IMDb > A Taste of Blood (1967) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
A Taste of Blood More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 19 reviews in total 

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Maybe not for the casual viewer, but def. for exploitation diehards.

8/10
Author: gweegweeisgood from United States
22 August 2006

PRobably HG's most ambitious project even more so than 200 maniacs, and I really loved it. It is very talky but unlike other HG and exploitation flicks the acting from bill rogers and willy kerwin is quite good and makes you care about the characters and what they have to say. Since its an HG flick we have some gore but its not one of his intensive gore flicks. There is a great scenes where the vampire stone takes a nice chunk out of a stripper dancer. I do have to point out however that almost all of HG Lewis flicks have a certain style to them to make you know its an HG Lewis flick. There's the out of focus closeups, lingering gore scenes, but there is also these horrendous day-for-night shots. This movie is no exception to that as the last 20 minutes feature some of the worst day-for-night shots ever filmed. Bad movie lovers and exploitation fans should be very pleased.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

A Taste of Herschell

7/10
Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC
7 August 2001

The director of what is widely considered the first splatter film ever made(Blood Feast) directed this film about a man, through drinking a brandy laced with blood and his ancestral relationship to Count Dracula, that turns slowly into a vampire and begins to kill the relatives of the six men that killed the famous count. If you are looking for the typical Herschell Gordon Lewis trademarks of great quantities of un-realistic blood, super bad acting, gobs of intestines and the like, inferior lighting, and a litany of other flaws in film-making that seem to find such a home in Lewis's work, you might be disappointed. This is easily Lewis's best film in terms of direction and acting. The actors in here are average. No small feat for a Lewis film. Even Bill Kerwin(one of Lewis's regulars) does a decent job! The female lead was also average, and that says a lot for a Lewis film. Usually he just puts pretty girls with no acting talent in his films like Connie Mason, but sexy Elizabeth Wilkinson has some acting talent(albeit not a lot) as well as boobs! Bill Rogers makes an adequate vampire as well. Not only are the actors decent, but the script is interesting. Donald Stanford used some interesting tie-ins with the novel by Bram Stoker for the names of the relatives. I thought it was a fairly unique concept. The film is two minutes shy of two hours, and it is a tad long. It is very apparent though that Lewis wanted to make this film the best that he could. It shows. It shows he has some talent as well. Lewis also has a bit part as a sea captain affecting a working-class English accent. He is pretty good too. There is not much in the line of killing or gore though. The film shows far less blood that you would see in your typical Hammer feature. There are some obvious budget concerns with sets, etc..., but all in all this is a decent film about the vampire myth in a modern setting.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Slightly below par for Lewis

6/10
Author: alanmora from United States
14 March 2007

This is Herschell Gordon Lewis' "Epic" movie. This is the film with, according to Lewis, the highest production value and budget of all of his "gorror" (a term coined by Lewis describing the gore genre of films that he created) films. Despite this, I found this film to be slightly disappointing. Anyone, viewing this film expecting to see something along the lines of "Blood Feast" or "The Wizard of Gore" as I did would be slightly disappointed. The gore is kept to a bare minimum in this film and it appears as if Lewis was trying to make a legitimate horror movie without all the stomach-churning effects of his classic work. Although the storyline is fascinating, the bad acting and hideous effects do not serve this film very well, even though this is what most Lewis fans have come to expect from him. It doesn't quite work in this one, because it seems to have been the intention of Lewis to try to provide his audience with a legitimate scare. For Lewis fans, this film is still worth viewing but for those who have not seen his work before I suggest you first watch a couple of his classics such as the previously mentioned entries.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

