Rating: 
Summary: Way over the top then, way over the top now....
Review: ....and it was originally shown in cinescopic 3-D, so that blood from severed limbs and necks were seemingly directly squirting at you, slabs of liver and gall bladders were dangling right in front of your face and big chested women gave you an eyeful. Scene that'll make you cringe the most: lovemaking Frankenstein unzips his creation/paramour and caresses and "enters" bloody entrails...eeeewwww!Note: In 74, I took my then fiancee to see this. Shortly afterwards she quit me and within a week married someone else. Go figure.
Rating: 
Summary: One for Joe & One for the Lizard
Review: Also known as ANDY WARHOL'S FRANKENSTEIN or ANDY WARHOL PRESENTS FRANKENSTEIN, this early 1970s film is associated with Warhol only in the sense that the pop artist put up the money for the project and because it featured several actors--particularly Joe Dallesandro--who had appeared in various Warhol "factory" films. The film is a calculated effort to create a cult film, even down to deliberate courting of the X rating it received at the time of its release. The Baron Frankenstein (Udo Kier) is married to Baroness Katrin (Monique van Vooren); they have two children and reside in the obligatory isolated castle complete with secret laboratory, where Frankenstein and his assistant (Arno Juerging) conduct their work. In this particular case, they seek to create both a male and female "monster" for breeding purposes. Unfortunately, when Frankenstein collects a shepherd's head for his male monster, he runs afoul of the shepherd's friend Nicholas (Joe Dallesandro.) The film gives every character a far-out sexual spin: the Baron and Baroness are actually brother and sister and their children are not only the result of their incestuous relationship, they themselves give every appearance of following in the family tradition; the Baron's sex life consists of unfastening the stitches of his female monster and... ahem... shall we say enjoying the pleasures of her internal organs; sexually abandoned by her husband-brother, the Baroness takes lovers (and they are spied upon by the children)--and then decides she wants to fool around the male monster; the lab assistant wants to imitate the Baron's explorations of the female monster; Nicholas rolls around naked with every woman in the village. And so on. The film is obviously intended to be a bloody, grotesque, and erotic black comedy--but while it's certainly bloody enough and quite grotesque, it isn't greatly erotic and it's not particularly funny. It is also very sloppily made, and worse still it is as slow as molasses in January. The absolute best thing that can be said for FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN is that Joe Dallesandro, who can only be described as a rough-trade dream, has a scene where a lizard runs across his naked [behind]. One star for Joe and one star for the lizard. Recommendation: rent it before you buy it, because for most people one viewing will be more than enough.
Rating:
Summary: An absolute wonder in the 70's sexual revolution
Review: An amalgimate of kinky sex and over the top gore highlight this entry in the ever burgeoning realm of underground cimena sans guignol, that was the whole of the 1970's. Starring the ever charismatic and downright campy Udo Kier (Who also plays one of the great Dracula's ever to grace the silver screen. Also take the time to view "Blood for Dracula" which was filmed right after "Flesh") along with 70's stud icon Joe Dallesandro. Who shows us how to speak the proper victorian language. (i.e. of the Brooklyn N.Y. variety) Bring the Frankenstein tale to dizzying sights and comical overtones as you either laugh out loud to the crazy antics of Arno Juerging as "Otto" (Baron Frankenstein's assistant and trust worthy servent to Kier's Dracula) or the aforermentioned Dallesandro who finds every manner to bed every woman. Now if your not the mindset for what this films darker side has to offer then stick with Boris Karloff's version as this film offers up oodles of the red stuff and buckets of internal organs. And what could be the tell all answer to what you do with a sewn up female monster. (You'll understand what i'm refering to. About midway thru the film) All thrown at you with a touch of the absurd as this film was orignally shown in 3-D unfortunaly we're not given the opportunity to view the aspect on the DVD for shame as it would have made this already classic of the Andy Warhol factory (although Warhol's name is mentioned he has nothing to do with "Flesh nor Dracula") of filmaking stand as a testament to it's 25 years of sterility and it's importance to a bygone era when horror films. (to this reviewer's eyes) Stand as some the best ever produced. Long live the 70's and enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Campy and gory telling of the famous story
