Frankenstein's Bloody Nightmare (2006) User Reviews

An Art Piece Disguised as a Horror Film

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 19 October 2007]

Here's what I think the plot is: Victor Karlstein, a scientist who runs a medial institute, is trying to save the life of his girlfriend using questionable medical experiments and organs from questionable sources. He also, apparently, has a hobby of making robotic monsters who like to fetch the organs for him. Will he save his girlfriend's life? Or will the inspectors catch him first?

John R. Hand is the writer and director of this very unusual piece. It reminds me greatly of a film I watched back in 1998 called "Red Eyes" and starring one of the guys from the Violent Femmes. (I may be slightly off on that, as I have been unable to find any record of such a film since.) The filming is very grainy, the angles are very strange even for the MySpace era, and I get the feeling this was the kind of thing art houses would show in the 1960s. The music, for what it's worth, is very good.

The film has received some very poor reviews and some very low ratings, but I actually feel compelled to defend Hand. While much of this film is bad and for many people unwatchable, I think at least some of this comes from a misunderstanding: what I (and others) thought was going to be a horror film is really an art film disguised as a horror film. Sort of like "Slaughtered Vomit Dolls" without the slaughter and vomit. Which one of these two films is more palatable is hard to say.

I also have to give Hand credit for including an audio commentary on this DVD, despite clearly being a very low budget production. I need to hear the audio commentary to really fully grasp this film. Maybe I'll like it more, maybe less once I understand how to view this. I am a horror critic, not an art critic. And while the horror (an unusual monster sex scene and some stringy organs) is just alright, the art levels seem very potentially amazing. The only scene I really enjoyed is when the doctor's girlfriend's sister shows up... but you'll have to wait an hour for that, so be prepared.

So, I'm leaving my review in the middle for now -- neither good or bad. Another reviewer says the film "fails so miserably on every level" and reduces it to "schlock". I disagree. Surely, this film would make people walk out of theaters, leave your party or at the very best have your friends fall asleep. This isn't going to win anyone over, so don't try to use it for that purpose (unless you're dating an art snob maybe). But there's something about this film that seems like something grander was going on, I just don't know what it was.

Not exactly Nowhere Florida...

[Manningmilt1 · 5/10 · 28 May 2008]

John Hand, yes, is brilliant, talented, and able to sell a picture. (I said 'sell a picture,' not 'tell a story.') Evidently he wants to create an aura of mystery and suspense around his nebulous art style, if only to cover up the fact that he's a less than great narrator. (Well, what of it? Ed Wood, Tim Burton, he's in good company.) He seems to brings up plot points and characters for the sake of having them, then discards them entirely once a spurt of action takes place.

But hey, I'm not giving him points for perfect story, big spending OR an all-star cast. I'm giving him points for location use, and effort. WHY you ask? Well...because regionally speaking, even though we're not a big film town, Pensacola is NOT exactly 'Nowhere, Florida.' Yes, we're better known for turning out more Navy pilots than filmmakers, and probably more paper products than film stock. BUT... the tide in the art community is slowly changing. Presently, filmmakers are still a rare breed in the local crowd of painters, sculptors, weavers and folk singers. But in the last 26 years alone, more than 50 Pensacola filmmakers, actors, and technicians have sprung up and left the nest. Some work in Hollywood, some in New York, others in Atlanta, Mobile, and New Orleans. Some have already won Oscars and Palm D'or's for their work. Others are still waiting in the wings.

So take heart, Friend John. You're still a diamond in the rough, but you're headed in the right direction. At least you're trying. And historically, that could pave the way for legions more in the near future. Lead on, John. Lead on.

Trying hard but not quite

[bingcrosbyiscool · 3/10 · 4 May 2017]

The filmmaker seems to have seen a lot of movies (I liked the "Beyond the Darkness" reference in the first hospital scene). And if you've got a low budget you might as well feature it with grainy shots, dubbing, and a Jess-Franco-esque soundtrack and color palette. Some of the scenes are well put together and the edits start to feel like someone's actually making a film. But it doesn't add up. Part of that is tempo. Part of that is not being crazy enough. Consider for contrast Franco's "Rites of Frankenstein." It's insane, but it embraces the crazy right away and then the film tells a story. With this film, If you haven't read a summary of the film's plot be prepared to be lost, but not in a good way, more in a "huh?" way.

About 2/3's of the way through I felt like if I watched this in five minute parts it would be fun, but sitting down and trying to stay connected for the entire 1:16:55? Not so much.

And that's why I gave it three stars. By the end I was doing other things on my computer with the film on the TV going like a trippy ambient mood generator. Surprised to have found this on Amazon Prime.

Complete Junk

[w00f · 1/10 · 5 October 2007]

It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.

Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.

I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.

Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.

That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.

And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth.

