Flesh for Frankenstein (1973) User Reviews

A little something to make Mary Shelley skyrocket out of her grave.

[capkronos · 6/10 · 21 May 2003]

Baron von Frankenstein (an out-of-control Udo Kier, a guy with amazing eyes) has created a beautiful female monster out of stitched together body parts and now yearns to make a male version as her companion. Meanwhile, his dissatisfied wife Katherine (Monique Van Vooren) has the ever-so-studly Joe Dallesandro (whose New York accent is way out of place) to fulfill her sexual needs. The baron mistakes Dallesandro's virginal (possibly gay) friend as him, cuts his head off and eventually puts together a male creature, in an effort to mate his two subjects.

This outrageous horror parody has incest, necrophilia, bloody stitches, gutglobs spilling out of stomachs, impalements, severed body parts, rape, lots of nudity and sex, campy performances and bad taste dialogue. The ending is hectic, nasty and totally hilarious as all the characters end up dead in a big cartoonish pile of bloody bodies (Carlo Rambaldi did the FX).

It was filmed back-to-back with ANDY WARHOL'S DRACULA by the same director, producers and some of the same actors (both were "supervised" by Antonio Margheriti) and was originally released in an X-rated 3-D version with all kinds of gross stuff thrust right at the viewer (wish I could have seen it that way!).

Score: 6 out of 10

Good Clean Fun!

[paudie · 6/10 · 28 July 2008]

This 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.

Better than BLOOD FOR DRACULA -- Udo Kier is tops (laughs)

[macabro357 · 6/10 · 6 November 2003]

This is clearly the superior of the two films that Paul Morrissey filmed at Cinecitta studios (Rome) during the early 1970s. It's the typical Frankenstein story with the Morrissey's spin on it.

And I suspect that it has a lot to do with Antonio Margheriti being involved since he is famous in Italian horror circles for the gore effects he brings to films. Especially the scene where the male monster (Srdjan Zelenovic) rips open his stomach sutures, exposing his organs in an act of suicide. Very anatomically correct.

Udo Kier is probably the best reason to see this film, however. His hammy acting skills are tops! His version of Frankenstein is so demented, I guess the German accent adds a lot to it. Usually it's an American or English actor who plays Frankenstein so having a real life German (speaking in English, of course) adds to the atmosphere.

And of course Joe Dallesandro's New York accent sounds totally out of place here, just as it did in BLOOD FOR DRACULA. He sounds like a male hustler hanging out in Times Square instead of an Italian stable boy

Also hideous is Monique Van Vooren as Baroness. Good gawd, the Dallesandro character must have been real hard-up in order to sleep with that old hag.

Still, it has decent atmosphere and the Criterion DVD uses a widescreen print that looks crystal along with production stills of the movie, secondary commentary track by Morrissey who has some revealing comments about the film, and some silly, pseudo-intellectual commentary by Maurice Yakowar that a trashy film like this doesn't deserve.

Worth seeing mostly for Kier's presence.

6 out of 10

Udo at his best

[Krug Stillo · 19 June 2004]

To begin honestly, FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN isn't for all tastes. However, the film and brother, BLOOD FOR Dracula, are great treats to genuine horror movie buffs. Surprisingly, for some reason the latter, as offensive as the former was not listed as a 'Video Nasty'. These two films were made back to back (a la Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions) and by the same cast and crew and exploited Andy Warhol's name for distribution.

If you have a fondness for cheesy, funny and gory decadence, then you'll love this film. Plus Udo Kier is and Arno Juerging are great in their roles. The fabulous line – To know Death Otto, you first have to f**k life in the gall bladder – was a bloomer influenced by Last Tango in Paris, but was so funny, director (Paul Morrisey) left it in.

As a passing note, I remember seeing both Ace Ventura and Blade in the cinema for the first time and loudly saying 'It's UDO!' when he appeared.

