Count Dracula languishes in a Romanian castle: there are no virgins left in his homeland, whose blood is necessary to maintain his existence. Together with a servant, he goes to Italy, where he hopes to find many virgins. The count stays in the house of a bankrupt family of aristocrats Del Fiore, who hopes to marry him one of their many daughters in order to improve their financial situation. But the sisters for marriage have long been “spoiled” by the worker of Mario. And their blood causes only excruciating vomiting in Dracula …
4k movies reviews
This film catches everyone with the name of the producer – Andy Warhol. Many even believe that this husband had a hand in its creation with his vision of an artist, highlighting the merit of the true creator of history in his interpretation of Stoker’s novel – Paul. I think that everyone who is familiar with the work of the latter will have no difficulty in sifting out the seeds from the chaff of speculation and rumors.
In general, contemplating the ambiguous product of mixing together many tastes of genres, one cannot completely attribute “Blood for Dracula” and its somewhat sibling “Flesh for Frankenstein” to horror. And all for the reason that Paul, apparently, at the initial stage, obviously did not try to follow the books laid down by the skeletons of stories, but only decided to enlist the big names of well-known characters in order to put his play on film with completely different fears, phobias and passions with their help. , having laid down something of his own, as it happened with him in other films, even if not replete with world famous classics.
So, in my opinion, the film contains almost, as in Freud, the relationship of a man to women, to their loyalty, to their virgin purity, to their own fears of their relationship to themselves, but not horror. Of course, in the ending there will be a chaotic bloody chase, however, directly proportional to the indestructible specifics “the monster catches up, and the victim escapes”, clearly demonstrated by the leitmotif and throughout the film with the presentation of Dracula himself to the viewer. Here, a defenseless, weak, sick and emaciated by the surrounding world of people, a vampire with no right to continue the race is escaping, when a healthy strong, normally mating person, the one who rules this world, trampling on various individuals who have not taken root, bloodthirsty catches up with him. Describing Dracula, it is necessary to pick up all the epithets prone to depicting a weak animal without the right to survive in natural selection: he is sick, he doesn’t eat anything, and he only drinks blood of virgins, whom now (that is, then, in the days of carriages and tailcoats), they really don’t to find free ideals during the day with fire in the dissolute world of free ideals under the cover of strict canons of noble families.
Of course, a person familiar with the book will not find here closeness to the original source, sometimes embarrassed by the excessive presentation of eroticism (no, I am not a pedant and not a strict guardian of norms and rules, however, deep and long immersions in eroticism clearly have a bad effect on the general atmosphere of the film with the overtones of horror or classics , taking thoughts and mood away from the very foundation, wasting on small fragmented episodes-the director’s arguments for another “twig in the eye” of the heroines) and shoveling the very essence, however, this is the whole idea. This is a kind of demonstration of the vision of the world responsible for the film, moreover, modern, taking into account that time, namely the early seventies. This is not a horror, not a classic, but the same that Fellini did, embodying his delusional fantasies and dreams on screens, which rather have the right to be called not by a genre, but only by the name of the director.
And considering, and most importantly, treating the movie as something of the author’s, rather than just genre, one can observe it like a canvas on a film, without bothering with sharp transitions either to eroticism, or to realistic mysticism, or to satire on snobbery. …
Of course, for me personally and for many, the film is interesting not only for the originality of the artist’s hand, but also for the presence of the actor Udo Kir. This talented man of his ancient profession, acquired after all the serious thorns, is a real storehouse of aristocratic arrogant energy, simultaneously capturing many and many geniuses of directing (Carpenter and Argento, for example), where he managed to work earlier and later in his life. In general, Udo Kir alone attracts to the screen, knowingly notifying about a good acting game with a complete reincarnation, where he is not yet forced by fate to exchange his talent for American dollars in some episodic roles in dubious and scandalous â, if one recalls his works in the field of participation in truly bold hypostases) unleavened, often cheap fosterlings, undeservedly belonging to such a great rank – Kino.
The film is definitely worth watching. He has long since migrated from innovation to the classics, and in the West he and his “brother” “Flesh for Frankenstein” were dismantled into phrases by fans of old cult works, who are sometimes ruffy and unable to fit into one genre, balancing on the fine line of outright narcotic delirium of the brain, mired in fears of a completely natural and beautiful manifestation of men and women towards each other, like sex.
Perhaps, in the end, it is worth applying the well-known proverb, slightly paraphrasing it, that âBlood for Draculaâ (like other films of this director), that it is worth seeing it once, than hearing a lot about it.
Codec: HEVC / H.265 (60.2 Mb/s)
Resolution: Native 4K (2160p)
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Original aspect ratio: 1.85:1
English: DTS-HD Master Audio Mono (48kHz, 24-bit)
English: Dolby Digital 2.0