Having seen the trailers for various movies by writer/director Tony Marsiglia, I was genuinely intrigued by the direction Seduction Cinema seemed to be moving with their releases.  These trailers showcase excellent shooting, stylistic editing, actual plotting and even some genuine acting, all qualities with which the soft-core (and occasionally damn-near hardcore) production company never seemed to be much concerned.  Couple this with the recent successes of writer/director/FX-maestro Bret Piper within EI Independent Cinema’s ranks (the parent company of Seduction Cinema), and it appeared things were starting to change after repeated critical and public disdain for their quickie trash cinema projects, many of which are so bad they don’t even make decent beer-and-pizza night entertainment.

Unfortunately, Lust for Dracula is a case of “two steps forward, three steps back.” Crushed under the weight of having to make his intriguing concepts fit into Seduction Cinema’s oeuvre, Marsiglia exceeds in framing and lighting things beautifully in gorgeous high-def video, but overdoses on countless unsexy, gratuitous lesbian couplings.  The result is one of Seduction Cinema’s most bizarre and unwatchable failures, an art-house piece that’s just as poorly rendered as some of the company’s more throw-away offerings like Erotic Survivor, Mummy Raider or Vampire’s Seduction.

Whereas those flicks seem quickly, roughly slapped together to make a quick buck, Lust for Dracula is competently produced, slick, stylish, well-acted and completely, one hundred percent nonsensical. It’s a Bizarro world Seduction Cinema movie where production quality is the best asset and the obligatory Sapphic delight is positively dull. No really, guys…if you’re into anatomy, you might enjoy several eye-popping close-up angles on certain feminine body parts. But if you’re looking for sexy, look elsewhere. These girls often appear as though they’re at a tax seminar.

This isn’t to say the actresses aren’t trying. Believe me, Mundae and Wells do their damndest to give this movie a sense of honesty, with Mundae again exhibiting acting chops far beyond those viewers are used to her exhibiting. But there’s nowhere to go with the effort, something Caine seems to have figured out as she sleepwalks through her role as Dracula. In a plot that finds Julian Wells somehow playing the role of Jonathan Harker as, get this, a man (and wearing that same ill-fitting suit she wore in Bite Me,) and Mundae as his/her forlorn, always drugged, poetry-babbling Mina longing for attention and a child to dote upon, Lust for Dracula upends Bram Stoker’s classic story so much that it’s barely comprehendible.

And you thought Hollywood’s Van Helsing was a groaner? Try deciphering where many of the characters in this piece actually fit into the warped narrative. Or why is there a seemingly endless side-by-side female masturbation scene with two girls in school chairs. Or how Dracula’s attentions somehow fulfill Mina’s desire for a child (Which she calls her little “bat-bat,” natch). Or why Harker, in this telling, is a pharmaceuticals magnate, keeping Mina high on pills all the time.

These questions I simply couldn’t answer, largely because it’s impossible to keep in mind whatever narrative thread there is when the movie is drowning in art-house visuals and lesbian groping sessions.  Marsiglia explains in the director’s commentary that the screenplay for this movie has been something he wanted to make for many years, but that it initially didn’t have any sex in it.  Suddenly, the whole thing snaps into focus: at least sixty percent of the movie is swallowed up in protracted, bored lesbian trysts and none of it was originally part of the movie’s story!  As a result, you’ve got this somewhat interesting, although admittedly out there, revisionist take on a classic tale padded to feature-length (and beyond) by girls writhing in feigned ecstasy that barely hides their boredom.

These more lackadaisical couplings are interrupted by a rape scene between Wells and Mundae that finds the actresses mining previously unseen emotional reserves in their work, but one can’t get past the fact that Wells is a woman.  And here she is giving Mundae doggy-style forced entry without aid of a strap on or anything else.  The image is so bizarre, you simply can’t go on the ride with Marsiglia, and instead wonder “What the Hell am I watching?”

Neither sexy as a sex movie, nor compelling as art-house cinema, in the end the best intentions of the lead actresses and a truly gifted visualist can’t make this picture a worthwhile endeavor. I believe Marsigila has the talent to make very interesting, very entertaining cinema.  But here it just feels like he’s earning a paycheck while having a little fun with audience expectations, and the audience, in turn isn’t going to have much fun.

The DVD is loaded with all sorts of extras including a trailer vault, the aforementioned commentary with Marsiglia and EI Independent Cinema head honcho Michael Raso (who I believe was probably furious when he saw what Marsiglia turned in), a behind-the-scenes documentary, a short movie called Insex (that’s interesting, but ultimately too short), and an interview with Misty Mundae.

One and a half stars.