MovieChat Forums > Sangue per Dracula (1974) Discussion > What did Andy Warhole have to do with th...

What did Andy Warhole have to do with this?


Pure garbage. Who wrote the script? A 2 year old. It was terrible. Bad acting, too.

reply

It was produced by Warhol. More info at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071233/fullcredits#writers.
Sorry to hear you didn't like it. Makes me wonder why you watched in the first place, knowing Warhol, Kier and any Dracula adaptation were involved…

The divinity laughed.

reply

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, my opinion is that the original poster's taste sucks. He/she probably thinks Coppolla's piece of crap Dracula was good.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Since Andy Warhol was a visual artist you were expecting what? He wasn't a writer. Way to miss the point of the movie.

reply

I found elements of this movie to be hilarious like when he bit the slutty sisters and started puking blood. His reaction was priceless. Udo's acting was great and he really committed to the role. Joe Dallesandro's acting was so awful, mix that with the porno movie quality dialogue and you have a recipe for a very funny film. I've never seen Dallesandro in anything else so I don't know if he was acting terribly on purpose.

reply

Dallesandro was supposed to play like that. I don't think he played awful, it was just the kind of role that maybe you did not like, maybe because you did not understand its premise.

reply

I actually thought this was good film. Campy but good. Hey I thought Coppolas 1992 was good as well. The only Dracula film I didn't like was Frank Langella back in 1979.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”

reply

The bad acting was a GOOD thing! If you have a sense of humor I guess. I can't stand people like you who take movies so goddamn seriously.

CG GORE IS THE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED TO THE HORROR GENRE!

reply

[deleted]