Flesh for Frankenstein

source: Flesh for Frankenstein

I'm surprised that so few people have mentioned the beautiful cinematography of "Flesh for Frankenstein." Director Paul Morrisey went to great extents to model his film after the works of Luchino Visconti and other prolific Italian directors of the time. Of course to appreciate it, you must see it in it's original widescreen picture ratio. Featuring a lush, dreamlike feel that is helped along by a gorgeous and haunting music score, and top notch costumes. The gore, although extreme, possesses a kind of poetry, and i can imagine such sexually eroticized violence must have caused quite a controversy in the UK, at the time of release. Udo Kier is superb in his maniacal portrayal of Dr. Frankenstein, and the changes and additions to the Mary Shelley novel are for once, very smart and a welcome addition to an already great tale. Aside from the 1933 film "Bride of Frankenstein," this is my absolute favorite screen version of the Frankenstein monster. Excellent film!

I saw my first 3D movie in May, 1982....while in high school. I remember it was a Friday- and nine of my friends were planning to see Andy Warhol's "Frankenstein"(then-known) featured in 3D, after school. Since I had nothing better to do, I decided to join them. A few of my friends had already seen it previously, and wouldn't stop raving about being such an "experience" to watch, in 3D. I was curious now. Before the film started- three friends offered to buy soda and popcorn, for the rest of us. As we sat wearing our 3D glasses waiting for the show to begin, I started to feel uneasy suddenly- but just brushed it off, as anxiety. Within 30 minutes into the movie- I certainly did not feel normal at all. I began noticing myself laughing uncontrollably at everything- even trivial. I briefly removed the glasses, to get a reality check of the movie without them- only to notice the screen was faintly blurred, but a vivid kaleidoscope of colors, fluidly trailed all over the screen. I laughed even harder. By then, my friends alongside were also rolling in their seats....all apparently laughing at ME! Oddly enough- I started laughing back at them! Once turning to watch the screen, I literally JUMPED out of my seat, in an effort to dodge an on-screen, "flying object" that was seemingly aimed towards me! Embarrassed- I yelled, "what is going on here?" By then, the riotous laughter and commotion coming from us, was at disruptive levels now. In fact, the theater usher gave us several verbal warnings, to keep the noise down. When we finally collected and composed ourselves- I glanced over again to notice my friends each taking the visual effects of the film seriously too. I could see them giggling uncontrollably, and also "dodging" objects purposely made to give the virtual effect of literally, "coming at you," and highly-animate, overreaction to every suspenseful element of the movie. I was just too busy registering the endless visual tricks the movie consistently presented. And trust me...there were PLENTY! But towards the end of the movie, a friend finally informed me they had intentionally slipped LSD into my drink, prior to the movie starting!! However shocking this news was, it did not alter my attitude or outlook I had of the movie, whatsoever. I'll be completely honest- my cheekbones were very sore after the movie! Several years afterward- I tried to revisit the 3D version(this time, substance-free), but it was unavailable for many years. I finally caught it again, at a UC Berkeley movie theater, in 1997. Although the film's 3D effects for 1973 was indeed impressive(especially the flying bats!), the story and plot had little, or no structure. I am convinced the movie was produced solely for expressing Warhol's artistic statement, for this genre- and for overall shock value. After comparing both the widescreen 2D and 3D versions respectively(huge difference)- I have concluded the highly gory nature of this movie is best viewed in 3D without doubt- for ambiance, and maximum realism. In fact- don't ever miss the opportunity to see the 3D version, I hear there is less than five copies in existence!

I am absolutely astounded with the favorable reviews for this mindless, disgusting, near putrid film that brings tastelessness in film to a new nadir. While revamping the legend of Mary Shelley's creature, producer Andy Warhol, directer Paul Morrisey, and a cast of talentless thespians cavort with ghoulish glee as they behave most badly. If the film is standing as a horror movie, then it stands with little horror. Throwing a bunch of animal guts on screen and buckets of blood does not necessarily make a film scary. Nothing scary about this film - other than the fact that human beings made it and found it acceptable to make and thought it would be entertaining. And for some it was and is - still scarier! The story is inane, and deserves little mention as a doctor, madly played by Udo Kier, wants to breed his own race of people. The plot is secondary to the blood and guts and the sexual perversion pervasive throughout as we have scenes with a doctor having sexual intercourse with a gall bladder, a bordello scene with some right ugly ladies, and various tongues intertwining with stitches. For me, this is the kind of film one feels the need to bathe after.