Review: Apparently "Flesh for Frankenstein" has become some sort of a revisionist masterpiece for the high brow set or those impressed by the Eurotrash excentricities of the Andy Warhol moniker that was once attached to this film. Well, I really love this film, but I refuse to accept all the vapid praise that is now being gushed about the genius of the film and its director: Paul Morrissey. Flesh for Frankenstein is a retelling of the famous Mary Shelley story. Mary Shelley wrote it as a heavily veiled allegory for the evils of then modern science and the hubris of Man. In the DVD extras, Morrissey and some film historian would have us believe that Morrissey was consciously attempting to throw his own slant on the allegory angle. He would have us believe that he was intentionally going over the top with the gore and the sex as an affront to the liberal hippy movement which was clamboring for more of it. This sounds delightfully poignant until you take a closer look at how this film got made. Morrissey was given creative control to direct several Andy Warhol financed films in Europe. The money that Warhol provided was certainly not without its strings attached though. In fact, Warhol was the king of creative marketing. He and his Factory were making films for fun not profit. That they made money was due to the fact that he had already engratiated himself with the artsy crowd in New York with his airbrushed art and his advertising art (i.e. the now famous Campbell's Soup can). Warhol never took himself all that seriously. He laughed himself all the way to the bank. Morrissey was doing the same with these films. He was pushing the envelope in gore and sex, but was it for noble artistic intentions? I seriously doubt it. However, since he narrates that it was all intentional, we have no other factual basis to counter his claim. However, I think, as with many of the now famous artists and poets, writers and filmmakers - their work is famous not because of its original genius, but rather because somebody who has the ear of those who are in power, yet gullible, promoted them as such at the time of their creation or after the fact. Allowing the film to stand on its own is no crime. When we take a historical look at how cinema was being presented at the time, Morrissey was actually far ahead of his time. That much is true. Hammer Films in England had long been derided as going too far with the gore in their horror films and since they were still going strong at the time this film was made, they really were still the only company doing such films. Along comes Morrissey and he really blew the established film standards to pieces by making this film. Excessive gore, nudity - both male and female, sex acts only slightly veiled, and foul language - it was all in this single film. The sets and costuming are really masterpieces. The clothing is dynamite when you think of the budget that Morrissey had to work with. And even moreso, the sets are out of this world. They are authentic locations throughout Europe. The set aspect also has me wondering when this film was "really" made. I ask this because the Dr's laboratory is obviously the inspiration for Lou Adler's Frankenfurter's laboratory in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". TRHPS actually duplicates this set in great detail, down to the glass tank, the tile walls, and the statuary in the room. What makes this film unable to hold the title of great is the acting, the script, and the editing. I don't buy it that the poor acting is intentional. I think it was all they could get and since the people in charge didn't have any real filmmaking background or lots of money, they simply couldn't get capable actors. Udo Kier, they would like us to believe, is intentionally acting over the top. I've directed lots of regional theatre and I can assure you he's not acting over the top - he's just not a good actor. He has proven that in the 30 years since this film that, while he is better now than before, he is no actor. Dallesandro - he was Warhol's personal pet project. Warhol insisted he be used - and arguably, because of "Flesh", Dallesandro was popular in Europe. Monique Van Voohren - is only one of the worst actresses ever to be filmed. As the both the Dr's wife and sister, she simply cannot do much other than bear her body with belief (the sister/wife aspect is yet another aspect taken for TRHPS). The character of Otto is the only one who can get away with the poor acting in this film - because his over the top style is somewhat expected for the mad scientist's assistant. The "monster" is intended to be more of a stud puppy hunk than a monster (another steal from Richard O'Brien for TRHPS, I think). In fact, the creepiest aspect of the film are the Dr's children. They creep about like little ghouls throughout the film. The extremely gory climax of the film is, frankly, Morrissey's masterpiece for the flim. With this scene, he obviously takes a page from Shakespeare. The set is simply strewn with bloody corpses in various states. And then there is the anticipation he leaves of with - of what is to come - as the children menacingly begin to come into their own scalpels gleaming. I won't give it all away, because it is a really fun film. I've bought it for myself and I know I'd previously seen it five times. So my harsh criticism of the high brow aspects of it don't diminish my enjoyment of the film as a whole. It's really a cool film to see, if you know what history is involved in its making.
Rating:
Summary: a joy
Review: Brilliant film from director Paul Morrisey.Udo Keir is outstanding as the misunderstood Baron.He's hilarious in fact,especially when chiding his assisstant Otto.Everything about this comes together really well-music,art direction,cinematography are all first-rate.The score especially is one of the most beautiful I've ever heard.Be warned though:very,very strong stomachs are required but once seen this film is not easily forgotten.
Rating:
Summary: The perfect Serbian nasum for the male zombie.
