Lust for Dracula

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.

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.

I was looking for a steamy Vamp flick, but all i got was senseless story with poor acting and direction that gave a headache. Here's the breakdown on the story (maybe, if I understood it correctly) Two sisters are recruited by competing Vamps with one being Dracula and the other by a female drug rep. to become part of their families. They take the meds to help in the transition from human to Vamp (I think). Then enter a Van Helsing daughter to stop the Vamps and their evil deeds.If you are looking for female nudity and lots of then look no further, but if you are looking for a steamy or erotic horror flick then look elsewhere. The girl on girl scenes or any of the sex scenes for that matter aren't very erotic and look very amateurish and in some cases just plain silly. The dialogue is horrid and matches the acting and direction perfectly.A few of the girls look very young so young in fact I checked to see their ages. I found Misty Mundae 25 at the time, but I couldn't find the age of Andrea Davis. I'm not into kiddy porn and I was a little uncomfortable watching this even after some fact checking. Usually people in their late twenties or early thirties are cast to play young people, but not here.If you are comfortable watching nude young ladies star in a poorly produced movie that makes little sense then this movie is for you.I can't recomend this movie even with all the nudity it's poorly written, acted, directed and just not worth the time.1 generous star.

Believe the other reviews that say it is bad. I like Misty probably because she doesn't seem to take her acting seriously. This movie seems to have been shot in a lot of different places and with a lot of different characters. Its like someone was searching for a story but couldn't find it. Then they either ran out of time or money and decided to just throw a bunch of scenes together. There is no story line. Don't be as stupid as me, get something else.

Entertaining to some degree for vampire fans, but not really recommended for others. I would have given it one star, but I can't say I really hated it.

This was a screwed up mess. No sense no erotica. No story. A real waist of time and money. Avoid

This is the worst movie ever made, they had no money for clothes? All this was is a bunch of naked women walking around. HATED IT.