Flesh For Frankenstein Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
We dare you to see...
Brings The Horror Off The Screen... And Into Your Lap.
In Serbia, Baron Frankenstein lives with the Baroness and their two children. He dreams of a super-race, returning Serbia to its grand connections to ancient Greece. In his laboratory, assisted by Otto, he builds a desirable female body, but needs a male who will be superbody and superlover. He thinks he has found just the right brain to go with a body he's built, but he's made an error, taking the head of a gay aesthete. Meanwhile, the Baroness has her lusts, and she fastens on Nicholas, a friend of the dead lad. Can the Baron pull off his grand plan? He brings the two zombies together to mate. Meanwhile, Nicholas tries to free his dead friend. What about the Baron's children?
| Joe Dallesandro | Nicholas, the stableboy |
| Monique van Vooren | Baroness Katrin Frankenstein |
| Udo Kier | Baron Frankenstein |
| Arno Juerging | Otto, the Baron's assistant |
| Dalila Di Lazzaro | Female Monster |
| Srdjan Zelenovic | Sacha, Male Monster |
| Nicoletta Elmi | Monica, the Baron's daughter |
| Marco Liofredi | Erik, the Baron's son |
| Liu Bosisio | Olga, the maid |
| Fiorella Masselli | Large prostitute |
| Cristina Gaioni | Farmer, Nicholas' girlfriend |
| Rosita Torosh | Sonia, the prostitute |
| Carla Mancini | Farmer |
| Imelde Marani | Blonde prostitute |
| Antonio Margheriti |
5.50 out of 10 (1630 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Camp Classic, Or Just Plain Bad? You Decide
posted on 25 Jun 2009I'm not sure how to describe "Flesh for Frankenstein." I'm not even sure if I liked it or not. It is a campy adaptation of Mary Shelley's story, with obvious artistic aspirations, but so ineptly told that I was wonder if the movie is a comedy or a drama. It is also overly gruesome, and the gratuitous sex scenes do not help the film. But it is never boring, mainly because it is so bizarre. There is something entertaining about artists that have no clue of what they are doing. The project had the blessing of artist Andy Warhol, but this ain't art. It is mostly a grotesque freak show that has gained a cult following. I don't quite understand why this film was made, but it is fun to watch at least once. Just be prepared to see a mixture of high camp and many unpleasant images. I often think CRITERION takes itself a little too seriously, but I'm genuinely pleased when they release stuff like this on DVD. It seems the company does have a sense of humor after all.
Fast forward to the last ten minutes; the rest isn't even worth a look.
posted on 20 Apr 2009Disgraceful "variation" on the Frankenstein myth. Such shamelessly idiotic dialogue cannot be heard even in a porn movie ("Oh, I am so lonely, I'm glad they didn't hurt you, come closer"), and such ludicrous plotting wouldn't even be accepted in a farce (watch the "kiss him...it's not working" scene....no further comments). Joe Dalessandro (whom I liked in "Trash") is more out-of-place in this environment than even, say, Woody Allen would be. The incredibly bloody finale will please splatter fans (in fact, it's the only reason this rates anything higher than a big fat "zero"), but beware: it is truly a very bad film.
3-D as good as it got
posted on 20 Apr 2009This movie is not the worst ever. It has some "weird" feeling to it that could make it likeable to some. But I have seen MANY films in 3-D and I must say this is, by either pure chance or otherwise awesome talent, one of the few films with truly accomplished 3-D effects and shots which make the 3-D process shine.Do not, I repeat, do not miss this film if you happen to catch a 3-D showing of it. Just don't miss it. You'll see 3-D like only 1 or 2 more films will ever show you.But if you don't see it in 3-D, such as on video, then this film may not be for you. Acting is weird, plot is weird, dubbing is weird, music is weird, entertaining values are low and nudity is scarce.As a film, I give it 3 out of 10. As a 3-D film, I give it 9 1/2 out of 10.No wonder 3-D died. If this and perhaps 1 or 2 more films was as close to perfection as the 3-D process ever got.
Sex, murder, art
posted on 14 Jan 2009Paul Morrissey´s film is probably the most unusual adaptation of the well-known Frankenstein-stuff I´ve ever seen! The story is about the mad scientist (likewise to his "Blood for Dracula"-role Udo Kier´s giving another outstanding performance, what makes him being the most culty German actor next to the inimitable Klaus Kinski!), who wants to create two artificial creatures to father some children. However, the experiment runs out of control, his sister/mother of his son and daughter starts having an affair with her servant and finally the whole plot ends in a big disaster... In comparison to James Whale´s "Frankenstein" from 1931 starring horror-icon Boris Karloff there´s nothing left from the romantic charm of the original. Director Paul Morrissey´s movie has created a bizarre and creepy scenario that contains a plenty of blood and guts, grotesque humor, hinted incest and love to dead bodies. Some calm and tender moments are in a gross contrast to the rest of the film. The end is bloody and pretty macabre. After all a very provoking, but nevertheless a really recommended mixture between splatter and art !