Tries to be an art installation

[blumdeluxe · 2/10 · 16 July 2017]

The story of "Frankenstein's bloody nightmare" is somehow hard to grasp. It evolves around a young scientist, concerned with developing methods to lengthen the lives of people, whose body underwent severe damage, while simultaneously trying to save his girlfriend, that is in the cause of dying herself.

It may be a hard thing to say, but for me this isn't even a movie. It's just a bunch of random pictures cut together in a desperate attempt to look independent and artsy. But that's not the art of filmmaking. The story itself is not bad, you surely could develop something out of it. And I'm not even against using a vintage camera or anything. But probably over half of this film are just random close ups of things you can't even identify or really creepy stuff, and I don't mean positively creepy. As a viewer, I feel somewhat betrayed actually, because it looks like someone was trying to profile himself more than to produce an actual enjoyable film.

All in all, as you see, I didn't like it. Of course that's still only my opinion and maybe I just don't get the brilliance of it, but if you ask me there are plenty better possibilities to waste your time.

Schedule A Root Canal Instead You'll Be Glad You Did!!!!!!

[michael_poff · 1/10 · 28 June 2007]

This conglomeration fails so miserably on every level that it is difficult to decide what to say. It doesn't merit one line, much less ten, but to adhere to the rules of IMDb, here goes and I probably won't succeed the first time around and have to type some more to make up for this submission to be accepted. LOL

If I had seen this schlock during the '70s while I was going through my mushroom phase,I would have still considered it unimaginative and shallow. The most exciting shot for me was the long shot when the elevator door opened and closed.I was on the edge of my seat.

One person on here wrote that he had met the creator of this mess, as if that were a red letter day in his life. One can only pray that something far more exciting occurs in that posters life.Get a grip, amigo.

Florida Bore: My Bloody Nightmare

[Tromafreak · 1/10 · 1 August 2009]

Here's the deal, If I were forced to choose to either sit through every Nathan Schiff film available, and Class Reunion Massacre, or to sit through half of this movie, I assure you, I would pick choice number one without hesitation. Welcome to Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare.

Florida Gore and Exploitation has a long rich history, including such epics as 2,000 Maniacs, Blood Freak, and Killing Spree, and for those 3 alone, I am proud to be a Floridian. Then there's this. Unlike most people, I can over-look the video camera like it's nobody's business, and way too little dialog is certainly not the end of the world either, but for the love of God, do something!!... Anything!!

Something about a guy named Victor Karlstein, who is all bent out of shape after his girlfriend dies while under his care. Determined to keep her alive, this shmuck creates a mechanically-enhanced reanimated corpse to murder young women (in an extremely boring manner) for parts for his girlfriends new body. A never-ending, mind-numbingly terrible bore that made me sick, for all the wrong reasons. And finally, there's the audio commentary, I couldn't resist watching it again with the commentary, at least for some kind of explanation, and I'll be damned if the ramblings of one Mr. John R. Hand didn't make it even more boring, and somehow, even more confusing.

As a long-time admirer of B-Horror, who has no use for all the big-budget, super-hero garbage that have clogged the theaters, I try my best to see the good in even the most inept, shot-on-video disasterpiece (Black Devil Doll From Hell). Although, In this case, my best simply will not do. I've never seen anything so completely devoid of entertainment value, or even a single reason to watch past the 3 minute mark, it's just plain insulting. I do respect the fact that this Hand guy digs B-entertainment and all, but perhaps a few years of film school wouldn't hurt, although, something tells me that wouldn't go so well. This is not a proud day for fans of Floridian Gore. It was almost nice to see the sub-genre resurrected. Thank's, but no thank's, I think I'll stick with Tim Ritter and good ol' H.G. from here on out.

Allegedly intended as an homage to vintage coolness such as Burial Ground and Jess Franco stuff. Well, I'm not buying it, all I see is a failure of "A Night To Dismember" proportions, which, come to think of it, is the meanest thing I've ever said about a low-budget Horror film. It's not my intention to hurt the directors feelings (assuming Hand ever reads this), but let's not forget that the fellow who created this sin against film-making is the one who should be sending out written apologies to anyone unfortunate enough to be suckered in by a few misguided IMDb reviews for this pseudo-art. Perhaps I'm a little bitter by this whole thing because I not only expected more, I expected a lot more, I expected misunderstood art (Shatter Dead) and/or some quality modern-day Exploitation (Gutterballs), and what I got was unwatchable, not bad, not even pathetic, Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare is unwatchable!! If you're looking for some worthwhile exploitation involving Frankenstein, check out the definitive version of the classic, that's right, gang, Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. Udo Kier will make you forget all about the big bad nightmare. But if you're some kind of sick freak, and you're into Florida Bore or other forms of self-torture, you should really see How To Make A Doll, although, that one is 350,000 times better than Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare. You know what, I've never done this before but this one is getting a zero. Nice going, Hand. 0/10

A film of abstract imagery, and not much else

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 11 April 2017]

FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY NIGHTMARE is nothing like the title suggests; instead it's an abstract, art-house horror movie made on a non-existent budget and with a focus on visual imagery rather than concrete plotting. It has an extremely arty and psychedelic look to it, which is rather commendable at times, but in the end the almost entire lack of narrative cohesion spoils it. The imagery is accompanied by distorted music and old-fashioned computer sound effects, and I did appreciate the weird style; a shame the whole thing is so empty otherwise.

strange indie-exploitation effort thats worth a peek

[lyhue1 · 8/10 · 2 December 2006]

Director John R. Hand's bizarre journey into obsession and murder is definitely worth tracking down. I was given a copy by Hand when it was in its beta form, before its limited theatrical release, and was truly impressed by the film's overall facade. The color and texture of the set-pieces have a definite 70's aura to them. It has the grainy look of a washed-out and forgotten blaxploitation DVD you would find on a rack in some desolate Midwest truck stop. What makes it special is that this grainy look is intentional. I met the director by posting on Hand's long-running exploitation film forum "the pulsing cinema". This film may just become another dead and bloated indie sleeper, but that would be unfortunate indeed. Find this film, somehow, and experience a 'monster-fisting' in all its whacked-out glory.

A trippy, often mesmerizing journey into the bizarre...

[angry-man · 8/10 · 7 January 2007]

"Frankenstein's Bloody Nightmare" takes some of its plot line, story and inspiration from an obvious source, and then quickly surrounds us in an abstract world of sight and sound, held together in loose narrative fashion by the obsessions of the young Victor Karlstein.

The aesthetic of the film in nearly every respect is extremely abstract, but this does not really detract from the story. Mostly the style blends effectively with script and characters to create a mesmerizing and immersing atmosphere. To his credit, there is little of the film that doesn't feel like a very deliberate part of the vision of its creator: director/writer John R. Hand.

The characters and story (though probably intentionally so) are the weakest. Normally I'd say this is a big drawback, but somehow in this film, the very style and sense of it kind of becomes the real character. It almost feels like you're having a bizarre, trippy dream through someone else's eyes.

With a dated and yet somehow timeless feel, the film's greatest strengths and weaknesses derive equally from its uncompromisingly abstract reality. It will likely have a very polarizing effect on viewers, but that is more a plus than a minus in my book.

"Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is a painstakingly crafted trip into the bizarre. Often defiant of classification, it evokes reflections reminiscent of Cronenberg, Tsukamoto and Godard.

A strong, strange and unique debut feature from writer/director John R. Hand. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with next.

The next big thing in cinema....hopefully.

[roddy_lewisii · 10/10 · 28 August 2007]

I've gave this film a ten, not because I think this film is the best film since 300, but because of the underlying potential of the creator of this film. I've seen some of his early films, like retard boy and I was impressed with his talent then and he was just sixteen. Fankenstein's bloody Nightmare is a challenging film for a guy with no budget living in them middle of nowhere Florida, with no professional talent. I mean he produced, directed edited, did the soundtrack, did the mixing, give this guy a half way decent budget and watch him blow you away. Most people with his budget like his would be content on making a film with two people in the room talking slowly about nothing. I say in about ten years you gonna be mentioning his name in the same breath as Tarrantino, and Rodriguez, well if he's lucky.

"Sometimes, I Wonder what's Going On inside That Head Of Yours!"...

[azathothpwiggins · 22 June 2021]

FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY NIGHTMARE begins with a stroll through some rustic junkyard, where a seemingly radioactive woman appears in her psychedelic shoes.

No!

A pitchfork impales her, psychedelically. Blood flows in artistic fashion. Flows creepily, eerily, like aesthetic pus.

Somewhere, a man awakens. His plastic men standing guard. A woman awakens. An unnecessary, pasty closeup. Mouths move. Dialogue of some sort occurs. A helicopter turns day to night. A woman! A car! A big knife! All accompanied by whale sounds.

A hippie van in the woods. The driver, haunted by his destiny.

A room... in darkness... more unnecessary closeups... of dirt! Music sets a man's head bobbling. Bob-bl-ing. All reasoning power leaves our heads now. More mouths move, causing sounds. Objects are in motion. Men talk. Telephones and chimes sing their songs.

By the gods, this is art! A-R-T!

A graveyard. A garbled voice-over. Our brains are soup, now. Chowder. Stew. Beef stew. Artistical beef stew! The dissolution of our brains has made us part of this!

A man walks through the wilderness. A magic tree! Magic powder! More radioactive / psychedelic murder, this time while numbers flash by. Noises! Wretched noises! A monster is born! Or, perhaps it's a burnt pot roast.

Scenery soars past. Psychedelically. Radioactively. Psycho-actively. Endlessly.

Art! Art, we scream!

Action happens. A brain pulsates. In dirt. It's our collective brain, now! Ours!

The man embraces his pot roast monster. A white mask is unearthed, symbolizing our deadened souls. Our brains have completed their liquification. They ooze from our skulls, now.

And the art continues... artistically... radio-delically... forever.

Amen...