A Taste Of Blood

6/10
Author: cultfilmfan from Canada
5 February 2005

A Taste Of Blood, is about a businessman named John Stone, who one day receives a package in the mail. In the package are two bottles of brandy and the letter that comes with it says he is a great relative of a rather famous family. John, starts to drink the brandy and soon his wife Helene, notices how much he has changed. He is very cold and distant from her and he sleeps all day and works only at nights. John, soon travels to London where the package came from and learns that he is a descendant of Count Dracula, the vampire and now he is going to kill off everybody who tried to or is related to somebody who tried to kill Count Dracula. Meanwhile back home a man named Dr. Howard Helsing, visits Helene and her friend Dr. Hank Tyson, and tells them that Helene is in great danger and he is too because John wants to kill him too because his ancestor killed Dracula. Not believing at first soon Hank follows Howard, because he notices changes in Helene and does not want to see any more people dead. A Taste Of Blood, is directed by cult filmmaker Herschell Gordon Lewis, who is known as "The Godfather Of Gore" for giving us such films as Blood Feast, 2000 Maniacs, Color Me Blood Red and The Gruesome Twosome. I have seen many of Herschell's films (and have liked them all) but A Taste Of Blood, is different than his usual horror films. One reason is because there is hardly any gore in this film at all. There is maybe three scenes with some very light blood so gore fans might have to look elsewhere for some of his regular gore. Also most of Herschell's films are under 90 minutes running time and this one is 118 minutes, just two minutes short of two hours. The film is well done but it is quite slow moving and doesn't have the same camp value as Herschell's other films and plays more like a straight faced horror film. It is very slow moving but at the same time I was interested in the film and wanted to see how it would carry out. It is not my favorite Herschell film but I still liked it and die hard fans of Herschell will probably like it as well if they don't mind the slowness of the film or it's no violence.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Different for Herschell Gordon Lewis, but still a good film

7/10
Author: dworldeater from United States
22 May 2014

A Taste Of Blood is a bit of a departure for exploitation director Herschell Gordon Lewis. More expensive, slower paced and taken more seriously than his usual projects. John Stone(played by Bill Rogers)gets a package in the mail which contains two bottles of brandy, which he then toasts to the memory of his ancestor. Said brandy contains the blood of Dracula(which he slowly becomes throughout the course of the film). Bill Rogers does a good job as the lead and sort of resembles Christopher Lee. HGL gives a good go at a Hammer styled Dracula film. While lacking the funding and talent pool of a Hammer production, I think the godfather of gore did well with the resources he did have. A Taste Of Blood is a very enjoyable, ultra low budget horror film that may be less over the top and campy than most of the films Herschell is known for, but contains more gore than other films of this genre made during this period. It is a different sort of film for Herschell Gordon Lewis, but is entertaining and well made.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

A No Taste of Gore, snore

1/10
Author: macabro357 from U.S.
3 August 2003

It's hard to believe but Herschell Gordon Lewis actually made a non-gore horror film with this boring dreck. And with an almost 2 hour playing time, it's about 40 minutes too long.

A wealthy businessman (Bill Rogers) receives two bottles of plum brandy in the mail as part of an inheritance from his ancestor's estate back in England. As he drinks the brandy over the course of a few weeks, he slowly starts to change into a (gasp!) vampire named (you guessed it) Dracula!

With none of the usual Herschell Gordon Lewis gore feasts in sight, this one is a complete snoozer that lacks even the campiness of his other films.

The alternate audio commentary with Lewis on the Something Weird DVD can be funny at times, but not enough to save this turkey. In other words, this ain't no BLOOD FEAST or WIZARD OF GORE.

1 out of 10 for sheer boredom

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Nice-looking film, but pretty dull by HGL standards

5/10
Author: InjunNose from Alabama
11 January 2016

Part of the problem is its length: "A Taste of Blood" clocks in at a whopping two hours. Lewis tended to wrap up his films in about 80 minutes, and certainly "Taste" would have benefited from a shorter running time. But content-wise, too, this is one of Lewis' weaker efforts. The script was written by someone (namely, Donald Stanford) outside the HGL inner circle, and it shows; these 120 minutes are dour and talky, with none of the gallows humor that characterizes Lewis classics like "Two Thousand Maniacs!" and "The Gruesome Twosome". Finally, in a bid for respectability, the Godfather of Gore kept the blood and guts to a minimum, and a movie as monotonous as this one really could have used a little more action. "Almost a step into the mainstream," Lewis said of this film when he was interviewed for an episode of "The Incredibly Strange Film Show" in 1989, "(and) it was a mistake, because that step into the mainstream gave me a picture that was neither fish nor fowl." The film is beautifully photographed, and there is one bang-up gore effect (when vampire Bill Rogers has his way with a blonde stripper), but "A Taste of Blood" is for Herschell Gordon Lewis completists only. Casual viewers will not be amused.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A Relatively Goreless Offering From The Wizard Of Gore