Trashy fun

[dave13-1 · 6/10 · 11 April 2012]

This messy little splatter-fest was heavily censored in most markets back in the 70s and fully restored its wildly lurid visuals can still shock. The movie is all about the visuals and the splatter, and is so over the top that it gets a bit silly. The exploitation elements of the Frankenstein story - the grave-robbing, the obsessive experiments in mad science - have never been this wildly exploited and manage to straddle spoofery and shock cinema about equally well. This is not to say that this is in any way a good movie. It's almost a joke on the audience. The script is complete trash, straight out of a bad Gothic novel and probably meant to be laughed at, but played straight-faced by the film's 'actors'. The 'acting' is pretty horrible. Udo Keir is his usual creepy Eurotrash self and even moderately effective in a one-note performance, but he's the only cast member who has any business being in a period piece. Everybody else, especially Warhol protégé and gay icon Joe Dallesandro, is just too urban-contemporary (not to mention inexperienced) to pull off a 19th century look or 19th century speech. The women look decorative and shed their tops fairly often, but don't look for a romantic subplot or a strong female character because there aren't any. As straight-forward drama, this movie would get about 1/2 a star.

My rating is based on its effectiveness as an exercise in subverting audience expectations and slamming the Gothic horror genre which, after 15 straight years of Hammer and Roger Corman, had become a bit ripe.

You've never known life until you've f***-it in the gallbladder. WTF, am I watching?

[ironhorse_iv · 5/10 · 12 June 2014]

Trying to dissect, Flesh for Frankenstein is like trying to figure out the meaning of the artist, Andy Warhol's pop art, can painting. Since Andy Warhol finance the movie, and some of the actors were once party the 1960s's Factory Superstars. The movie is somewhat market as Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. The movie was directed/written by Paul Morrisey, and for the most part, all of Morrisey's ideas. If it was all Andy Warhol's ideas, the film would look more like 1963's Sleep, 1964's Blow Job or the infamous 1964's Empire. All these avant-garde films were just long shots of something being film for long periods of time. The film would be so mundane. It's only when Paul Morrisey start to help Andy Warhol's films, do we get any sense of story such in the case of 1968's Lonesome Cowboys, 1970's Heat, and others. Paul Morrissey took over the film-making chores for the Factory collective after Andy Warhol got shot in 1968, steering Warhol-branded cinema towards more mainstream, narrative-based, B-movie exploitation fare to try to make money off of this films. He even film the, then X-Rated movie, in 3D to get people to watch this explicit sexuality and violence film. The movie's nudity and violence are indeed graphic, but not X-Rated material. The film was later cut to 93 minutes for an R-rating. It's often, pair with sister movie, 1974's Blood for Dracula at the time, for double feature. The U.S. DVD releases have utilized the full uncut version, which is now unrated. If you want to check that out. While, the movie does share some of the same characters of the Mary Shelley's Frankenstein novel. The two are way, different. This movie has Baron von Frankenstein (Udo Kier) neglects his duties towards his wife/sister Katrin (Monique van Vooren), as he is obsessed with creating a perfect Serbian race to obey his commands. He does this by assembling a perfect male and female from parts of corpses to have them having intercourse. It's seem like it was trying to be a smart art-house film, that it's somewhat get lost with the slow pace delivery in exploitation grindhouse film. The way, the movie delivers this plot, is hysterical camp with horrible acting and bad special effects. The gruesomeness of the action with several disembowelments being shot from a 3D perspective was laughable. Udo Kier sounds and acts like a mix between Peter Lorre, Ren from Ren & Stimpy, and Tommy Wiseau. It's really hard to understand what he is saying. The supporting cast deliver their lines with less emotion. Even with the gross, Necrophilia and incest theme. With better actors and special effects, the doctor's sublimation of his sexual urges by his powerful urge for domination could had work. The movie really does mirror, Adolf Hitler in his lust of power. You see it through symbolism like trying to find the right nose for the creature. Like Baron, Hitler found Jews to be inadequate and often brand them with long untrusting noses. The movie has a powerful message about sexually repressed leading to social disembowelment. Indeed, maybe, Hitler lack of sex, did cause the world to go into war. It's hard to take the sex scenes, serious. Especially when his wife/sister is sucking on a guy's armpit with odd sound effects. It get weirder as the gallbladder is use as a sex object in this film. I think its hints to Andy Warhol's survival after the botch assassination. Indeed, Andy Warhol's lungs, his spleen, stomach, liver, and esophagus were hit. Hints why the lungs were on the desk in the film. While, he did survive, the effects of it would haunt him for the rest of his life. Andy Warhol was known to have recurring gallbladder problems after the shooting. Indeed, it was his delay of a check-up that might cause his death in 1987 after routine gallbladder surgery. The ending to the film is very powerful with how generations and generations would continue to repeat the same mistakes. The movie does have some good things about it, seeing how rushed it was made in production, with 1 month of shooting, it's was mostly shot beautifully with divine music score to go with it. Overall: While the movie was trying to be a smart satire of horror movies. Somebody's derped with their work, and it didn't deliver how what they really wanted. Still, it's worth watching, if you're an Andy Warhol or Frankenstein fan.

