Reply to Topic
BLOOD FOR DRACULA
DIRECTOR: PAUL MORRISSEY
STARRING: JOE DALLESSANDRO, UDO KIER AND ARNO JUERGING
DIRECTOR: PAUL MORRISSEY
STARRING: JOE DALLESSANDRO, UDO KIER AND ARNO JUERGING
'Blood for Dracula' was shot as a companion piece for 'Flesh for Frankenstein' when 'Flesh for Frankenstein' was shot on a lower budget than expected, and even though this is the case 'Blood for Dracula' is equally as good as its counterpart in every way. From the opening scenes in Romania to the films climax my mind never left what was occurring onscreen.
Just like 'Flesh for Frankenstein' 'Blood for Dracula's' visual composition, from the very first scene, is breath-taking. Beginning with a close up of Udo Kier's vampiric face applying the make up, which makes a vampire so terrifying, in front of an empty mirror, lets the viewer know that this is a different sort of film than they are accustomed to. 'Blood for Dracula' breaks down the stereotype of a vampire and presents a more intimate portrait of their human aspects.
'Blood for Dracula' presents Udo Kier as a frail dying Count Dracula, in dire need of virgin's (or 'wirgin's' in the movie) blood. Dracula must travel to Italy where, due to the religious nature of the country, he will be more likely to find virgins. However as the film progresses it becomes clear that this will not be the case.
The film has a more obvious views about the political and social situations of the time, which 'Flesh for Frankenstein' doesn't have. 'Blood for Dracula' examines, in depth, the liberated sexual attitudes of the 60's-70's and, the fact that, while many women were protesting in the feminist movement many were still willing to be exploited by the men close to them. Further more the film looks at the socialist political philosophy and the way it will create equality for the classes (through their destruction).
The film, while being socially aware (of the time it was shot in), is also an entertaining and will directed film (which is to be expected from Paul Morrissey). As usual Udo Kier is excellent, portraying Dracula in a very human, yet bizarre way, which is perfect in the context of the film. The mood of is continually added to, as it was in 'Flesh for Frankenstein' by the excellent cinematography used, showing each shot exactly when it was needed. The soundtrack once again is perfect, in most cases, for the tone of the film, but in others it is a little too jovial, but overall a beautiful score.
'Blood for Dracula' is a great movie to see if one wants to view something other than the cliche vampire films have become, or simply to view as a companion piece to 'Flesh for Frankenstein'. I believe the film was truly something unique and something which I really enjoyed, as much, if not more than its counterpart.
Just like 'Flesh for Frankenstein' 'Blood for Dracula's' visual composition, from the very first scene, is breath-taking. Beginning with a close up of Udo Kier's vampiric face applying the make up, which makes a vampire so terrifying, in front of an empty mirror, lets the viewer know that this is a different sort of film than they are accustomed to. 'Blood for Dracula' breaks down the stereotype of a vampire and presents a more intimate portrait of their human aspects.
'Blood for Dracula' presents Udo Kier as a frail dying Count Dracula, in dire need of virgin's (or 'wirgin's' in the movie) blood. Dracula must travel to Italy where, due to the religious nature of the country, he will be more likely to find virgins. However as the film progresses it becomes clear that this will not be the case.
The film has a more obvious views about the political and social situations of the time, which 'Flesh for Frankenstein' doesn't have. 'Blood for Dracula' examines, in depth, the liberated sexual attitudes of the 60's-70's and, the fact that, while many women were protesting in the feminist movement many were still willing to be exploited by the men close to them. Further more the film looks at the socialist political philosophy and the way it will create equality for the classes (through their destruction).
The film, while being socially aware (of the time it was shot in), is also an entertaining and will directed film (which is to be expected from Paul Morrissey). As usual Udo Kier is excellent, portraying Dracula in a very human, yet bizarre way, which is perfect in the context of the film. The mood of is continually added to, as it was in 'Flesh for Frankenstein' by the excellent cinematography used, showing each shot exactly when it was needed. The soundtrack once again is perfect, in most cases, for the tone of the film, but in others it is a little too jovial, but overall a beautiful score.
'Blood for Dracula' is a great movie to see if one wants to view something other than the cliche vampire films have become, or simply to view as a companion piece to 'Flesh for Frankenstein'. I believe the film was truly something unique and something which I really enjoyed, as much, if not more than its counterpart.
**** (4 stars)
Nathaniel M.
&feature=related
Last edited by Nathaniel_Mc; 08-25-11 at 06:56 AM.