3/10
Author: ferbs54 from United States
23 October 2007

"A Taste of Blood" (1970) is a relatively goreless rarity for Herschell Gordon Lewis, aka "The Wizard of Gore." At almost two hours in length and clearly designed by Lewis as some kind of epic vampire saga, it tells the story of John Stone, a smarmy Florida businessman who receives two bottles of brandy in the mail from his British ancestors. He drinks the bottles off, little realizing that they have been Mickey Finned with the blood of Dracula himself, and soon, blue-skinned and with a 100-year-old score to settle, he starts to track down the descendants of the old neck nosher's enemies. That doctored booze, I should add, comes as no real surprise in the film...not after we learn that Stone's middle name is Alucard. (This sets the viewer up to expect appearances by Dr. Nietsneknarf and Mr. Namflow, which mercifully never happen!) Anyway, with only a handful of mildly bloody killings, this film should barely appeal to Lewis' usual rabid fans. Nor should it appeal to anyone looking for a well-put-together film. In truth, the picture is very cheaply made, terribly edited, moves at a glacial pace and is never frightening. Lewis' direction is lackadaisical and his camera positionings are pedestrian; worst of all, the same few snippets of music are repeated endlessly, as if on a tape loop, to the point of distraction, and the day-for-night photography is laughable. So why the three stars? Well, the film is also decently acted (for an H.G. Lewis movie, anyway), is at times atmospheric, and the three leads (Stone, his hotty blond wife and his best friend) are somewhat interesting. The picture should have been a 1/2 hour shorter, but with a lot more polish, this Dracula update could have been something other than the bloodless life-drainer it often is. Oh...I should also mention that those blessed maniacs at Something Weird have done it again, rescuing another cinematic oddball and making another fine-looking DVD out of it. Way to go, guys!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Way too long for a HGL film!!!

Author: mark czuba (gspotbuy@hotmail.com) from Edmonton, Ab.
26 October 2000

A taste of Blood is Herschell Gordon Lewis's answer to a Vampire Film. Husband (Bill Rogers) and Wife (Elizabeth Wilkinson) get a mysterious package in the mail from England filled with brandy bottles and a message telling them to toast Their ancestors. The husband starts to nip away at it slowly despite his wifes insistence not too. Bad move, turns him into a creepy lookin, blue make-up, type vampire, with a funky looking ring that can hypnotize people. This movie has all the HGL trademarks, including the unstable camera shots, cheap locations, quit editing during exciting moments, and bad acting. Bill Kerwin (from Blood Feast and many more HGL's films) has a role in this one too as an overly bothersome friend of the family. There is even a Howard Hesling doing the Dr. Van Hesling thing here. Good 'OL Hersch has a cameo as an English sailor. This film has it's moments, but at 118 min. is way too long, it can easily be trimmed to a nice 75 min. and still have the same outcome. Also I might add for a HGL film the gore is rather tame, and it takes a good 45 min. to see any blood, and when you do see it, it is rather lame.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

60'S horror classic

10/10
Author: jacobjohntaylor1 from Barry's bay Ontario Canada
7 April 2016

This is one of the scariest movies of all time. It about a vampire who great grand son if Dracula. He not a wear of it. Till the day becomes a vampire. If this movie does not scary you no movie will. This is one of the better Dracula sequels. This movie is a must see. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It also has great special effects. 4.8 is just underrating it. It is no 4.8. It is a 10. I mean that. This is one of the best horror movies of all time. I can not imagine why any one would not like it. It is a true horror classic. You should see this movie. It is a great movie. You need to see this awesome movie. It is so scary.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history