Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood (2004)

Why so much hype?

Good concept, poorly executed.

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

In 1897 Roxanne (Danielle Petty) is desired by vampire Lord Ruthven and his enhanced sister Diana (Glori-Anne Gilbert) with tan lines. They are vanquished, but are brought back a century later by Count Dracula (Tony Clay). Roxanne's spirit is alive in a look-a-like ancestor and Ruthven and Diana are in hot pursuit.The film is cheesy by design with corny lines and soft core nudity with lesbian scenes and some FF nudity. There are anachronisms and a lot of bad acting when it is not being cheesy. Corny lines abound also.Guide: No swearing. FF sex. Nudity (Danielle Petty, Glori-Anne Gilbert, Eyana Barsky, Jana Thompson, Lolana, Belinda Gavin 6 stars for cheese and nudity)

Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood (2004) * 1/2 (out of 4) Padre Jacinto (Paul Naschy) is called upon to kill off some vampires. Flash forward to the present day and a couple idiots release these vampires and soon they are going around looking for sex and blood.Don Glut's COUNTESS DRACULA'S ORGY OF BLOOD isn't the greatest film that you'll ever watch but at the same time it's got a little charm as well as one big reason for watching it but more on that later. This here is basically a low-budget film that offers up monsters in the background but the main feature is of course the simulated sex scenes, the big-breasted women and of course more big-breasted women.If you're a fan of these softcore pictures then there's certainly a lot worse out there. I've always enjoyed watching Glut's movies and this one here clearly shows his love of the horror genre. The women are of course beautiful and there's plenty of nudity throughout. With that said, even that gets rather tiresome and the movie really drags at spots. Still, the main reason to watch this is for Spanish horror legend Naschy who appears in about seven or eight minutes worth of footage. Some might be upset that he wasn't the main focus of the picture but it's still nice getting to see him.

Isn't it weird how these erotic vampire movies always seem to be all about lesbianism? I could be wrong but I don't think this is what Bram Stoker was having in mind when he wrote his famous novel Dracula.Of course this wasn't a very good movie, which should hardly come as a surprise to anyone. It's cheaply made, with silly writing, weak acting and nothing else in it that can impress.I just also can't see how anybody could enjoy this as a soft-core porn flick really. There really aren't that many sex scene's in it and there also really isn't all that much nudity in it. I have seen 'normal' movies with more nudity in it, to be frank. But I can still say that the girls are all nice looking. Normally I'm not always that impressed with the 'actresses' in soft-core movie attempts but the girls in this one were all quite nice looking. Perhaps it was because they were played by some girls in their mid-20's who were also very natural and not 'perfect' looking, as opposed to exaggerated and fabricated, Barbie-doll looking, teenagers.In this case I can really say that I would probably had enjoyed this movie far better if it had less story in it. I say this only because it has such an horribly written story in it. It's the sort of story that actually works out confusing, due to the way how badly written and constructed it is. Basically you could say that it has 3 different story lines in it, that don't really ever come together well. This is what makes the movie so needlessly 'complicated' and also quite annoying. And it's not like any of the story lines is written well or interesting enough. The character's are all very lame ones and the movie doesn't even have a good or likable main character in it. No hero and no real villain in this one. Just a bunch of blood sucking lesbians doing- and shaking their thing.Sounds like plenty of reason for some people to go and watch this movie but no, this movie is just a failure and disappointing at everything it wants to achieve. It's not directed and made well enough to even consider this somewhat remotely of a must-see for the lovers of the genre.To be honest, it's not the worst erotic lesbian vampire movie (is this an official sub-genre yet?) I have ever seen but I still can't think of any reason why anyone should ever get some enjoyment or 'psychical pleasure' out of this production.3/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

"Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood" is one of the better erotic vampire films out there.**SPOILERS**Awakening from a hundred-year old slumber, Count Dracula, (Tony Clay) finds himself in California, and sends servants Martine, (Eyana Barsky) and Renfield, (Del Howison) to bring back Vampire Lord Ruthven, (Arthur Roberts) and starts to adjust to life in the 20th Century. Upon learning of a curse placed on him that renders him unable to drink blood, Lord Ruthven reluctantly revives sister Diana, (Glori-Anne Gilbert) so that he can drink blood again. Seducing her way through the LA nightlife, eventually getting stronger and stronger with each kill. Discovering that past love Roxanne, (Kennedy Johnston) is alive, both begin mad pursuit to reclaim her love.The Good News: A rather decent entry in the erotic vampire sub-genre, this one at least does what's expected of that genre quite well. The women are all pretty well-endowed, making their frequent disrobing a pleasant sight to see. It's really hard to pick out who comes out best in this, as nearly every woman in the cast joins in at least one such scene, with several being in a couple each. The best part is that none really seems out of place at all, and instead of being inserted for the purpose of getting as much nudity as was humanly possible out of the plot, these never seemed heavy handed at all. It was nice to see that they didn't just throw them in randomly. That means that it's heavy on the eroticism, and is a rare rarity that a film is able to achieve that without being cheesy or corny. The fact that it actually has a plot to speak of does wonders for it as well, and it makes for a long stretch of time in the first half where we actually get exposition instead of a repeated series of random erotica rather than set-up a device that can pay-off in that area later. This also keeps the vampiric element in the front, rather than it just being a side-plot that does nothing for what the film will be about. This is actually surprising and makes it a little better than the average film in this genre.The Bad News: There really isn't a lot to dislike here, other than the fact that the horror elements, other than the fact that the leads are vampires, does this come anywhere close to being considered scary. It plays around with skulls and blood and even features a cameo role from horror great Paul Naschy, but there's nothing remotely scary about this is. There's a little bit of suspension of disbelief that's hard to get over and it sticks out as very obvious, but these are clearly minor issues aside. This wasn't all that bad of a film.The Final Verdict: Naturally, if looked at as an erotic film starring vampires, this does have some redeeming qualities to it that places it at the very front of the pack in this particular sub-genre. If this appeals to you in any way shape or form, then give it a go, but if you prefer the dark, brooding vampires, then exercise caution. Naturally, prudes need not apply at all.Rated UR/NC-17: Frequent full Nudity, frequent Sex scenes and erotic themes, Language and Mild Violence