxanne (Danielle Petty) is desired by vampire Lord Ruthven and his enhanced sister Diana (Glori-Anne Gilbert) with tan lines. They are vanquished, but are brought back a century later by Count Dracula (Tony Clay). Roxanne's spirit is alive in a look-a-like ancestor and Ruthven and Diana are in hot pursuit.The film is cheesy by design with corny lines and soft core nudity with lesbian scenes and some FF nudity. There are anachronisms and a lot of bad acting when it is not being cheesy. Corny lines abound also.Guide: No swearing. FF sex. Nudity (Danielle Petty, Glori-Anne Gilbert, Eyana Barsky, Jana Thompson, Lolana, Belinda Gavin 6 stars for cheese and nudity)

Isn't it weird how these erotic vampire movies always seem to be all about lesbianism? I could be wrong but I don't think this is what Bram Stoker was having in mind when he wrote his famous novel Dracula.Of course this wasn't a very good movie, which should hardly come as a surprise to anyone. It's cheaply made, with silly writing, weak acting and nothing else in it that can impress.I just also can't see how anybody could enjoy this as a soft-core porn flick really. There really aren't that many sex scene's in it and there also really isn't all that much nudity in it. I have seen 'normal' movies with more nudity in it, to be frank. But I can still say that the girls are all nice looking. Normally I'm not always that impressed with the 'actresses' in soft-core movie attempts but the girls in this one were all quite nice looking. Perhaps it was because they were played by some girls in their mid-20's who were also very natural and not 'perfect' looking, as opposed to exaggerated and fabricated, Barbie-doll looking, teenagers.In this case I can really say that I would probably had enjoyed this movie far better if it had less story in it. I say this only because it has such an horribly written story in it. It's the sort of story that actually works out confusing, due to the way how badly written and constructed it is. Basically you could say that it has 3 different story lines in it, that don't really ever come together well. This is what makes the movie so needlessly 'complicated' and also quite annoying. And it's not like any of the story lines is written well or interesting enough. The character's are all very lame ones and the movie doesn't even have a good or likable main character in it. No hero and no real villain in this one. Just a bunch of blood sucking lesbians doing- and shaking their thing.Sounds like plenty of reason for some people to go and watch this movie but no, this movie is just a failure and disappointing at everything it wants to achieve. It's not directed and made well enough to even consider this somewhat remotely of a must-see for the lovers of the genre.To be honest, it's not the worst erotic lesbian vampire movie (is this an official sub-genre yet?) I have ever seen but I still can't think of any reason why anyone should ever get some enjoyment or 'psychical pleasure' out of this production.3/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Short version: Imagine Max Payne 2's "Lords and Ladies" was about lesbian vampires. That's what you get.Long version for those unfortunate enough to not get an immediate (and precise) image of what the movie is like: I'm judging the movie by "bad movie standards". The plot is obviously a horrid non-sequetir (there are 4 speaking characters out of approx 15 that would have absolutely no place in the movie if it had any sense of narrative structure). The acting is terrible (this coming from someone who finds Julie Strain a perfectly fine actress) and is in no way helped by the (the world lame doesn't even begin to cover it) pompous yet sincere dialog: "Dearest brother, our hour is at hand!". There were moments where I simply had to do something else while shutting my ears as the embarrassingly jarring dialog rolled by.Also, there are at least 5 minutes of an bald monk glaring and pointing at the camera. "Italian horror legend" indeed.On the positive side (and this is the only part that should matter for those who have the foresight the watch the movie with a finger right above the fast-forward button) the lesbian scenes are pretty neat and have a bit of "raw vampiric sensuality". Glori-Anne Gilbert never looked better, with or without clothes, the girls are all (at the very least) quite attractive, the lighting is decent and the girls appear to be slightly more into it/ ready to touch each other than in your average softcore flick. Granted, that's not much, but...The soundtrack is fairly interesting, as well. Probably not everyone's thing, but definitely semi-unique. It's just a shame it doesn't have better scenes/movie to accompany.