I'd heard a lot about this movie, most of which was good. However having seen it I can only describe it as a waste of time. The acting is just horrible, the local amateur group could have done better. The cast all seem to be in a mad staring eyes competition. The script if there was one, is lacking in any real desire to tell the story and stuffed too breaking point with padding. The film is at least 20 minutes too long. And whatever directorial talent Paul Morrisey possesses or possessed is not evident. The only time the film is interesting is when it gets gory and that is at best, sub-Hammer and laughable. Come Back Hammer - all is forgiven

Another piece of low grade splatter and gore all in the order to do, what? I don't know. This entry into the Frankenstein saga is negligible to say the least. Andy Warhol's Frankenstein? I'm not surprised. It's as if Ed Wood, the grade "Z" director from the 1950's had obtained a larger budget but still ended up making nothing of merit. The story, in spots, is almost actually comical and sophomoric, much like a skit on SNL. The dialog, if you can call it that, is juvenile and totally silly. The "acting" far below the junior high school level. Care to take some time out of your life and watch this? Go ahead but don't say that I didn't warn you. I'll take no responsibility.

Out of the thousand or so movies I have seen at theaters, this is the only one I have walked out on in the middle. Though I am not necessarily squeamish, I think that gore for the sake of gore is useless. I realize that it is supposed to be sexy comedy, but they could have been sexy and funny without the blood and guts. Most copies of it now are not 3D as the original. I imagine the gore is a little weaker, but don't waste your time if you don't care for gratuitous gore. I guess if you like blood and guts, for whatever reason, then this is a good one for you. In my estimation, it has a stupid plot, bad acting and a waste of the 3D effect.

I re-watched 'Flesh For Frankenstein' last week for the first time in years, and I enjoyed it even more this time than I did the last. This movie just gets better and better as the years go by. A sensational mixture of gore, humour, horror, sex and subversion. They really DON'T make them like this anymore! Udo Kier had several movies under his belt before this including the hugely underrated 'Mark Of The Devil', but his unforgettable role here, and in Paul Morrissey's companion piece 'Blood For Dracula', sealed his fate forever as one of the living legends of trash and exploitation movies. This is absolutely essential viewing for cult/horror/black comedy fans. A true classic!

I cannot recall a movie I hated as much as this one. The sex is not sexy. The shocks are not shocking. He's trying to be disturbing for the sheer sake of being disturbing. And strangely enough, it's boring. Bored! Me! Out! Of! My! Mind! The characters lack depth. They're creepy for no reason. The image of the two little kids at the end about to torture, dissect, or whatever they're about to do to the good doctor was disturbing but for no good reason. Warhol was trying to be weird for the sake of being weird. Yes, he accomplished that, but no, he did not make a movie worth watching. I hated hated hated this movie. Two decades after I first saw, the only reason I would ever consider watching it would be to reconfirm that it is the worst piece of junk I ever saw!

If Ken Russell, Mario Bava, and Luis Bunuel had collaborated on a film the results wouldn't have been much different from "Flesh for Frankenstein." This movie should be required viewing for all pre-med students: if they can take this, they should be ready to dissect corpses. Not since "Sin City" have I seen limbs and organs strewed around the screen so cheerfully. Unlike "Sin City," which had a kabuki, stylized quality that blunted much of the horror, "Flesh for Frankenstein" has an unabashed nastiness that doesn't pull any punches. At the same time it's beautifully photographed; like much Italian giallo (Bava, Argento) even the most horrific images are rendered eerily beautiful by the lush color and widescreen. Udo Kier plays Baron Frankenstein as a proto-Nazi obsessed with creating a master race; Monique Van Vooren is deliciously campy as his oversexed wife and Joe Dallesandro, with his flat Brooklyn accent, resembles a young Marlon Brando as Nicholas the stable boy, the only decent human being in the film. Many have commented that he was out of place in the movie, but that was the point: he was the all-American good guy lost in a world of sleek but slimy eurotrash. Particularly disturbing were the two almost-mute children, who resemble nothing so much as Wednesday and Pugsley Addams. Like Bunuel's "Viridiana" there is an unmistakable hint of incest: the Baron and Katharine are clearly brother and sister, and they seem to be grooming their children to take their place. This movie joins "Salo" and "El Topo" in the pantheon of disturbing 70s cult films.