Customer Reviews

Lust for Dracula (Director's Cut)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The director of this film had some beautiful, young, & talented women to work with, but rather than concentrate on producing either an erotic video with horror overtones or a horror video with erotic overtones, he decided instead to try something artsy and avante garde --- and ended up with this piece of trash that is neither scary nor erotic.

Seriously, how can you possibly mess up a video with lesbian vampires? I didn't think it was possible until I watched this one. The plot is rambling and confusing, the sex scenes are one dimensional and uninteresting, and the video as a whole is silly and pretentious. This one is a disappointing waste of talented, beautiful actresses. I would have settled for one really good erotic moment but sadly it never arrived.

I have seen a lot of Seduction Cinema films, but never before have I found myself wondering if one of them somehow went over my head. There have been plenty of Seduction Cinema films that made no sense - but that was always because they were just really stupid. Lust For Dracula isn't stupid - but it makes almost no sense whatsoever. It's like watching some kind of experimental, artsy film school production. If you don't read the summary on the back of the DVD case, I guarantee you won't have a clue about what this film is supposed to be about. I couldn't wait for this movie to be released, as it was described early on as a reinvisioning of Dracula - with lesbians. And, of course, it stars Misty Mundae, and I've never kept secret my fascination and borderline obsession with alternative cinema's reigning starlet. I must tell you, though, that the film was in many ways a disappointment.

I'm not saying this is an altogether bad film, though; there are in fact several positive aspects of Lust For Dracula. The script, unfortunately, is not one of them. The biggest problem, to me, is the director's failure to really identify and define his characters. When you have a woman married to a woman she believes to be a man, you really need to be clear about what you're attempting to do story-wise. Misty Mundae plays Mina Harker; she is married to Jonathan Harker, who is played by Julian Wells. Now, I've always thought there is a little too much of a masculine quality to Julian Wells, but clearly she is not in fact a man. Mina hasn't figured it out yet, though; there are two main reasons for this: Jonathan pretty much keeps her drugged all the time and, in addition to and largely because of that fact, Mina is as loopy as - well, something with a heck of a lot of loops. Then Dracula comes into Mina's life, and Dracula gives Mina the one thing she wants most (and the one thing Jonathan could never give her) - a child. Uh, but Dracula is also a woman (Darian Caine). Somebody bring me an abacus because something just isn't adding up here. You also have Mina's sister Abigail Van Helsing who supposedly wants to destroy Dracula (although nothing about her character is made clear - or even gauzily opaque - in the film itself). While all of this crazy stuff is going on, you also have this pair of vampire lovers taking up a lot of film time for no apparent reason - until the end, when everything comes together (which is not to say everything is explained or makes a lick of sense).

The photography of the film is actually well-nigh gorgeous; for a Seduction Cinema film, the production values are unmatched. Then there is Misty, whom director Tony Marsiglia credits with saving the film in several different ways, proving himself to be a master of the understatement. Misty has never had a role quite like that of Mina, and early on it is difficult to tell whether she is horrible or unbelievably good. One early scene in particular, in which she reads a children's story with great animation to an empty cradle, is difficult to watch because she is just so out there in left field with what she does. In retrospect, though, I think Misty was bloody brilliant in that scene - and throughout the rest of the film. Marsiglia directed her to be weird beyond her own imagination, and Misty delivers. It's not her fault the film itself doesn't make any sense.

For me, though, the real bright spot of Lust For Dracula is the performance by Andrea Davis. She has a unique look and style that could easily, in my opinion, make her Seduction Cinema's next major star. She has had small parts in other films, including Dr. Jekyll and Mistress Hyde, but this young lady deserves a starring role in a film - and soon.

I'm not exactly sure how much a pile of beans is worth, but I am pretty sure it's more than the plot of this film is worth. Still, I think Lust for Dracula is worth buying simply for the performances by Misty Mundae and Andrea Davis. You'll want to make sure which version of the film you want, though - and it can be hard to tell the difference between the two in the listings. The DVD with ASIN B0002TT0KU is the director's cut - this is what you want because it has the complete film along with extras you may not find on the R rated version (a commentary by director Tony Marsiglia and producer Michael Raso, a look at the making of the film, an interview with Misty Mundae, and a short film called Insex). In the commentary, I really, really hoped that Marsiglia would make some effort to actually explain what the heck this film was about, but he and Raso (who apparently did almost nothing on this film, despite his producer status) somehow manage to talk about the movie without actually talking about the movie. The R rated version (ASIN B00020HAHO) comes with two short films, Headcheese and Lost Face- if the other two short films are as bad as Insex, it won't matter that you miss out on those with the director's cut.

Like i said, very good nudity, almost too much of it in the film. There is barely any dialogue, instead it's a soft-core lesbian film. The problem with Anthony Marsiglia's films, is that the film opens up with a sex scene or two, and then when you read about it, it sounds interesting or worth watching. But instead his way of directing, is just terrible, because he tuns a perfect story into a confusing sex film. The reason why people might be intrigued by the concept, is because Lust For Dracula is supposed to be a lesbian reinterpretation of Bram Stoker's: Dracula. Also Lust for Dracula has a lot of gratuitous nudity throughout, and was non-stop. This sounds good, "right" "wrong."

I thought I will see a movie ..be it sex .. bloody .. cult .. SOMETHING .. but this DVD provides NOTHING .. absolutely NOTHING .. the acting is worse than the plot if there is a plot at all. Worst of all there is NO sex whatsoever ..
Don't waste your time or money ..buy chocolate instead !

