A new administrator arrives at a school where a couple of female teachers have already been raped. She tries disciplining a couple of the more rowdy male students, but they don't pay her ... See full summary »
A private detective is hired to find an ancient book. What he doesn't know is that the book has the power to turn any woman into a nymphomaniac, and that a group of Nazi scientists--who ... See full summary »
Have you ever enjoyed your work... really enjoyed your work? If you haven't, then you must see and meet "The Dancers". Jackie, road manager of the dancers know as "The Dreams", takes his ... See full summary »
A horny young man has sex with Barbara who tells him about her affair with her son. He wonders what it'd be like to hook up with his beautiful sister and their gorgeous mother, while the sister starts thinking about their manly father.
While Barbara is ashamed of having had sex with her son, Joyce has completely accepted her-own incestuous side. When Barbara starts craving for her other son, she visits Joyce to seek advice only to find her in bed with her-own other son.
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This porno spoof of Tod Browning's Dracula was originally made in a 108-minute version but apparently none or at the most a couple theaters got this version.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.
4 of 6 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?