A Disappointing Continuation

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Review may contain spoilers.Udo Kier doesn't play a very convincing Count Dracula. He cannot turn into a bat, nor a wolf, nor ethereal mist. He doesn't have a hypnotic effect on his victims like previous vampires. His assistant isn't a mentally disturbed man from an asylum, but rather a well dressed socialite with perfectly styled hair. In an ironic twist, the peasant servant of the castle has more of a predator like hunger for the females living there then the count does. The male servant's libido is off the charts as he has sex with 3 out of the 4 daughters of a rich aristocrat. The main idea behind this plot seems to be to cram in as much sex as possible into the total viewing time. In one scene two of the sisters engage in a passionate kissing session with each other. There is no reason for this except to try and increase lust on the part of the viewer. The Count has to feed but can only suck the blood of virgins, and believes he has found some highly available ones in the mansion. In his first attack on one of the girls, he sucks so much blood for so long that it would have at the very least caused her to lose consciousness or at the most die from rapid blood loss. His second attack is a little more believable because he doesn't suck in as much blood. But in both cases, the vomiting scenes afterwards are a huge turn off. The only thing more repulsive then those scenes are when the count laps up virgin blood off the floor left behind by the youngest daughter after the male servant sexually violates her. In the end, when the count is hacked to death by the ax wielding servant, I hoped that there was no way he could be resurrected for a continuation of this story in a second film. So far to date I have been right.

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.

I'm not really a fan of Warhol. When seeing him portrayed by a few other actors, he's one out there cat. Like Flesh For Frankenstein, which I hold in better regard to this, these flicks are way better than a lot of his other stuff, I imagine, as seeing Heat and Trash, and being less than happy, let me tell you, the one which especially, which involved daddy feeding his infant milk, over silence. This is where Warhol's talents really lie, with these flicks, though really there's nothing exceptional about this one, that takes it's time before the real gore comes flowing, outweighed by sex scenes and nudity, a lot of lesbianism. The count Dracula (Udo Kier who I love in these roles) desperately needs blood, from that of a virgin, so he travels to this castle in France, masquerading as someone else, with his chauffeur as you will, the same guy who co starred with Kier in FFF. Striking out with two girls, non virgins, he goes after the last who hasn't been deflowered and she's only 14 (and the rest) where it becomes a race against time. Joe Dallesandro as the handyman, got really annoying, with his dialogue, all delivered in angry tones, had me thinking, what makes this frickin' guy tick. In one way, the real gore came all too late, this one, kind of boring and testing in bits, where they threw in the sex to hold us over. Don't expect another Flesh And Frankenstein here, in a Dracula that really doesn't impress, where we really don't see nothing new. Only if you like lesbianism and nudity, that's fine.

Unevenly entertaining and often just plain boring, this visually beautiful Paul Morrissey Dracula drama rattles on for 103 minutes instead of 73 minutes, as there is little more than an hours worth of interest here. The film improves considerably each time Joe Dallasandro loses his clothes but his hilarious NooYawk accent jars with the seductive and plaintive voices of the gorgeous women in the film. Costumes and villas are magnificent, Udo Keir is gasping ridiculous, his butler simply high school camp, and music good and the production quite acceptable. But over all and before Joe grabs the axe, the film is one long serious tedious scenes of what Dracula wants to eat for dinner, and silly long scenes of the Countess moaning about suitors. Edited back to 73 minutes with all the sex and gore left in, would make this not so difficult to find the juicy bits. Sex scenes are eye popping. Some rough which is irritating, but mostly quite watchable. I think I saw it in 3D in 1975. The DVD I have now is just a transfer with no restoration of materials. It is quite grainy.