Why does Marsiglia have to turnout junk scripts that lack meaning,reality continuity ,and flow? He demonstrated in "Dr Jeckle and Miss Hyde" that he has the ability to do so .Or was that a one shot wonder? IMO this was one of MM's best efforts,as she plays a psycho wife (doesn't she ALWAYS play a psycho?)to Julian Wells, thinking that the busty Wells is her husband and evidently never noticing those breasts until the end of the movie ,by which time she has fallen in love with ...you guessed it, Dracula! (played by Darian Caine). Darian was a good choice for the femal Dracula as they saved on the makeup ,as she is looking so bad.

However I think that Misty took a comic approach to the whole thing as she used up her comical expressions and whimsical approach to redeam what was left of this dumb script.Cute Andrea Davis had her lip clamp in and her nipple rings and I suppose that was suppose to have some meaning but if it did it flew right by me.The same can be said for the Scott sisters, who added nothing to the script and but looked OK.Lots of blood but where did it come from and why .
Misty by the end of the week (after doing "Chantal") had a nervous breakdown and never made another film again as the leading lady.For the most part she entered a lenghty retirement,coming out to do the TV Afterhours series "Longerie",where she is not a featured star.Its a shame .She had it all but got stuck with a inept bunch of clowns who though they were being very avant-garde.

Forget whatever it says on the box, there really is no discernable plot in this movie. It does contain a number of vivid scenes, which unfold like a series of dream sequences with little or nothing really tying them together. If you are already a fan of Seduction Cinema then this film won't disappoint you. On the other hand, if you don't know what I'm talking about, their movies are pornographic lesbian love fests thinly disguised as horror or action movies. These movies are certainly not for everyone as it often seems that they just go from one lesbo porno scene to another. Playmate of the Apes is still their best movie but this movie also has some great scenes, music, and atmosphere. The girls are all in such great physical shape that I wonder if when they're in between making these movies they all have day jobs, so to speak, in some strip club in New Jersey or somewhere. Misty Mundae says in the interview that the director kept telling her to act as crazy as she can, which she certainly did. Her character is so flaky that she believes herself to be married to Julian Welles, who she mistakenly believes to be a man. Can you believe that? If that isn't bizarre enough for you, Darien Caine claims to be Dracula as she runs around Misty's house in the nude. The dialogue between them was nothing if not bizarre and was way over my head. There is also a scene where Misty sings a lullaby to a doll or something, which she keeps in a crib in the attic. I suppose that there is some kind of philosophical meaning in the nursery rhyme but who really cares about that? Misty also mentioned in the interview that she misses her boyfriend, which was interesting because she always plays a lesbian in these movies. You can count me as a Misty Mundae fan, but in this movie I actually preferred the scenes with Andrea Davis and another teenage girl vampire. I found their scenes together to be mesmerizing. My favorite part was when Andrea looked right into the camera and smiled at me. I also loved the scenes where they were dressed as Catholic school girls who then undressed themselves. I agree with other reviewers that Andrea Davis has real potential in these kinds of movies. The subplot where vampire Andrea lusts for the other girl and makes her into her possession would have made a great little movie all on its own, sort of like the recurring plot of the Subspecies series, except with girls as both predator and prey.

To say this movies has no plot is an understatement. It's so confusing, I just have no idea. But as far as the sex goes there are a couple of good scences. Including the masturbation scene with Andrea Davis and Misty Mundae. This was an excellent scene and worth the price of the movie. I agree with other reviewers that Andrea Davis has a bright future with Seduction Cinema. She's gorgeous and is very erotic. Tough not to be drawn in by her. Check it out.

This is by far the best film by Tony Marsiglia. The movie is beautiful and yet chaotic. The production value is still modest in it's low budget approach but spectular with it's visuals.
There is quite alot of sexual content, and nudity but it comes dense with thought. I'm sure there's some statement when watching a woman dressed like a man rape another woman. The best thing is that this movie is open to interpretation like good art should be. This movie might mean something different to anyone who watches it. You really do have to see this film more than once to get the whole story. The film is great at taking a classic tale and redefining the characters, and their motives. Maybe dracula is the hero? really does open up some great questions for the viewers.

Every so often one catches a relatively unexposed underground short film that reeks of talent. Sharing the DVD with the R-rated "Lust For Dracula" is HEADCHEESE, directed by Duane Graves and Justin Meeks, and it is quite astounding. Filmed on both 8-mm and 16-mm black and white film stock, this 22 minute observation of a schizophrenic serial killer, wandering desolate Texas backwoods and farmland, combines the visual excess of underground classics such as Richard Kern's SUBMIT TO ME (1985) and FINGERED (1986) and thematically resembles Nico B and Rozz Williams' PIG (1988) another movie exploring the tortured mind of a serial killer and his spiritual quest for truth.

We are introduced to side-burn sporting nomad, Legion (Justin Meeks), who wanders into a garage to buy some beers, and shades before setting out on a head trip that sees him kill an unsuspecting driver who picks him up, and traverse the barren fields, accompanied by grim voice-overs that have our psycho plead forgiveness for his crimes and launch into a series of surreal masochistic tortures (imagined and enacted) involving bondage with chains, impalement, and disfigurement via assorted objects found on the way.

The violence is conducted ritualistically and at times resembles a bizarre mix of tortures as visited upon Christ in the Chapters according to St. Luke (an excerpt of which opens the film), Satanic worship, and Elvis stage act and is beautifully staged against the foreboding Austin locations featured prominently in the original THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.

It comes then as no great surprise that Graves and Meeks were students on TCM writer Kim Henkel's screenwriting and film production courses, and that Henkel is the producer. In the liner notes accompanying this ei Cinema DVD Henkel praises the directors talents; "those boys are going places". I couldn't agree more. Worth the buy just for the shorts.

No beautiful throats pierced here!!! Waste of time sums this one up.