Udo Kier as Baron Frankenstein.
posted on 10 Sep 2008Andy Warhol's Frankenstein (1973) was another Italian/U.S. co-production. Paul Morrissey co-directs and Joe Dallesandro (The Warhol Connection) co-stars as a stable boy. Udo Kier stars as Baron Frankenstein, a young Scientist who's obsessed with creating a perfect race. He's married to his sister and has two odd child who are infatuated with their father's work. the Baron and his assistant are looking for the perfect male. The two of them travel around the area searching for the ideal mate for his newly created bride. Will The Baron find him and what will Joe do when he crosses paths with The Baron and his lonely neglected wife?A funny and gory film from Paul Morrissey, a former protégé of Andy Warhol and member of The Factory. This film was made during the same time as Andy Warhol's Dracula. Most of the cast and sets were used. Both films shared the same production company and they both starred Udo Kier. If possible watch t6hem both back to back.Campy horror at it's best!
The Perfect Nasum
posted on 23 Aug 2008This film is really the first part of a pair. "Flesh for Frankenstein" is the sister flick to "Blood for Dracula" and both are wild. These are films that are so bad, they're actually good. Udo Kier chews up the scenery as Baron Frankenstein who is obsessed with creating the perfect Serbian race by building a male and female to mate and be his slaves. He seeks a man with the perfect Serbian nose (or as Udo calls it "nasum") to make his male monster complete. Throw in a little incest, gallbladder sex, and violence, and boom, you've got a piece of trash art.The cast was pretty hammy, Joe Dallesandro obviously was only included for his looks (he really wasn't that good at acting) and Udo schlocked it up pretty well.It seems that in every one of these films, Udo ends up losing one or more limbs and spitting up blood. I think that the overly dramatic death scenes are so cheesy that they're actually kind of fun to watch. Not great movies, but fun when you're in that "I need a cheesy, campy, piece of trash" these films really soothe the palate.
Good Clean Fun!
posted on 10 May 2008This was the first of 2 films made in quick succession by Paul Morrissey in Italy in 1973. Blood for Dracula was the other. Flesh for Frankenstein was obviously made with it's tongue firmly in it's cheek. It's a step beyond anything Hammer attempted in this genre, especially regarding gore and dodgy accents! Udo Kier and Arno Juerging are possibly the best comic duo to hit the screens since Abbot & Costello as the Baron and faithful sidekick Otto! Whether fooling around in the lab or scouting for suitable organs they never fail to raise a smile. Kier gets all the best lines, letting us know his views on gall bladders and his plans for the new race he is ..ehm.. putting together. Monique Van Vooren is more sinister as the Baroness, who initially appears relatively normal, in comparison to her "husband" at least. However her eccentricities become apparent as the film goes on. Joe Dallesandro is on screen a lot but his character doesn't contribute much to the plot. Presumably his name was used to garner publicity for the film in the US. The Frankenstein kids take after their parents and are crucial to the twist at the end of the film. The young actors playing the kids do a good job. The actors playing the Baron's works in progress don't have much to do, even when their characters are brought to life. Certainly the film will not be to everybody's taste. There is plenty of gore and some dodgy sex scene sound effects. The scene showing the Baron's "interest" in the female creation and her innards pushes the boundaries a bit but it is too over the top to be anything more than comical. So sit back and enjoy this piece of 70's schlock horror.
Wacky, gory, sexy classic *possible spoilers*
posted on 07 May 2008Bizarre take on the Frankenstein story has the demented Baron (Udo Kier) molesting corpses in his lab and spouting philisophical gibberish to his weirdo assistant as they search for the perfect head for his male monster so it can mate with his gorgeous female monster. Meanwhile, his nympomaniac sister/wife (Monique Van Vooren)is getting it on with local stud Joe Dallesandro, who's impotent buddy's head winds up on top of the male monster, much to the Baron's chagrin. Campy and gruesome, with some of the screen's first sophisticated splatter effects, which audiences got to experience in 3-D upon its intial release. Andy Warhol, though often thought to have produced this and BLOOD FOR DRACULA (thus the "Andy Warhol's" caption on most posters and advertisements), was actually not involved in the production stage of either film, though he had a hand in their subsequent promotion.