Often confused but plenty to enjoy

[tomgillespie2002 · 6/10 · 2 June 2011]

Possibly the oddest re-imagining of the Frankenstein story ever made, Paul Morrissey's 1973 semi-avant-garde, satirical spoof is also one of the funniest, and most gruesome. Dr. Von Frankenstein (played by B-movie favourite Udo Kier) is obsessed with creating what he believes will become a master race of Serbians who will bend at his will. He locks himself away with his assistant Otto (Arno Juerging), manufacturing hideous creations from body parts. He creates a male and a female to give birth to the first of his new race, but he is frustrated and unsatisfied with the male's sexual urges. Von Frankenstein's wife/sister, meanwhile, is following her own urges with farmhand Nicholas (Joe Dalessandro), who is coincidentally the best friend of the doctor's latest victim.

One of the strangest pairings in cinema history, director Morrissey and producer Andy Warhol have certainly created an interesting piece of horror. For all it's rather sick moments of debauchery, it is actually quite impressive artistically. Filmed in Cinecitta in Rome (one of Federico Fellini's favourite film studios), the set design for Von Frankenstein's laboratory in vast and impressive. This approach works both for and against the film, as although it gives the film a grand, often operatic feel, the film can sometimes look like it's on stage. That said, Morrissey's ability to frame a shot is often spectacular, especially in the ultra-wide dinner table scene, where Von Frankenstein introduces his wife/sister to his fresh creations.

Yet sometimes the film can feel a bit confused. It works well just a straight B-movie, with plenty of the weird and gruesome on show to satisfy horror fans (given those fans are into watching sex with torso wounds). But the film isn't really funny enough to call itself a comedy, clever enough to call itself a satire, or pretentious enough to be avant-garde. All these different themes seemed to clash together and I never felt settled with what kind of film I was supposed to be watching. If that was the point, then well done, but it still doesn't make the movie into anything special.

Saying that, I did thoroughly enjoy 90 minutes in the minds of two strange characters that had a small, if fascinating, effect on cinema.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Silly Exploitation Version of Frankenstein

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 26 June 2019]

"Flesh for Frankenstein" is a silly exploitation version of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Maybe in the 70´s this trash film could have been funny since the societies were more naive, but in the Twentieth-First Century, it is boring, silly and unfunny. Dalila Di Lazzaro is still a very hot woman in the role of the female creature. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Carne para Frankenstein" ("Flesh for Frankenstein")

Brilliantly Distasteful Cult Gem

[Witchfinder-General-666 · 9/10 · 27 December 2009]

"Flesh For Frankenstein" of 1973 is a wonderfully grotesque, bloody, bizarre, creepy, hilarious, artistic and absolutely brilliant slice of European Exploitation Horror that may not be missed by any lover of cult-cinema. The first of two takes on classic Horror tales directed by Paul Morrissey, starring Udo Kier and Joe Dallessandro and (co-)produced by iconic artist Andy Warhol (the other being "Blood For Dracula), "Flesh For Frankenstein" (which is sometimes referred to as "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein") is an Italian/French/American co-production that simply has to be seen to be believed.

A blend of rich Gothic atmosphere, grotesque artsy imagery, unvarnished sleaze and excessive gore and wonderfully black humor, "Flesh For Frankenstein" is both a tribute to- and satire of earlier Horror greats. At the time of its release, the film was highly controversial for its depiction of sex and gore and even received an X-Rating in the US: No wonder, as this unspeakably morbid little gem features all kinds of demented scenes including explicit perversions, such as necrophilia, all containing a very VERY morbid sense of humor.

