A Taste of Blood (1967)

Powerful

I wanted to but couldn't!

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

An Exercise In Nonsense

A Miami businessman, John Stone (Bill Rogers, "Santo Versus the Vampire Women"), receives a parcel from England containing two old bottles of Slivovitz brandy from his recently deceased ancestor, and after drinking both bottles, becomes a vampire.The story started from a screenplay by Donald Stanford (his only credit), who claimed to Lewis that he intended this film to be a vehicle for Frank Sinatra. Originally, the film had a title referencing "Dr. Alucard", which is now fairly well-known to be "Dracula" backwards, and it was wise to change this. Interestingly, the film was originally intended by H. G. Lewis to be about 90 minutes, which would already be long for him, but Lewis found it made more sense to pace the story more slowly to give it a serious nature than to be "frantic". This was also wise, and makes it a better film. Shooting took three weeks, the longest Lewis ever spend on any film. All of this shows.Judging by IMDb, this film is not very appreciated and not as respected as Lewis' other work. Even "Gruesome Twosome" seems to fare better, which surprises me because the two are worlds apart. "Gruesome" is a mess, whereas "Taste" shows real talent and I can see why Lewis considered this his masterpiece. In what world is a film that shows real skill rated lower than one of Lewis' more slap-dash efforts?Yes, "Taste" is still flawed, with some cheesy lighting and makeup effects. The blue spotlight is rather silly. And yes, I am pretty sure that at one point the actors forget the lead is supposed to be "John" and instead call him "Dan". But the plot, production value and acting are all better than the average Lewis film. Bill Rogers is great, and Thomas Wood is really quite incredible. He could have been a leading man in any Hollywood production.The film is available from Arrow Video as part of their "Feast" collection, on the same disc as "Gruesome Twosome". The special features are covered in my review of the other title. The audio commentary on "Taste", among many other things, talks about Lewis' interactions with other low-budget icons, specifically Roger Corman and Bill Rebane; we also hear about how films such as these can go through various owners who you've never heard of (like how this one is or was owned by one Norm Seinfeld). If you have a love for the history of low budget (and no budget) film, the commentary alone is like a master class in the topic.

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.

Herschell Gordon Lewis' own Dracula film is considered an overlong bore by many vampire (and HGL) lovers of the Bram Stoker character, with limited gore and extended takes of acting and dialogue in real, authentic locations in Miami. Uncharacteristic for HGL, "A Taste of Blood" is just about 2 hours in length and he admittedly took greater pains in setting the lighting and allowing for his performers to explore their characters with more depth. President of a company, John Stone (Bills Rogers), receives a package containing a small chest with two wine bottles inside containing the blood of Dracula. Stone, thinking the bottles are filled with wine, takes a drink, and after multiple tastes of the blood slowly is overtaken by the evil of Dracula soon pursuing humans when he runs out. Using a blue light and pasty make-up, Rogers is presented as a Dracula more akin to a zombie in Bob Clark's "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things" than the Hammer movies. While not as overly gory as the renowned "gore trilogy", there are some instances of bright red stage blood and open wounds (the most gruesome is where a female victim's throat is torn open by a voracious, unhinged Stone, fully overwhelmed at this point by Dracula's power). Because the movie is so dialogue-heavy with plenty scenes of characters talking for great lengths, I imagine (and have read) that this particular movie will fail to generate the same order of jovial fandom as HGL's schlocky, campy, gory splatterfests. That may be the problem: his fans expect the absence of restraint, having embraced the gratuitous nature of HGL's movies, wallowing gleefully in the over the top performances and violence. Elizabeth Wilkinson is Helene, John's concerned wife who can see the personality change, her life soon in danger when he finally becomes completely vampire; Bill Kerwin is Helene's doctor friend, Hank (he's in love with her), who she confides in. Otto Schlesinger is Howard Helsing, one of the last descendants of those who killed Dracula in danger of being a victim at Stone's hands (Stone went to London on "a business trip" killing several of the descendants of those behind Dracula's death), appealing to Hank for help. Wilkinson, while not much of an actress, is quite a pleasure to look at (I found my eyes always wandering to her boobs, although she is costumed in tight-fitting wardrobe elaborating her nice curvaceous figure). HGL has a small part as a British seaman (he even uses British dialect!)! The film includes all the requirements of vampire movies: the danger of the sun, annoyance of the crucifix, and the staking of the heart is how to kill Stone's vampire.

Like others on this site, I really like low budget gore movies from the 1960s and 1970s. I can usually look past the terrible sets, dialog and acting if there's a sufficient amount of blood and guts.Sadly, I must say this movie is the weakest of the H.G. Lewis films I've seen. To repeat what other people have said, it is WAY too long for this type of movie. The acting itself is no worse than his other movies. And the plot is similarly ridiculous. But there's almost no blood or other ghastly effects at all. Some seriously twisted gore would have made this more bearable. Graphic violence made "Blood Feast", "The Wizard of Gore", and "The Gore Gore Girls" pretty entertaining viewing experiences. Maybe he was trying a more serious approach with this film. Who knows? I love his films, but I don't recommend spending 118 minutes of your life watching this one.