Mary Shelly Is Whirling Dervishly In Her Grave
posted on 08 Mar 2008Despite Andy Warhol sticking his name on this film, Warhol had absolutely NO creative/artistic control on this film,what so ever. That aside, this celebration of blood,gore,death,incest,etc. is obviously a wry send up on all of those British Hammer and Amicus films that featured some rather zaftig peasant girls,in revealing low cut blouses, and let's not forget all of that blood,blood & more blood. The (somewhat)perverted plot concerns a young Baron Frankenstein (Udo Kier, star of many German films,and some films from other parts of Europe as well),who is obsessed with creating a master race of perfect zombies. Toss in a nymphomaniac sister,a hot & horny servant,and some other weirdness, and add gallons & gallons of blood & gore, and you have yourself a stew that some will find hard to swallow,but others will relish it. Honestly, this film is so violent,that it received an X rating for the time it was released in 1973 (and in really badly photographed 3D,to boot). I would probably recommend it's follow up, 'Blood For Dracula (1974)',instead (a.k.a. 'Andy Warhol's Dracula')
If only it were in 3D for home viewing
posted on 02 Mar 2008I originally saw this in 3D back in the early 80's when the 3D "Craze" had a brief resurgence. In watching this one can certainly tell it was made for 3D as innards are thrust at the screen on poles and dangle enticingly through grates. Ugh. Having said that though, it is, to me, quite a decent movie & definitely the companion-piece to "Blood For Dracula". Udo Kier plays the Baron, & Arno Juerging once again plays his creepy little side-kick. Juerging is notable for his ability to raise one eyebrow and generally look not particularly sane. This is a rather blood-drenched Frankenstein effort and yet the "monsters" look pretty much like supermodels instead of the usual "bolt through the neck" creation. Also notable are the two creepy little kids, who are apparently the offspring of the Baron and his wife, sister, both? Yes, I think it's both. The spy on everything they can, every chance they get, and utter hardly a word. Joe Dallesandro does what Joe Dallesandro does in most of Paul Morrisey's movies, he has sex with just about any female he can get his mitts on. This film manages to be stylish and trashy at the same time. It's kind of a black humor take-off on the Frankenstein legend rather than a serious attempt to tell another story in that vein. I enjoyed this a lot, and I feel it's well worth seeing, if you like the films of Paul Morrisey and enjoy Udo Kier ranting and raving. Pretty darn good, I must say, 8 out of 10.
* out of 4
posted on 15 Dec 2007Arriving at Castle Frankenstein, Baroness Katrin Frankenstein, (Monique van Vooren) finds that her husband Baron Frankenstein, (Udo Kier) is still toiling away in his laboratory with Otto, (Arno Juerging) his assistant. When she decides to move in, she begins to complain about him being in the laboratory every single moment possible. Trying to finish his newest experiment, he finds that local man Sacha, (Srdjan Zelenovic) is perfect for the head of a creature he is building to create the perfect master race. When his friend Nicholas, (Joe Dallesandro) tries to find out what had happened when he finds just the headless corpse, his quest takes him to the castle and into the laboratory. Discovering that he has actually sewn together two monsters from various people, he takes the story to her and they race to stop him before he can go through with his plans.One of the worst films ever made, the actors are laughable, but they are not enough to save this turkey. A disappointing effort from Carlo Ponti.Rated R for Violence, Nudity, Sexual Situations and Profanity.
More well made than BLOOD FOR Dracula, but the gore is really stomach churning
posted on 15 Nov 2007This film was filmed at the same time as Andy Warhol's Dracula(Blood for Dracula) and it shows. A lot of the same set-design and actors are used. To be fair, the acting is better in this film than it was in BLOOD FOR Dracula. But that doesn't stop it from being completely disgusting. This film has more of an emphasis on graphic gore than the first one did, and in turn it's a much more unpleasant film. I can't deny that this film actually did bother me after a while. Dr. Frankenstein, with his sidekick, Otto, wants to create two monsters, one male and the other female, so that they can mate and create a race of zombies that he can use as his slaves. Unfortunately, things don't go as planned. To make matters worse, Otto is a horny creep who believes that to have sex means sticking his hands into people's stomach cavities and sticking his fingers in people's guts. The film is completely gross, with one of the worst parts being a scene in which a man disembowels himself. There are lots of severed heads, hands, and guts and it's all quite sickening. Beware! Pros: -decent acting jobs-good set design as usual -the music is really haunting and beautiful-hilarious sex scenes Cons: -the gore is really repugnant and sickening-the film's ending is WAY too disturbing
Trash & Art
posted on 28 Oct 2007A brilliant fusion of camp cinema & art...Puts on a disguise of a trash film, but really it is a commentary on social structure. It also explores the manipulation of lower classes by aristocrats, the duality of social mores relative to class, and how the perversions of the wealthy are spread to their youth.All of this and laugh till your sides split. Some of the humor is perverse, but the film's over-the-top style manages to succeed on all levels.Udo Kier is perfect as the obsessed neurotic Frankenstein who by mistake chooses the head of a gay guy to mate with his female monster.Monique Van Vooren is perfect as the Baroness Katrin Frankenstein, and she must qualify as one of the campiest female leads in film history (right up there with Elizabeth Berkeley in Showgirls & Dolly Read in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls)Highly recommended, followed by Blood for Dracula, which didn't really achieve the camp heights of FFF.