Udo Kier shines as a very demented Baron Frankenstein (with a thick German accent), who lives with his sister/wife (!) Katrin (Monique Van Vooren), their two children, as well as his equally demented assistant in a castle in Serbia. Frankenstein plans to create female and a male Zombie from body parts; the natural children of his creations are then to become a perfect race of people. In the meanwhile, the super-potent stable-hand Nicholas (Joe Dallesandro) has sex with every female that crosses his way...

Udo Kier fits perfectly in the role of the Baron - extremely demented, perverted and weird, Frankenstein constantly yells at his assistant for being a pervert. This Baron is dedicated to science and obsessed with results as are other Frankenstein versions in cinema (such as those played by Colin Clive or Peter Cushing), but, unlike these predecessors, he is also demented in every other imaginable way. Udo Kier is definitely one of Germany's greatest actors and doubtlessly THE remaining expert for sinister and eccentric characters since Klaus Kinski passed away. He is truly great here. Monique van Vooren is also very good as the Baron's equally malicious sister/wife - van Vooren looks very young for her age (she was 48 when the film was made), but also really weird, since she has no eyebrows. Italian Horror enthusiasts will notice that the Frankenstein couple's daughter is played by Nicoletta Elmi, who was in many other cult-classics such as Dario Argento's "Profondo Rosso" (1975), Mario Bava's "Bay of Blood" (1971) and "Baron Blood" (1972), as well as Aldo Lado's Giallo "Who Saw Her Die?" (1972).

"Flesh For Frankenstein" is a film that is very gory and outrageously morbid for its day. When I first saw it, some scenes even reminded me of Joe D'Amato's 1979 shocker "Buio Omega" (though this film isn't quite AS demented and sick as D'Amato's film). IMDb and some other sources credit Italian Horror deity Antonio Margheriti, who happens to be an idol of mine, as co-director of this film; however, it appears that Margheriti was merely credited to draw Italian viewers into cinemas, and had little to nothing to do with the actual production of the film. Either way, this is a must-see. "Flesh For Frankenstein" is a wonderfully bizarre, atmospheric, gory, demented, morbid, incredibly (and VERY darkly) funny film, that MUST be seen by all cult-cinema fans, and, personally, I cannot understand how anyone could not love it. My rating: 10/10

Flesh for Frankenstein (1973)

[jonahstewartvaughan · 7/10 · 13 August 2023]

Cult Cuts Volume 33 (Return to the Video Store: The Nastier, The Better Part One)

#2/4: Flesh for Frankenstein (1973)

(7/10): As the first in a two film series of alternate takes on the two most iconic Movie Monsters, Frankenstein and Dracula (and before you correct me, yes I am aware that Frankenstein is the Doctor but he is very much the Man and the Monster in this iteration of the story), I liked it, but I feel like it might have to grow on me.

The story is of Baron Frankenstein who lives in a mansion with his wife/sister, married solely for entitlement to fortune and then the kids. The Baron and Baroness go about their business separately from each other and she is left very unfulfilled while he works in his laboratory at creating a male and female from stitched together body parts of other people they murder in the woods at night.

The goal of the Baron is create two beings that will breed together and create a master race as he is unsatisfied with his children as well.

There's a local man and his friend, who is recluse and doesn't get out much nor does he have much of a love life. He attempts to try and show him what he's missing so he takes him to the local wh*rehouse as they then have sex with the women there, but the one doesn't seem too comfortable with being there.

The Baron and his assistant are out looking for the perfect male head and they are spying outside of the door and they follow the two home in the woods and knock out one of them and decapitate the other.

Living with the guilt that he put his friend in danger and it resulted in his death he tries talking to the Baroness about the incident and she doesn't know what to make of it but she does know that she wants him, so she hires him as a "servant" to fulfill her and then in time he finds that a servant of the Baron looks exactly like his friend, and thus he must investigate this Baron and just what happens at the Baron's laboratory.

It's a poorly acted, super sleazy and weird piece of filmmaking.

There are some cool aspects to it though, it's surprisingly scored really well and the Baron's Castle like Mansion provides some really excellent scenery.

The gore effects are pretty solid as well, some are pretty disgusting which definitely earned it it's Video Nasty Status, loads of guts spill out of the two experiments bodies.

