Lust of Blackula

A bait & switch video on several levels, LUST OF BLACKULA does have the saving grace of a femme cast that's hot to trot. Beyond that, it belongs on the trash heap of porn video history.

Field Marshal Bradley stars as Alucard, which the non-script painstakingly reminds us is Dracula spelled backwards. The video's title is a play on the blaxploitation films of a decade earlier, but the bad news is that this is not a horror show or even spoof, but strictly an all-sex junker.

Cast keeps talking about and reading aloud concerning ancient myths and legends, but nothing happens. Bradley as Alucard puts on a red-lined cape at one point and wanders around the neighborhood, but in broad daylight. So much for research.

The final shot is a sop to horror fans but very poorly done and too little, too late. It fits in with director Barry Morrison's ineptness as a helmer -even though he has a pro cast it plays like a backyard home movie.

The field marshal has trouble getting it up -his career might have reached greater heights had he emerged in the era of Viagra and Cialis. Even Ron Jeremy, a token white boy here, displays a puny looking limp version of his legendary dick.

But for the fans it is the women who count. Nina De Ponca is looking marvelous, and is utterly convincing evoking passion in both her hetero and lesbian sex scenes. Ebony Ayes is also well-styled and photographed and provides a sense of joy & energy often lacking in these sex charades. An unidentified red-head (presumably Donna N.) who reminded me a bit of pioneer porn star Sandy Dempsey, is also terrific.

Bradley's grinning and affecting a sort of Jamaican accent instead of the usual Lugosi routine was annoying, while Jeremy's wisecracks were certainly spontaneous but strictly unfunny.

Chief mystery stems from the latter-day DVD packaging. On the cover is an attractive and bombastic photo of Dominique Simone, and the box trumpets "starring Dominique". An early sex scene features a black actress who resembles a pre-boob job Dominique, so I'm guessing this is the source of the misleading advertising. However, she would have been underage in 1987, so what gives?

I sense our unscrupulous video pornographers, who so frequently put false photos on their box covers, have tried to have it both ways: fooling the buyer into thinking a full-blown Simone is starring, and then skirting the fact that if she, in early incarnation, did in fact play a supporting role it was illegal.

Another example of the wages of sin.