Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as "Blood for Dracula," but still enjoyable
Review: I happened to watch director Paul Morrissey's "Blood for Dracula" before indulging in "Flesh for Frankenstein." After having seen both films, I can unequivocally state I preferred "Blood for Dracula," which is somewhat of a surprise considering "Flesh" was made first with "Blood" coming as almost an afterthought. By the time Morrissey and company started "Blood," the cast and crew were exhausted from the non-stop schedule of making two films back to back. If you have little familiarity with these films, they were made under the auspices of Andy Warhol's Factory, a time when the creator of Op Art decided to branch out into other artistic mediums. If you are like me, you cringed when you heard that Warhol had an influence on Morrissey's films. I could never bring myself to appreciate anything associated with Andy Warhol; I always considered him and his associates talentless hacks of the lowest order. Not to worry here, though. While the titles often carry Warhol's imprimatur, he apparently had little to do with any aspect of the production of either film."Flesh for Frankenstein" is a wonderful retelling of Mary Shelley's classic 1818 novel. The good Baron Frankenstein and his sister, in this instance also his wife, bring up the kiddies in a nice, creepy castle somewhere in Europe. The hardworking Baron spends most of his time mucking around in his laboratory attempting to create a human being from scratch. Often toiling alone or with his creepy assistant Otto in tow, Frankenstein is on the verge of success when he finally puts the finishing touches on his female creature. The Baron has quite an affection for his experiment, as seen in a few extremely tasteless scenes, but he realizes he has a problem. What good is a woman without a man? Frankenstein quickly decides to build a complimentary male figure so he can have a second family completely subservient to his own whims. Why would the good Baron wish to have a second family? Perhaps because he doesn't seem to get along with his own family all that well. Meanwhile, Baron Frankenstein's wife tires of her husband/brother's heavy workload and his tendency to neglect his children. Being lonely in a big castle in Europe wears on a person, so Baroness Frankenstein turns to the hired help for consolation. Her eye falls on the newly arrived Nicholas, a beefy stable boy who promises to alleviate the Baroness's solitude. Nicholas came into the castle after he and his friend, a Serbian planning to devote his life to the priesthood, fell victim to a heinous crime on the road outside of the castle. Nicholas woke up from the assault to discover the attackers decapitated his friend. Angered by the senseless brutality of the crime, Nicholas soon comes to suspect Baron Frankenstein and Otto had something to do with the atrocity. While the stable boy entertains the Baroness, he starts poking his nose around the castle in an effort to figure out what is going on in the Baron's laboratory. Everything comes to a head (no pun intended) when Baron Frankenstein introduces his two creations to the family at dinner, and Nicholas notices with horror that his friend's head rests on the neck of one of Frankenstein's "visitors." The servent swears to bring the terrible Frankenstein and his sick experiments to an end, which he does in a finale both cheesy and gory in its execution. In "Blood for Dracula," Morrissey turned Stoker's tale of the undead into an examination of class conflict between the decaying European aristocracy and the emerging proletariat. There is a bit of that class emphasis in "Flesh for Frankenstein," but this movie also deals with the original themes of Shelley's story. The arrogance of man to interfere in territory strictly reserved to God, and the subsequent nightmares resulting from such arrogance, appears throughout the film. Of course, Morrissey also throws in tons of erotica, stomach curdling violence and gore, and the cheesiest dialogue and performances in the history of cinema. You haven't lived until you see Arno Juerging (Otto), Udo Kier (Baron Frankenstein), Joe Dallesandro (Nicholas), and Monique van Vooren (Baroness Frankenstein) ham their way through the movie. Dallesandro makes no effort to hide his thick New York accent even though the film is ostensibly set in 18th century Europe. Arno Juerging and Udo Kier deliver camp dialogue at eardrum shattering levels, often with hilarious facial expressions and exaggerated motions. If you enjoy and appreciate truly outrageous performances, you will love "Flesh for Frankenstein." I know I did, although I think "Blood for Dracula" was much funnier in terms of the campiness of Kier's and Juerging's performances. Further enjoyment comes from director Morrissey, who shot the film using lavish costumes, expansive set pieces, and excellent cinematography. On the surface, you would think "Flesh" is a top-notch production until you notice how sleazy Kier, Juerging, van Vooren, and Dallesandro look and act. A movie like this must have ticked off some serious film aficionados. The Criterion Collection decided to release this film, as they did with "Blood for Dracula," with all of the trimmings. Included on this disc are a widescreen presentation of the film, a stills gallery, and a commentary track with Kier, Morrissey, and film critic Maurice Yacowar. I didn't listen to the commentary in its entirety because I couldn't stand Yacowar's nasally insights into the film. If I planned on writing and publishing something about this film I would listen to such overblown pap, but I wanted to form my own impressions of the film. Lovers of cheesy films should make "Flesh for Frankenstein" and "Blood for Dracula" required viewing. Heck, watch them as a double feature and enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Not as good as "Blood for Dracula," but still enjoyable