The one thing that I moreso just didn't know what to make of, I understood it in the context of the film just it felt like, "okay... that happened...", it's the film's strong sexual themes and presentation, not specifically the more straightforward scenes but the fact that the Baron seemed to have a fetish for flesh and his creations, as he licks the stitches on the stomach of the naked female experiment.

It just felt somewhat off putting to me, maybe upon a rewatch it won't be as weird or jarring to me.

The abundance of sex scenes in the film though does feel a bit much to me though, but that's my personal opinion.

One Star For Joe, One Star For The Lizard

[gftbiloxi · 2/10 · 14 May 2005]

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 butt. 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.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Gorgeous erotic/Gothic film

[Falconeer · 9/10 · 19 November 2013]

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!

A Formal Morrisey

[akoaytao1234 · 6/10 · 17 August 2022]

My first Morrissey outside his trash classics. I did not like it. The rough edges of his players really shows quite jarringly in this film, since it rely more so in dialogue and actual presentation. The very thing I really liked about Trash and Flesh is that they are emotive and almost lacking of subtlety and at importantly, it melds docufiction. Those biggest film's biggest strength is there an immediacy like when Joe ranting/teaching about his 'life', Superstars doing drugs and being messy, et al. Its a controlled messiness that makes those film doubly compelling and push the limit of filmmaking akin or even more so than its French counterparts.

For Flesh for Frankenstein, it lose those elements and what remains is a formal film lacking with actors that can handle simple dialogue and with the 'trash' element. Otherwise, the film is able but with all the Hammer films of the era, it hardly feels anything but old news.

Overall, Flesh for Frankenstein can be a good start point but it lacks the revelatory component that made Morrissey important.

"Flesh for Frankenstein" - Cud 'a Used a Brain Instead.. :=8P

[MooCowMo · 1/10 · 12 April 2000]

"Andy Warhol's Frankenstein" is as dreadful, boring, and pretentious a slab of 70's Euro-trash as you'll ever likely to see. Think "Lady Frankenstein", only mooore dull, and without any throttling. :=8P For those of you who don't know, or remember, or would like to forget, Andy Warhol, the Prince of Pretentious Pop-Art, helped produce a string of lousy flicks in the 70's, including "Bad", "Dracula", and this gem. They're all terrible and thunderously dull, and his "Frankenstein" might be the worst of the lot. Udo Kier("Andy Warhol's Dracula", "Spermula","Suspiria" ) plays the flat, nasally-accented doctor, seeking to create the "perfect Serbian ideal" from bits and pieces of dead people. Monique Van Vooreen("Decameron", "Sugar Cookies", "Tarzan and the She-Devils")plays Katrina, the sister/wife/sex-obsessed shrew somecow related to ze Baron. Joe Dallesandro("Trash", "Emmanuelle 77", "Wild Orchid II") plays Nicholas the frowning Stableboy, trying to cowvince us that he too is European despite being handicapped with the worst Brooklyn accent this side of Rosie Perez. Very little happens; oh, there is some curiously antiseptic nudity, some cheesy, obviously fake gore, but moooch of the film is yak, yak, yak. 10 minutes into this film feels like 12 hours. The acting is amatuerish, at best, production values are positively subterranean, and Director Paul Morrissey works his usual non-flare. This cow has not seen the 3D version of this film - doubtless, it would be even mooore headache-inducing. We do get to see the two bland Euro-children get attacked by some rubber bats on strings. Such gratifying moooments, cowever, are fleeting. Somecow this feeble flick has retained the reputation of being campy, frightening, sexy, and/or outrageous, but the MooCow is here to tell ya', watching that cheesy "Hair in a Can" infomercial is far moore interesting. The MooCow says stick this "Flesh" back into the trash can for quick disposal. :=8P

Sex, murder, art

[DJ Inferno · 6 October 2001]

Paul 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 !

Bizarre and Fascinating. Analysis with production details.

[ronswilliams-03171 · 7/10 · 11 December 2021]

The 1973 "Flesh for Frankenstein" in 3D is, among other things, a parody of Hitler's quest to create an Arian master race. In that, this Paul Morrissey directed film is even more irreverent than Mel Brook's "Springtime for Hitler." And it's every bit as funny, if not more so.

