16 of 18 people found the following review helpful
on March 24, 2011
I just don't understand. Why would anyone watch this censored version? I'm speaking specifically of Amazon's streaming version. The UR version is out there, I own it on DVD, I think I actually bought it through Amazon. Amazon should realize that movie goers want the unadulterated version of any movie that's out there. I'm surprised they only offer this R rated version, Blockbuster I could understand, but I always thought Amazon had a truer aesthetic when it comes to presenting movies in their original, as-intended-by-the-director-to-be-seen version.
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful
on December 3, 2010
Whe this movie came out I went to the Avalon in D.C. to see it opening night as i was taking my 3-D glasses from the ticket attendant I asked an usher if the movie was good and he said (he was about 60-70 years of age)it was trash pure crap the worst movie they had shown there in many years. I knew right then I was going to love this movie. And I was right. To this day this film remains one of my favorite of all time. You have to see this film as satire in order to enjoy it. In short Morrisey and company hit all the right notes to make a masterpiece of european camp. AWESOME.
20 of 25 people found the following review helpful
on July 8, 2002
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.]
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
on April 8, 2000
This is an interesting film, with all sorts of good intentions. The casting of Udo Kier in the starring role is some inspired casting. Joe Dallesandro looks a bit out of place, but I think that is part of the point that Morrissey was making. Loads of great humor, and more gore and werid sex than you could ever imagine. Parts of it were a little slow though, and the sex was not at all attractive to look at. But take a look, and the commentary is great. But, also be sure to check out Morrissey's superior follow-up, "Blood for Dracula". It is far more interesting, and Kier fits the role of Dracula perfectly.
23 of 30 people found the following review helpful
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.
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
on June 11, 2000
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.
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
on January 21, 2000
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!
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on May 21, 2008
I saw this movie back in 1973 in 3D when I was a kid. It is one of the most memorable horror movies that I still remember up to this day. Who could ever forget the dialogues of Udo like " to understand death you have to f..ck life in the gall bladder!" I am very glad that I finally found this dvd. If you like trashy movies this is a real gem!
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on September 9, 2011
A movie with Udo Kier, Joe Dallasandro, Monique van Vooren & Arno Juerging, all who were in Blood for Dracula, except Miss van Vooren. Both Blood for Dracula & Flesh for Frankenstein were produced by Andy Warhol & written & directed by Paul Morrissey. If you like one you'll certainly like the other. There's a scene in this that van Vooren looks & sounds so much like Madeline Kahn in Young Frankenstein, it's spooky. I'm certain Mel Brooks had seen it. Blood for Dracula has a scene the Addams Family copied.
This is a really off beat look at the mad doctor genre. The good? Baron has his castle, his laboratory, two children, a sister for a wife & a healthy disrespect for anything but his experiments. Lots of nudity, fake blood & guts in this literally, far more so than people were used to at the time (1973).
The mad Baron has a plan to repopulate the world with superior beings by creating both a man & a woman that are capable of copulation to produce his super race, one that is subject to himself. His sister & wife who loves copulation, but gets none from her husband, seems to have little problem finding the peasants involved in such activities or participating herself.
This is a great `elite society' gone to rot inside the estates under his control film. All the usual themes of degradation (not seen as such by the perpetrators), belief in the elite's absolute power & enjoyment of abnormal relationships run throughout the household. There is in fact so much nudity for a horror show that it quickly becomes common place & lets you get on with the story. The show is a near Jacobean tragedy, but not quite.
The supporting cast is wonderful & I should go into that but I don't want to spoil the few scenes they get to surprise us in. The ending is deliciously wicked I won't discuss it. It's assuredly the best show of its kind I know. It's definitely on the strange & unusual list of movies. I give it 4.5 Amazon Stars, of course, I've watched it 4 or 5 times & will again no doubt.
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
on February 11, 2001
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.