Review: I happened to watch director Paul Morrissey's "Blood for Dracula" before indulging in "Flesh for Frankenstein." After having seen both films, I can unequivocally state I preferred "Blood for Dracula," which is somewhat of a surprise considering "Flesh" was made first with "Blood" coming as almost an afterthought. By the time Morrissey and company started "Blood," the cast and crew were exhausted from the non-stop schedule of making two films back to back. If you have little familiarity with these films, they were made under the auspices of Andy Warhol's Factory, a time when the creator of Op Art decided to branch out into other artistic mediums. If you are like me, you cringed when you heard that Warhol had an influence on Morrissey's films. I could never bring myself to appreciate anything associated with Andy Warhol; I always considered him and his associates talentless hacks of the lowest order. Not to worry here, though. While the titles often carry Warhol's imprimatur, he apparently had little to do with any aspect of the production of either film. "Flesh for Frankenstein" is a wonderful retelling of Mary Shelley's classic 1818 novel. The good Baron Frankenstein and his sister, in this instance also his wife, bring up the kiddies in a nice, creepy castle somewhere in Europe. The hardworking Baron spends most of his time mucking around in his laboratory attempting to create a human being from scratch. Often toiling alone or with his creepy assistant Otto in tow, Frankenstein is on the verge of success when he finally puts the finishing touches on his female creature. The Baron has quite an affection for his experiment, as seen in a few extremely tasteless scenes, but he realizes he has a problem. What good is a woman without a man? Frankenstein quickly decides to build a complimentary male figure so he can have a second family completely subservient to his own whims. Why would the good Baron wish to have a second family? Perhaps because he doesn't seem to get along with his own family all that well. Meanwhile, Baron Frankenstein's wife tires of her husband/brother's heavy workload and his tendency to neglect his children. Being lonely in a big castle in Europe wears on a person, so Baroness Frankenstein turns to the hired help for consolation. Her eye falls on the newly arrived Nicholas, a beefy stable boy who promises to alleviate the Baroness's solitude. Nicholas came into the castle after he and his friend, a Serbian planning to devote his life to the priesthood, fell victim to a heinous crime on the road outside of the castle. Nicholas woke up from the assault to discover the attackers decapitated his friend. Angered by the senseless brutality of the crime, Nicholas soon comes to suspect Baron Frankenstein and Otto had something to do with the atrocity. While the stable boy entertains the Baroness, he starts poking his nose around the castle in an effort to figure out what is going on in the Baron's laboratory. Everything comes to a head (no pun intended) when Baron Frankenstein introduces his two creations to the family at dinner, and Nicholas notices with horror that his friend's head rests on the neck of one of Frankenstein's "visitors." The servent swears to bring the terrible Frankenstein and his sick experiments to an end, which he does in a finale both cheesy and gory in its execution. In "Blood for Dracula," Morrissey turned Stoker's tale of the undead into an examination of class conflict between the decaying European aristocracy and the emerging proletariat. There is a bit of that class emphasis in "Flesh for Frankenstein," but this movie also deals with the original themes of Shelley's story. The arrogance of man to interfere in territory strictly reserved to God, and the subsequent nightmares resulting from such arrogance, appears throughout the film. Of course, Morrissey also throws in tons of erotica, stomach curdling violence and gore, and the cheesiest dialogue and performances in the history of cinema. You haven't lived until you see Arno Juerging (Otto), Udo Kier (Baron Frankenstein), Joe Dallesandro (Nicholas), and Monique van Vooren (Baroness Frankenstein) ham their way through the movie. Dallesandro makes no effort to hide his thick New York accent even though the film is ostensibly set in 18th century Europe. Arno Juerging and Udo Kier deliver camp dialogue at eardrum shattering levels, often with hilarious facial expressions and exaggerated motions. If you enjoy and appreciate truly outrageous performances, you will love "Flesh for Frankenstein." I know I did, although I think "Blood for Dracula" was much funnier in terms of the campiness of Kier's and Juerging's performances. Further enjoyment comes from director Morrissey, who shot the film using lavish costumes, expansive set pieces, and excellent cinematography. On the surface, you would think "Flesh" is a top-notch production until you notice how sleazy Kier, Juerging, van Vooren, and Dallesandro look and act. A movie like this must have ticked off some serious film aficionados. The Criterion Collection decided to release this film, as they did with "Blood for Dracula," with all of the trimmings. Included on this disc are a widescreen presentation of the film, a stills gallery, and a commentary track with Kier, Morrissey, and film critic Maurice Yacowar. I didn't listen to the commentary in its entirety because I couldn't stand Yacowar's nasally insights into the film. If I planned on writing and publishing something about this film I would listen to such overblown pap, but I wanted to form my own impressions of the film. Lovers of cheesy films should make "Flesh for Frankenstein" and "Blood for Dracula" required viewing. Heck, watch them as a double feature and enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Lower The Prices.................