The gore level is off the charts. The intention is to parody with blood and guts the decadence of the uber-rich and entitled. The result? The gore is so excessive, the effect is more comical than nauseating. And that's a good thing when watching this film in standard 2D. ... But wait! ... The original 3D presentation (available in 2022 on 4K Blu-ray DVD) is sure to raise the gross-out stakes as it thrusts blood, guts and organs right out of the screen and into your face.

Sexual excesses are also parodied (to the extreme) throughout the film. In one notable example of fetishism run amuck, Doctor Frankenstein (Udo Kier) reaches an orgasm while fondling his female zombie's bloody organs through an open wound. But his actual climax is delivered verbally to his astonished assistant who has been watching the abominable sex act. After dismounting his zombie, Frankenstein zips up his pants and informs the feeble-minded Otto: "To know life, you must f##k death in the gallbladder."

If these scenes sound ludicrous, buckle up. The actors and acting are also bizarre. And they are strangely fascinating. The cast are German and other European actors who speak the odd bits of dialogue in accents which are at once comical and astonishing. (eg How dare you wake me in the middle of the day, you know I have insomnia.")

In a film populated with bizarre, out of place characters, the ultimate misfit suddenly appears on screen. It's Joe Dellesandro. This brings us to the reasons this film got financed: 1. Joe Dellesandro would be featured and Andy Warhol's name would appear in the promotional materials (although he had nothing to do with the production). 2. That the film be made in 3D. 3. That it cost just $300,000, and be shot in just three weeks time. Surprisingly It has a "3 Million Dollar Look" thanks to the costumes, sets, cinematography, and production design by the team of professionals at Italy's Cinecitta Studios.

Joe Dellesandro Can best be described as a well built, handsome New York Street Hustler. But it's his Bronx accent which stands out. It's as jarring as any of the film's 3D visual effects. Nevertheless, after the shock of hearing his initial spoken dialogue, he oddly starts to fit right in. And why not? Casting him is no more bizarre than the film itself. There's no doubt he is suitable for the character he plays: a well hung, sex-stud stable-boy. What seems at first to be an inconceivable bit of casting, soon fits right into this strange brew of horror, fantasy and comedy.

There's one final ingredient which in any other film might seem out of place. That is the music score by Claudio Gizzi. The score is horror-movie-music appropriate during the action scenes of violence and suspense. But it is never more appropriate than during the goriest of the film's interludes. In those scenes, the orchestral composition played under spilling guts and gore, (especially the bloodbath finale) is absolutely beautiful music. This haunting and melodious composition makes for an appropriate counterpoint to the gore and horror unfolding on screen.

NOTEWORTHY: Carlo Rembaldi (special make-up and gore effects) would soon become known for his amazing work on E. T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), Alien (1979)

There is a 1998 DVD release by the Criterion Collection which includes a fascinating commentary by a film historian, Director Paul Morrissey, and Frankenstein actor Udo Kier --. It's an alternate audio track running the entire length of the feature film.

To know death Otto, you have to f*ck life... in the gall bladder!

[lastliberal · 5/10 · 25 November 2007]

It's very hard to recommend this film, but it is also hard to dismiss it as Criterion saw fit to issue it in their collection.

Udo Kier (Halloween 2007, Grindhouse, All the Queen's Men, and all of Lars von Trier's movies) is the strangest Baron Frankenstin I have ever seen. He gets a certain glee out of playing with internal organs. He is into incest and necrophilia, and has plans to create a Master race obedient to him - sound familiar. Of course, his plans go awry when he selects the wrong head for his Frankenstein.

His sister/wife (Monique Van Vooren) is more concerned with the stable-boy (Joe Dallesandro).

Funny and strange, Paul Morrissey has written and directed a decidedly different version of Mary Shell's story.

Hang him on my wall ...

[parry_na · 7/10 · 11 March 2024]

Paul Morrissey, best known for his association with notorious pop artist Andy Warhol, writes and directs this adaption of Mary Shelley's famous monster yarn. Arguably, the monster in this version is the driven Baron Von Frankenstein, played by the excellent Udo Kier. He wants to create an artificial couple to mate and produce an army that will obey his commands. Nothing understated there then, and that includes Kier's performance which is rich, wide-eyed and convincingly insane. In an interview, Kier admitted his command of English was shaky at the time; he wasn't aware of what a gall bladder was - the most famous line in the film 'to know life, you first have to **** death in the gall bladder' no longer quite has the same impact!

