This is a very difficult film to review. If you look at it from the usual perspective of acting skill, dialogue, plot etc., Blood for Dracula is probably one of the worst films you will ever watch. But you have to have a soft spot for such films, especially the sort you saw originally 25 years ago.<br /><br />Andy Warhol as mentioned in other reviews had very little to do with the film, he was quoted when asked of his involvement that he went to the parties. There is some debate who the director/directors where, but that doesn't really matter.<br /><br />As already mentioned the plot is actually OK, Dracula travels from Transylvania to Italy looking for virgin blood, as the stock in his own area has run out. He finds an Italian family with four daughters who he sets his sights on, gradually discovering that they have not been as virtuous as they have led on.<br /><br />Firstly there is some good comedy, Draculas' coffin on top of his car is a great image. Unfortunately from that point on I doubt the laughs are intentional. Draculas' aide is probably the worst actor in film history, he seems like he has walked in from another movie. Udo Kier is actually not too bad, he looks ill enough for the role and has piercing eyes. There are some hilariously stupid parts, such as the 100 year old waitress in the hotel, the really stupid game that Polanski plays with Dracula's aide, the accents are all over the place and so varied it is like a UN meeting.<br /><br />There are no special effects, apart from the ending with an hilarious dismemberment scene and dual staking. There is also a Marxist undertone from the gardener and general "hero" Mario, who is so heroic he has sex with the youngest daughter very quickly so that Dracula will not be interested in her! The sporadic nudity keeps the viewer interested throughout, as there are very long pieces of dialogue that go nowhere at all.<br /><br />That's it really, not a very good film, but there are laughs to be had and it gives us all hope to become actors one day.