Review: I have not yet seen these movies but I am Big fan of Andy Warhol. However This Prices Are Ridiculous. I know these weren't The Prices when they were in print E- Bay does not have them price this Expensive. I know will say why I don't you Buy them E-bay Is Because I like Amazon and would rather spend my money Here.Lower The Price.Greedy Greedy Greedy....................
Rating:
Summary: AT THE BUTCHER'S SHOP
Review: I'm always amazed by the eclecticism of Critérion in the choice of the movies they decide to present. They really want their audience to have a global view of today international production and, in the same time, they don't neglect classic movies. Paul Morrissey's FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN doesn't belong to neither of these two categories. Now I must admit that I've never had the opportunity or -let's be frank- the curiosity to give some attention to this director's filmography. Shame on me. Sexuality is undoubtedly the main interest of Paul Morrissey. Necrophilia, incest, nymphomania are all sexual perversions one can observe in FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN. You have to see, in order to believe it, how Udo FRANKENSTEIN Kier makes love to his female creature while plunging his hands in Dalila Di Lazzaro's open stomach. And this scene when Udo Kier is approaching one of his victims with giant scissors in order to collect the perfect nose of the poor guy. At this level of non-sense, provocation becomes somewhat artistic. One can also appreciate the second degree of FFF ; for example, it's impossible not to recognize The Addams family in this description of pure degenerates. OK ! actors are terrible and the screenplay is weak but I assure you that I had a great time during 100 minutes. Nevertheless, for the price, it shouldn't be a bad idea to first rent FFF first before buying it. A very interesting commentary comes with this DVD which must be reserved to adults. A -watch your back- DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful Terror Found in Unconventional Frankenstein
Review: If your're looking for something very different, oddly beautiful, and down right funny, then this film is for you. The film may appear silly and gross on the surface but if you watch closely, you may be able to see an inner glow. The characters are deliberately overplayed with unfitting lines which gives the film a not-too-heavy feel. I think this helped the film break away from the stiff/serious "Frankenstein Monster Movie" genre. The photography in the film is theatrical and very creative. The film itself is a perfect example of a Director given full liberty with the script and camera to do as he pleases. (In fact, that's the only way he was able to get away with some of the more ambiguous scenes in the film, to include several necrophlia scenes) I am sure that you will be pleased with the widescreen tranfer as well as the sound (mono-as origially intended) The comentarry (by the Director, Actor, and Critic) is the best comentary I've ever heard on a DVD. The music score is also memorable and beautiful. It seems to fit the film perfectly in the most odd places. Not for all tastes, but truly original, and THAT is what makes a great film!
Rating: 
Summary: Only for Andy Warhol fans.
Review: It's the old story. Frankenstein's killing, slaugthering etc. In this movie, he is married, and has children. His wife has a secret lover..... Joe D'Allesandrio. It's fun, entertaining, if you like blood, sex, violence.