Meant to shock as a priority, the film's release was originally released in 3D, hence much is made of bloody body parts appearing to pour out of the screen. Some moments are revolting, and the mix of sex, death, dissection and necrophilia is heady. The open-ended finale is frustrating - especially for Srdjan Zelenovic!

Acting is variable. Monique van Vooren is effective as Baroness Katrin Frankenstein, as is writer, model and actress Dalila Di Lazzaro as the nameless silent female 'monster'. The Baron's two children witness much of the gore, especially in the latter stages of the story; I'm sure that such a thing wouldn't happen nowadays. Surely someone somewhere would be offended on behalf of the juveniles. It didn't do young Nicoletta Elmi (Monica) any harm. Elmi appeared in many Mario Bava and Dario Argentino thrillers throughout the '70s and '80s and was a familiar face even here, at the age of 9.

Frequently grotesque and surprisingly dull in places, but featuring a musical score (by Claudio Gizzi) that is often breathtakingly gorgeous, Flesh for Frankenstein is nevertheless a must-see if you are a horror film fan. My score is 7 out of 10.

Ed Wood On A Big Budget.

[maxcellus46 · 1/10 · 28 June 2008]

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.

anatomy 101

[tsf-1962 · 10/10 · 19 January 2007]

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.

not really as good as Blood for Dracula

[christopher-underwood · 7/10 · 18 January 2023]

It is not really as good as Paul Morrissey's second one Blood for Dracula (1974) and I believe that the Mary Shelley story is not really as good as that of Bram Stoker. Maybe that is unfair but the other story certainly has more possibilities. Udo Kier is great but not quite as good in this one and does rather shout a lot although I have to say that his messing around with the bodies is rather terrible but most splendid and I'm not sure if necrophilia counts if they are only half dead. I have to say that Dalila Di Lazzaro as the 'female monster' is lovely even if she doesn't speak. She didn't do as many films as she might have but is very good in the giallo, The Pyjama Girl Case (1977) and also Daria Argento's Phenomena (1985). Found that the two children have a good time and the strikingly pretty redhead Nicoletta Elmi was only 9yrs and she also did Who Saw Her Die (1972) and Deep Red (1975). Joe Dallessandro also doesn't have as good a part as most of the other but is has its moments. I have to say that the 3-D back in the day and the original was fantastic but it seems a shame that maybe too much time was spent on this instead of the story.

Cult Classic Or Just C**p?

[theplatformtheatre · 2/10 · 6 March 2007]

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

Now this is how you make an exploitation film!

[Red-Barracuda · 8/10 · 16 October 2014]

Well. we can only speculate what Mary Shelley would have made of this! By the time it came to the early 1970's there was a peculiar trend in European genre cinema for erotic/sleazy Frankenstein films. Amongst others there was The Erotic Rites of Frankenstein and Frankenstein '80 – both from 1972 – so it can be not too much of a surprise that a year later came the king of this very specific sub-genre, the one and only Flesh For Frankenstein. It was famously produced by New York Pop artist Andy Warhol, along with the similar Blood For Dracula. But it's a far cry from Warhol's other art films and unsurprisingly his creative input was pretty negligible. It was filmed in Cinecittà studios in Rome and directed by Warhol acolyte, Paul Morrissey. But irrespective of who did what and why, the main thing about this one is that it's a bona fide trash classic of the very best kind.

Its blood and guts galore and transgressive sex all the way. But it's all presented in a camp manner that simply has to be seen to be believed. The acting ranges from insanely over-the-top (Udo Kier) to hilariously under-the-top (Joe Dallesandro). What makes it so very funny is that despite the sheer ridiculousness of proceedings everybody plays it deadpan straight. We have Kier fully committed and out of control as the Nazi-like Baron who dreams of making a new master race; Dallesandro is a local shepherd stud with a hilariously out of place New York accent – he seems more like a Times Square street hustler than a character from the early 19th century; then there is Arno Juering in a bewildering performance as the eye-popping Otto, assistant to the Baron; Monique Van Vooren makes an impression too as the Baron's over-sexed wife/sister; even the couples incestual offspring are memorably creepy, the little girl being the one and only Nicoletta Elmi who appeared in dozens of Italian horror and giallo flicks in the early 70's.