Review: Director Paul Morrissey is that rarest of artists: a reactionary moralist who isn't prudish. 1973's *Flesh for Frankenstein* is a case in point, with its many sex scenes (including at least one involving the organs of a corpse) and ample gore projected at the audience via 3-D. (Rather unfortunately, Criterion's DVD edition has abandoned the 3-D option out of practical considerations.) As a result of his at-bottom fuddy-duddy conservatism, Morrissey has never been championed by the cinema art-house mavens (left-wing to a man and woman), who still resent his vicious critiques of their precious Sexual Revolution. Doubtless, Morrissey's being a product of the Andy Warhol Factory increased the sense of "betrayal" felt by the art-mavens. And the everyday moviegoer resented the director's attack on their viewing preferences -- in this case, the horror film, specifically the hallowed and hoary Frankenstein story. Most of us don't like having a mirror put in front of us . . . Morrissey does this here by taking the conventions of this type of entertainment to a perverted and gory extreme, and the original 3-D is part and parcel of his intent. It's a way of saying, "You want sex? naked bodies? blood and gore? HERE!" before he literally rubs our noses in an eviscerated stomach. But the contempt on display is also amusing as hell: the deliberately bad dialogue, the amateur actors (including talentless hunk Joe Dallesandro, who makes no effort to conceal his thick New York accent despite the fact that everyone else -- and the locale -- are European), and the risible plot details (for instance, the Baron and Baronness Frankenstein are in fact brother & sister with demonic children of their own) will make you rock with laughter. When you hear Udo Kier as Frankenstein whine in thick Teutonic accents about his perfect "male zombie", you'll be glad that reactionary Morrissey has a sense of humor to match his lack of prudishness. [Criterion's DVD is great: good picture with correct widescreen ratio, etc. etc. Also includes a commentary track with some Canadian scholar or other, and with Morrissey and actor Kier, each of whom philosophize freely.]
Rating:
Summary: Lavish
Review: Don't worry about comparing this film with any of Andy Warhol's bore epics, as it could not be more different. "Flesh for Frankenstein" is a luscious looking, beautifully filmed experience in gore cinema, which is a rare thing indeed! The plot includes all the usual body-part hi-jinks you would expect from a story of Frankenstein, but the scenes of bloodshed on show here are extreme to say the least, with long scenes of disembowelling and dismemberment that were originally showcased in glorious 3D. One new twist is the Baron's necrophiliac tendencies, and in places these are VERY explicitly portrayed! However, the movie is absolutely stunning to look at, with gorgeous details in every scene, accompanied by a classically styled soundtrack that lends even more class. The actors play the scenes for camp humour (the leading trio of the Baron, his wife/sister, and the hunchback assistant are all hilarious), so keep in mind that this is really a comedy, and you will enjoy this film tremendously. It is hard to imagine so much gore working alongside such glossy and arty production values, but here is a film where it really works. Luckily, if you really can't stomach it, you can always try "Andy Warhol's Dracula" instead, which looks just as good, but is significantly less bloodthirsty.
Rating:
Summary: Frankenstein: Blood and Guts
Review: Flesh for Frankenstein is a wonderfully over the top film full of sex, blood and gore. The plot is a combination of the two original thirties films with more emphasis on outrageous gore. The film is extreme in its presentation, but also full of satiric comments on the family unit, sex and death. The DVD transfer is excellent and the only drawback is the exclusion of the 3-D process. This film should be viewed more than once, as the satiric elements will probably be missed the first time. A great film!
Rating: 
Summary: 29 YEARS LATER....
Review: Has it been that long since I sat stoned watching this on it's release in 3-D? I was 17 years old and just learning about Warhol as an artist and filmmaker. This was the first film he was associated with that I saw in a theater. I was blown away. Watching it now through adult eyes after all these years doesn't blow me away but I appreciate it still on a different level. The snots who put this film down don't have a clue. It's not for everyone but what is? The over-the-top gore, the characters and the acting are pure camp. Even the non-acting of Joe Dallesandro is part of the whole effect. The campy over-acting of Monique Von Vooren and Udo Keir are part of the skewed approach to the material as well. (Speaking of Von Vooren, the only other film I know of she was in was as the She-Devil in 1953's "Tarzan and the She-Devil" with Lex Barker.) "Flesh" is tongue-in-cheek and meant I think as a satire on art films as a genre using the Frankenstein motif as a springboard. Warhol made his career satirizing art and Paul Morrissey was the perfect director for this film endeavor. Nothing is taken seriously except the superb photography (which is quite beautiful) and perhaps the music score which works very well. But if I'm wrong in my theory and it's horror films being satirized as "art" then for me it still works because I still find it very off-beat and a fun film to watch anyway---even after 29 years. I look at it as a very, very black comedy as well as a satire on "art" films. Utterly tasteless yet enjoyable because it's all a spoof. And a good one at that. But as I said, it's not for every taste---but then, what is? As for Criterion's DVD presentation, it's OK but they could've done better with the print.
Rating:
Summary: Freaky Frank
Review: I bought thid DVD without having seen any of the film. After the first viewing, I was asking myself what the hell I had just seen and why I had bought it. However, after a second viewing, I saw the absolute camp delight and comic perversion that thisd film had to offer. Yes, the acting is schlocky and the dialouge is silly. But it's MEANT to be this for comic purposes and it works. This film works best as an absurdist piece. For example: Katrin Frakenstein calls other people "disgusting" while she is married to and has children with her brother! Director Paul Morrissey wanted to make a film that showed the degradation to which people have fallen due to their liberartion with sex. He wanted to show people at thier worst when obbession turns into perversion. He manages to do all these things and more. Not everyone's cup of tea, "Flesh for Frankenstein" delivers the goods when it comes to an artsy, campy, gory, and disgustingn film.
|