Rating:
Summary: WARNING: Do NOT Eat While Viewing This Film
Review: One would be well-advised to heed my warning. This is one of the most violent, perverse, and laugh-out-loud (intentionally) funny versions of the Frankenstein myth. It's also one of my favorite movies (I like it better than its sister production BLOOD FOR DRACULA, though most tend to rate that one a bit higher) and, as far as I'm concerned, the best film to come out of the Andy Warhol-Paul Morrisey collaborations of the 60s and 70s. Udo Kier is astounding as the mad Baron Frankenstein, Arno Juerging is great as his idiot assistant Otto, and Monique Van Vooren holds her own as Frankenstein's wife-sister, whose insatiable sexual appetite is fed by hunky Joe Dallesandro. Poor Mary Shelley could never have imagined that one day her Gothic horror novel would one day evolve into something as hideous as this. But it's all in good fun, as the Baron and Otto sew up beautiful corpses and talk science in the lab. One of the Baron's hobbies is to make love to his female zombie (Morrisey mercifully spares us the more graphic details in this scene). He and Otto go to a bordello for the perfect male "whose overriding urges are sensual". But - oops! - they pick the wrong stud to behead. Instead of Dallesandro, they pick his friend, an aspiring monk who really didn't want to be at a bordello in the first place. When the Baron and Otto find that their male creature is frigid, the plot thickens. This film is NOT for people who are squeamish. The sex and violence is all of such a perverse nature that it isn't the kind of thing you want to sit down and watch with grandma. It's filled with campy humor and super-gory FX (imagine it as it premiered in 3-D!). But, in spite of the usual Warhol-crowd tomfoolery, there is a very real sense of quality to the proceedings. Gorgeously photographed, with a sumptuous score and fine period detail, this is a little too well-mounted to be written off as simply "a camp comedy". Ironically, the final scene is genuinely tragic! Interesting bit of film-buff trivia: This film (as well as DRACULA) was shot at the same time, in the same place (Italy), and with much of the same crew as Polanski's little-known sex comedy WHAT?. Polanski, who has a brief but hilarious cameo in DRACULA, let Warhol's crowd move into his Italian villa, but their eccentricities eventually drove him off. (As he has it in his autobiography: "They were a nice enough bunch, if a bit camp...")
Rating:
Summary: `To know death...'
Review: Saturday, January 22, 2005 / 4 of 5 / `To know death...'
I watched this the day after Blood for Dracula and found it to be a more satisfying story. Having a bit more plot helps. Udo Kier is here as the Baron carrying on his typical experiments with the help of his assistant, the same actor who played Anton in the Dracula movie. The good Baron wants to create a race of super beings who will of course be under his control, the movie follows his cobbling together of the male version since he has already has the female on hand, hah. Joe Dallesandro brings his grimacing and annoyed visage to the party as the lothario who seduces the Baron's sister/wife. His best friend is unfortunately tapped to be the `head' of the Baron's male creation. Lots of gore in this one, the blood looks a lot more realistic than what we have today, I read somewhere that it was indeed animal blood of some kind. Anyhow, the picture seems a lot more coherent than its sister film. Some great lines too, delivered in high camp style. `To know death, Otto, you must **** life... in the gallbladder.' The ending is a pleasant homage to Hamlet with the Baron's children licking their chops.
Rating:
Summary: Better Than I Expected
Review: The first time I saw this was about 5 years ago, in 3D at a real movie theater. I was surprised to discover that I actually liked the movie. It's a very strange version of the Frankenstein story, but is definitely memorable....especially the dark humor and sexuality throughout. This is far better than Worhol's Dracula, and reminded me of Rocky Horror without the music.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Potential - Poor Result
Review: This film is one of those that breaks my heart. If handled differently, this film could have been wonderful if it had only pulled itself more in either one of two radically different directions: it could have easily been made into a pure camp romp complete with sing-along music and laugh-a-minute slapstick colored by a tinge of sexual degeneracy, but then that film has already been made and known as "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". This film could have also taken the opposite route and been treated respectfully as a very serious, straightforward retelling of the Frankenstein/Modern-Prometheus story with an especially nice gothic touch. In either case, we would have had a fantastic film - either a succesful cult comedy or a brilliant gothic horror film. But what we get is neither. Paul Morrissey's film lacks in scariness, it lacks in brilliance, it lacks in humor, it lacks in sensuality, it also lacks in thrills and chills. The so-called "gore" is laughable at best and just makes the production look low-budget and cheap in a very uncool way. The acting, particularly Joe Dellesandro's, is so bad that it makes the film painful to endure at times. If I were Warhol, I would have never put my name behind this train-wreck! It's a real shame because this film looks great! The locales are genuine and creepy. The casting is wonderful: Udo Kier and the woman who plays his wife are such colorful character-actors and really bring the man-wife/sister-brother relationship to life. They also lend to the film the old world European touch that is lacking in most film adaptations of the Frankenstein story. The fact that this Frankenstein's monster is not the typical, "Karloff-esque", square-headed green-skinned guy with bolts in his neck is a big plus, and gives the film real originality. It's just a shame the rest of the film is done so poorly. This lousy film is unworthy of the Criterion treatment given here. It's presented in 2.85:1 widescreen with an optional commentary audio track with Morrissey, Udo Kier, and a film critic. Rent this film only if you are curious about it, but by no means should you drop the exhorbitant fee of thirty-five dollars for it. A total rip-off!
|