Flesh For Frankenstein was also noteworthy for being one of the members of the infamous video nasty list, which of course was a selection of movies deemed criminally obscene by the British authorities back in the early 80's. It's an example of an entry from this list where you sort of understand why it caused offence in the first place. Not only does it have a healthy dose of explicit gore – including a hilariously over-the-top finale – but it is wilfully transgressive in other outrageous ways with the brother/sister-husband/wife incest plot strand and the baron's necrophiliac behaviour with his zombie creations. Of course, all of this excessive content, funny performances and insane dialogue adds up to a must-see movie for anyone with a passing interest in Euro horror from the schlockier end of the scale. On top of all of this, it's actually a quite handsome looking film, which is perhaps unsurprising given its Cinecittà origins. Suffice to say that all of this adds up to a cult film, truly worthy of the tag. Its additionally well worth seeking out its sister film Blood For Dracula, which is slightly less psychotronic but equally indispensable.

To Know Death: A DVD Extras review

[Ali_John_Catterall · 7/10 · 15 November 2009]

Tartan Video 2006: Not a huge body of extras for Flesh For Frankenstein, released for the first time in its full uncut version (sadly, sans 3D). The screen-test is nothing to write home about and as Paul Morrissey notes, the audio part has been lost. At just four minutes long, it's for completists only. All the same, "I'm glad it's on the DVD and I hope someone finds them necessary" he laughs. (More satisfying is the screen-test from the Blood For Dracula DVD, also featuring Zelenovic as Dracula, before Udo Kier clinched the part.) Next, some production stills with another Morrissey commentary. "I'm glad they're not sitting in a box on a shelf," he says, but rarely refers directly to them, choosing instead to discuss aspects of the movie. Boy, can he talk. Mostly, he's at pains to reiterate that "the story is absurd - all my films are comedies," a fact which often completely slips the mind of our resident film historian Maurice Yacowar.

Appropriately, the main commentary consists of three lengthy interviews separately recorded then welded together. In practice, it resembles some freakish verbal relay race between the folksy, self-deprecating Morrissey, the florid and over-exacting Yacowar and the slightly sinister, heavily-accented Kier.

If Yacowar's second out of the gate, by God he's going to make up the miles. "As we watchers see other suspect watchers we become part of the film subject" he burbles. "Critics today call this 'Questioning Spectatorship.'" Yacowar's by far the most entertaining contributor to the DVD, as he appears to have stumbled in from another commentary entirely - which only adds to the high camp. For Maurice, a dogging movie shot in the car park of your local Tesco would probably herald a lengthy treatise on the aesthetics of the automobile; you begin to wonder if his inclusion is a deliberate ploy to underline the ludicrousness of it all.

Udo thinks the film is "poetic, beautiful and timeless" - actually, he says exactly the same thing on the Blood For Dracula commentary, and many of his musings could be interchanged without anyone noticing. No danger of that with Yacowar: "Morrissey is being satiric and funny when he has those small bandages on the corpse's private parts." Thanks, Maurice. What on Earth would we do without you? "He's mocking our pretence to decorum, especially when we're such slavering voyeurists that we pay big bucks to see a 3D film about Frankenstein. We crave gore and sex." Later, he observes, "The prolonged snipping open of her wound is both grisly and erotic. The wound looks like a vagina, but of course it's an impractical alternative." The wound absolutely does not look like a vagina, Maurice and frankly, we're worried about you.

Udo recalls that he learned Latin for the role of Baron Frankenstein (quite unnecessarily as it happened) and explains why it's best to play comedies straight. "If you make a joke and you laugh before everybody else laughs, nobody laughs." While Morrissey reveals where the movie's most memorable quote came from. "I saw Last Tango In Paris, which was the greatest work of art of all time if you listened to certain critics," snorts Morrissey. "I came away thinking it was a soap opera, and kind of corny. But one line in the film struck me as so silly, so when I was doing this section with Udo, I gave him that line." Udo cocked it up, and the rest is trash cinema history.

I hated hated hated this movie!

[count_vladimir_dracula · 1/10 · 28 July 2005]

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!