Spoiler Alert! First and foremost, this is a 'sequel' to the 'Erotic Rites of Countess Dracula', a 'straight-to-video' lesbian gropefest, created by Don Glut for Seduction Cinema. Except for a few fang shots and some lovely ladies turned vampire vixens, there was nothing else here but girl-on-girl pairings which I'm sure made many pubescent teenage boys (and a few pubescent older men) happy--in more ways than one. I couldn't count myself among the few.With Frontline and Retromedia taking over distribution rights, one would think that Don Glut, the producer/director of the aforementioned, could make things a bit more 'horror'-fied, since he wouldn't be bound by Seduction Cinema's trademark "vampire girl meets regular girl,vampire girl seduces regular girl, vampire girl grabs/gropes girl like finicky shoppers going over cantaloupes in the produce department, vampire girl turns regular into vampire, more groping follows" formula. Plus, he has horror star Paul Naschy, whose done a fair number of good movies. In his comments, he says that the production values would be higher and the file would have a more 'Hammer-like' feel.Not the case....'Orgy of Blood', gives us the story of the vampiric Ruthven siblings, Byron and Diana, who have been chasing a comely lass named Roxanne Dumas,in a sibling rivalry attempt to make her one of their own. Naschy plays Father Jacinto, a priest who is down on his luck with God (and obviously the film industry, to accept working in this picture) who stops both of them from turning Roxanne into having a hemoglobin hankerin' and one overly sharp overbite. With faith restored, he asks to be allowed to walk the earth to insure that the Ruthvens evil never rises again. This takes place circa 1800's. Wanna bet the Ruthvens will be back with a vengeance? They are, and so is Roxanne, now in 'another life', in present day L.A. One thing to mention, the priest cursed Byron with a silver dagger, so that'd he never be able to taste the blood of innocents. Remember this...And that's the story--what I've written--no really--you don't have to watch....FINE! I'll continue...Anyway, Byron is resurrected, he misses Roxanne, he goes to get a 'bite' ,in the form of ex-prostitute-turned-stripper Lilith, he finds he cannot drink blood, the ghost of Father Jacinto utters his curse and urges Ruthven to do 'the stake thing', Ruthven discovers (via the Ruthvenian, the vampire bible--um, right) that he can drink blood filtered via another vampire, which causes him to resurrect his sister Diana (who was staked by Roxanne's brother--did I mention that), who turns out to be one depraved little sex monkey (but would probably do well on a FOX reality show),who goes out and begins giving girls the 'the big hickie', and so forth and so on...see? I told you the whole movie...I didn't?..You want to know more? Boy are you a glutton for punishment.And so, Diana finds Roxanne, seduces/gropes/ad nauseum Roxanne, brings her back to the lair (Lilith is already there, with pretty overbite and all), turns Roxanne, which angers Byron, who stakes Lilith, and then stakes himself when Roxanne rises as one of the undead, and only has eyes for Diana. And then all the vampire girls live happily ever, stroking,caressing,kissing....there. Movie over. Don't have to watch.My take? It was as bad as 'Erotic', though better lit in most scenes, had way too many unrelated scenes (the 'vampire dance' and the hot tub should have hit the cutting room floor, running), and the acting:Diana - actually, Glori-Anne Gilbert was pretty good, though she needed a bit less oversexed vampiress and a bit more seductive, sinister vampire queen (Glori-Anne, rent Vampire Lovers, watch Ingrid Pitt,see how it's done)Lord Byron - eh...Lilith - Okay, the 'sister' was pretty and all, but she appeared to have all the acting skills of a seriously injured boxing turtle. Her look, though, would have made a great second 'predatory vampiress'. Both she and Diana could have gone on the prowl. Ole' Ruthven could've have been cured twice as fast.Roxanne - quite good at looking vulnerable. That's it. Hey, you want vulnerable AND strong, go see Linda Hamilton in Terminator/T2.Minor girls turned vamps - They were minor girls turned into vampires... That's it. Hey, Diana's attack scenes on them were so hokey, I started laughing...Father Jacinto - Naschy. This could have been soooooooo much more... Alas and alack...In conclusion, I give 'Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood' and new title, 'Countess Dracula's Boring Gnash 'n' Bash'. If you want a hint of seduction/taste of lesbian horror, go Hammer. If you like watching girls feel each other like Play Doh, this is your movie.