Customer Reviews

Flesh for Frankenstein (Widescreen)

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Udo Kier, Udo freaking Kier. Perhaps my absolute favorite bad actor bringing new life to the story of Frankenstein, utterly unshackled by any semblance of the book itself. Here, we have the anthropomorphic vision of a petulant, tantrum-throwing Baron Frankenstein and his plan to create not one but TWO wombies, male and female, to procreate and spawn a master race of wombies to answer to the will of Udo Kier alone. This scheme is more or less similiar to the one favored by Bela Legosi in the Ed Wood saga, Bride of the Monster. Playing devil's advocate, I never pictured a male wombie with too many active sperm cells, nor a female wombie with an overly active reproductive system, but, who's splitting hairs.

At the outset of the movie, Udo does in fact have the female wombie fully completed, but he needs the final component to complete her male counterpart. To finish his male wombie, Udo in fact needs the proper "nazzum", and nazzums, evidently, are reasonably difficult to acquire. So, Baron Frankenstein, with his sidekick, Otto (the same guy that played his sidekick in Blood for Dracula) sets out for his nazzum. He needs a vigorous nazzum, the kind that frequents brothels and enjoys fornicating with any and every type of woman. At this stage, we have the same slouching Communist stable boy from Blood for Dracula, and his good buddy who wants to go join a convent or something. In the dark, Udo mistakes the the buddy, rather than the whoremongering Communist, for the nazzum he wants, and ends up, much to his despair, with a homosexual nazzum. Great Scott!!!

So, Frankenstein throws the two wombies together, kiss him, kiss him, kiss him, kiss him, KISS HIM, but unfortunately the male wombie with the insufficient nazzum ignores the female wombie. In desperation, Udo throws the male wombie to his wife, Baroness Frankenstein (who looks a little bit like Skeletor with a blonde wig), but, not only does the wombie fail to become aroused, he kills the baroness as well. Good golly miss molly, what a waste! Simutaneously, Otto, the hackneyed sidekick, learns that he has his own Mortal Kombat Fatality--pull out their guts and let them see them before they die trick--which he promptly launches against the housekeeper and the female wombie when they both dispassionately spurn his groping Torgoesque affections.

Udo, disenchanted, runs into the laboratory, kills Otto, then fails to defend himself against the vengeful male wombie. My favorite line: "My experiments will go on. I will not die in wain..."

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.

this review is for the Criterion Collection edition of the film.

This film along with "blood for dracula" were filmed back to back in Italy. This one the more controversal of the two originally received an X rating by the MPAA. Is is based very loosely on Mary shelly's novel and follows Dr. Frankenstein creating a male and female zombie and his attempts to get them to breed.

Udo Kier playing the role of Dr. Frankenstein is excelent because the actor is German and has a great German accent.

The Criterion collection has audio commentary and an 18 minute slideshow with photos from the film and its production along woth an audio soundtrack of music from the film.

This review is for the criterion collection DVD edition.

This film, now over 30 years old was ahead of its time in regards to the genre mix of gory horror and comedy. Peter Jackson's film, "Braindead" (known as "Dead Alive" in the US)comes to mind.

This was at the time the goriest comedy ever made, though I do not see much humor in it. It is a difficult film to watch as far as the sex scenes, (which earned it an X rating by the MPAA upon its initial release) are concerned. Though today the film would probably be given an R rating even in it's uncut version given the current MPAA views.

The film itself is based VERY loosely on Mary Shelly's famous novel. In this version Dr. Frankenstein created TWO zombies. One male and one Female. He attempts to get them to breed to create a master race. To these ends he specifically chose the head of a Serbian for the male zombie. The gore in the film while may disturb many, has special effects that by today's standards are very cheesy and unrealistic.

The film was origianlly released in 3-D which would probably have turned the stomachs of people who viewed it.

The DVD has 2 special features. There is a full length audio commentary by selected cast and crew. There is also an 18 minute slide show with scenes from the making of the film and publicity shots. The slide show is accompanied with excerpts from the film's musical score.

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.

This masterpiece will have your sides splitting (no pun)--

Basic premise-- Frankenstein lives in a nondescript east european castle with his wife/sister/baroness (who enjoys taking extensive rides in a shetland pony driven carriage), 2 damien-esque children, & a manservant Igor... in his lab he is constructing the ultimate male & female super humans from the best body parts of several subjects... frankenstein is in need of a head for his male monster, but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how your mind works) the head he picks is that of a would-be monk with a propensity to admiring joe dellesandro's buns.. and so the fun begins...

best lines --

Frankenstein: "two women--he must be very powerful", "there he comes", "KISS HIM!", "my wife... my seestah" --

The baroness : "what's goin on on my property" , "how DARE you interfere with the baron's work! you SCOUNDREL! you TRASH" --

Monique van Vooren, i am now convinced, was born to play the baroness-- and it must be, because i haven't seen her in anything else -- she is arguably the campiest female lead in film history, though elizabeth berkeley in "showgirls" runs a close second (and i would gladly argue such matters with anyone who's brain is warped enough to be concerned with such issues)

And the two demon children are perfectly twisted, and I especially like the scene with the bats (I can almost see the nylon strings)--

No particular explanation as to why igor freaks out at the end

I recommend watching this in an altered state of mind, though be forewarned- if you are not in the right frame of mind, you might have a bad trip... otherwise you will be laughing till it hurts

just the scene with the stitches still freaks me out (snip, snip, snip)ugh-- i think they may have edited that out of some versions -- it's still pretty sickening, even by today's standards (or maybe i was just too toasted):)

This masterpiece will have your sides splitting (no pun)--

Basic premise-- Frankenstein lives in a nondescript east european castle with his wife/sister/baroness (who enjoys taking extensive rides in a shetland pony driven carriage), 2 damien-esque children, & a manservant Igor... in his lab he is constructing the ultimate male & female super humans from the best body parts of several subjects... frankenstein is in need of a head for his male monster, but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how your mind works) the head he picks is that of a would-be monk with a propensity to admiring joe dellesandro's buns.. and so the fun begins...

best lines --

Frankenstein: "two women--he must be very powerful", "there he comes", "KISS HIM!", "my wife... my seestah" --

The baroness : "what's goin on here"(spoken as a line straight out of a 70s porn flick), "how DARE you... you TRASH" --

Monique van Vooren, i am now convinced, was born to play the baroness-- and it must be, because i haven't seen her in anything else -- she is arguably the campiest female lead in film history, though elizabeth berkeley in "showgirls" runs a close second (and i would gladly argue such matters with anyone who's brain is warped enough to be concerned with such issues)

And the two demon children are perfectly twisted, and I especially like the scene with the bats (I can almost see the nylon strings)--

No particular explanation as to why igor freaks out at the end

I recommend watching this in an altered state of mind, though be forewarned- if you are not in the right frame of mind, you might have a bad trip... otherwise you will be laughing till it hurts

just the scene with the stitches still freaks me out (snip, snip, snip)ugh-- i think they may have edited that out of some versions -- it's still pretty sickening, even by today's standards (or maybe i was just too toasted):)

FIVE FAB STARS

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.

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.

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.]