Only for Horror fans (not "Scream" Wussies)
posted on 18 Jun 2007I have to laugh at the reviews here from people who saw this and expected some forgettable, sanitized piece of Hollywood garbage - and then got this!Please, only true horror fans seek this out. If you don't know who Herschel Lewis is, pass this by and rent Scream 3 again. Or something else with Matthew Lillard. That way you can tell yourself your a horror fan and move on.The amazing thing is how fast this (and Blood for Dracula) were made and how amazing both movies are! If you are an independent horror filmmaker in the works, this is must-see stuff.Don't believe the fluff from the "Ghost Ship" crew. They will forever confuse hollywood action films with horror. Sad. Yet funny to see their reactions! (if you liked Ghost Ship, rent I Spit On Your Grave next. Honest. You'll love it!!) ;O)
My first time....
posted on 19 May 2007When I was in Navy Hosp Corps School back in Feb. 1977 I took the train to Chicago. I was looking for something to do and happened to stumble upon a seedy downtown theater showing this film in 3D. Wasn't much else to do, so in I went. They passed out those stupid red lens/green lens glasses, and presto! 3D it was!! The ultimate in camp! I absolutely loved it. I stumbled upon this film at a yard sale this past summer, and still loved it in 2d. The acting is hit-and-miss, the plot is thin, but it more than makes up for it in atmosphere and gore. The perfect camp formula, in my opinion. Although Andy Warhol's name appears nowhere in the credits except 'producer' and the title, my hat's off to him. Without his name this little gem would have remained buried somewhere in European film vaults. Thanks, Andy!
Trash class!
posted on 15 Feb 2007I sincerely doubt that Mary Shelley would have appreciated this sensationally weird interpretation of her classic story but, unless you're the reincarnation of her spirit, you're guaranteed to enjoy this "Flesh for Frankenstein" a hell of a lot! Released right before the also highly recommended "Bloof for Dracula", but this sick puppy is even more deranged...more outrageous...and more amusing! Paul Morrissey's cult movie is a nearly perfect amalgamation of artsy, typically European exploitation (decorative sets, twisted characters...) and nasty American drive-in cinema (endless amounts of soft core sex and enough gory entrails to pave the roads between Casablanca and Cape Town...). Cult icon Udo Kier is simply superb as the unhinged Baron Frankenstein who wants to create both a male and female monster, so that they can copulate and bring forward a totally new breed of living creatures. Unfortunately (for the Baron, at least) he opts for the wrong male brain donor – the town's real stud is sharing the bed with his wife, the Baroness – and the monster doesn't show any interest for his ravishing 'bride'. The pitch black humor really works and – believe it or not – the original Frankenstein tale is never ridiculed. I do wish Morrissey would at least had attempted to bring some tension, but what the hell... Just the gore will do in this case, I reckon. Some of the gore highlights include an incredibly nasty decapitation, the optimizing of the female monster and – oh yeah – the unequaled finale which colors the TV-screen blood red! "Flesh for Frankenstein" surely isn't for all tastes (it's actually one of those "love-it-or-hate-it" films) but if you dig 70's trash/exploitation cinema, this is a must!
The Gall of It!
posted on 31 Jan 2007Flesh for Frankenstein (1973)Criterion Collection – DVD – D: Paul Morissey – 4/5Udo Kier stars as Baron Frankenstein. The Baron and his assistant Otto are hell-bent on creating a male and female 'zombie' to create his Serbian master race. All sorts of twisted goings on occur least of all the Baroness (his sister!) and their children (AAAAHHHH!). The Baroness being the insatiable sex maniac that she is employs a peasant farmer for trysts at her leisure and he soon happens onto the Baron's creations with the male monster having the head of his best friend. Some way over the top dialogue (To know death Otto, you have to fvck life in the gall bladder) made this an above average guilty pleasure. Kier rips the dialogue so well you can't help but love it. I laughed like crazy. I would love to see a 3D print as the effect would have been cool.
Andy Warhol's "Frankenstein"(in 3D) Rocks!
posted on 13 Aug 2006I 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!
Terrible
posted on 31 Jul 2009Out 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.