Lust at First Bite (1978)
Dracula Sucks (1980)
** (out of 4)
Dracula (Jamie Gillis) tries to find fresh bait at a sanitarium while Dr. Van Helsing (Reggie Nalder) tries to find and destroy him.
This porno spoof of Tod Browning's Dracula was originally made in a 108-minute version but apparently none or at the most a couple theaters got this version. The XXX version was edited down to 82-minutes and released as LUST AT FIRST BITE while a softcore/horror version was released a couple years later as Dracula SUCKS and clocking in at 86-minutes. Which of these two versions you choose to watch will be up to your taste in terms of wanting to see hardcore sex or something closer to Bram Stoker's novel done in a more serious tone.
Both versions are clearly the same movie but whereas in the hardcore version we'll get sex in the softcore instead of that we'll cut to scenes of violence. This often means that Dracula attacks his female victims and quite often just bites their breasts. It's funny because in the hardcore version he's usually doing something else to the breasts if you know what I mean. I think both versions contain some good things but most of the credit has to go to Gillis who is actually pretty good spoofing Bela Lugosi. I thought the actor looked quite natural in the role of Dracula but he's also clearly viewed the Lugosi version because of the speech pattern. I was really surprised to see how well the line delivery was and this is especially true for the "Children of the Night" speech. The supporting players are also pretty good in their roles with Richard Bulik doing a memorable turn as Renfield. The horror version features quite a few scenes that you're not going to see in the hardcore one. For starters, the before mentioned scenes of the breasts either bleeding or squirting blood. It appears that these scenes were shot after the original movie because quite often they feature a jump cut to where we get a quick view of the blood and then it's back to the normal scene. There are also a few other horror elements in this version including Dracula's red glowing eyes and another sequence where he "sees" people in a burning red flame. The hardcore version features a few added scenes with John Holmes that I didn't spot in the softcore version.
The film even has the guts to credit Stoker at the start of the film. Both versions feature some humor thrown in but most of the time it's just wacky dialogue featuring a lot of cussing. It sounds as if this too was added to the film after the production. Even in their shorter running times both versions seem to run way too long at both become rather tiresome as they move along. With that said, I think both versions are still pretty fascinating especially to those who would like to compare them. Who knows how the original version would have ran but I'm going to guess that it was cut down for good reasons.
Dracula Sucks (1980)
** (out of 4)
Dracula (Jamie Gillis) tries to find fresh bait at a sanitarium while Dr. Van Helsing (Reggie Nalder) tries to find and destroy him.
This porno spoof of Tod Browning's Dracula was originally made in a 108-minute version but apparently none or at the most a couple theaters got this version. The XXX version was edited down to 82-minutes and released as LUST AT FIRST BITE while a softcore/horror version was released a couple years later as Dracula SUCKS and clocking in at 86-minutes. Which of these two versions you choose to watch will be up to your taste in terms of wanting to see hardcore sex or something closer to Bram Stoker's novel done in a more serious tone.
Both versions are clearly the same movie but whereas in the hardcore version we'll get sex in the softcore instead of that we'll cut to scenes of violence. This often means that Dracula attacks his female victims and quite often just bites their breasts. It's funny because in the hardcore version he's usually doing something else to the breasts if you know what I mean. I think both versions contain some good things but most of the credit has to go to Gillis who is actually pretty good spoofing Bela Lugosi. I thought the actor looked quite natural in the role of Dracula but he's also clearly viewed the Lugosi version because of the speech pattern. I was really surprised to see how well the line delivery was and this is especially true for the "Children of the Night" speech. The supporting players are also pretty good in their roles with Richard Bulik doing a memorable turn as Renfield. The horror version features quite a few scenes that you're not going to see in the hardcore one. For starters, the before mentioned scenes of the breasts either bleeding or squirting blood. It appears that these scenes were shot after the original movie because quite often they feature a jump cut to where we get a quick view of the blood and then it's back to the normal scene. There are also a few other horror elements in this version including Dracula's red glowing eyes and another sequence where he "sees" people in a burning red flame. The hardcore version features a few added scenes with John Holmes that I didn't spot in the softcore version.
The film even has the guts to credit Stoker at the start of the film. Both versions feature some humor thrown in but most of the time it's just wacky dialogue featuring a lot of cussing. It sounds as if this too was added to the film after the production. Even in their shorter running times both versions seem to run way too long at both become rather tiresome as they move along. With that said, I think both versions are still pretty fascinating especially to those who would like to compare them. Who knows how the original version would have ran but I'm going to guess that it was cut down for good reasons.