Andy Warhol's Frankenstein (Flesh for Frankenstein) (1973)

91% of critics liked it
(11 reviews)
51% of users liked it
(3,770 ratings)

Incest, necrophilia, and Joe Dallesandro? It must be Andy Warhol. Warhol did indeed co-produce this 1973 schlock spectacular -- originally presented in 3D -- that was directed by Factory fave Paul Morrissey. Starring Udo Kier in the role of "Ze Baron," Flesh for Frankenstein is a horror story for a… More Incest, necrophilia, and Joe Dallesandro? It must be Andy Warhol. Warhol did indeed co-produce this 1973 schlock spectacular -- originally presented in 3D -- that was directed by Factory fave Paul Morrissey. Starring Udo Kier in the role of "Ze Baron," Flesh for Frankenstein is a horror story for a new 'n' lewd generation. This time around, the mad scientist has created the nymphomaniacally-inclined Adam and Eve, whose mission it is to spawn a new race. Along for the ride --somewhat literally -- is a lusty stable boy (Dallesandro) who main duty it is to entertain the Baron's equally lusty wife/sister. Sex, gore, unconvincing bat attacks, and the highest camp this side of the Appalachian Trail combine for a dizzyingly outrageous midnight movie. Flesh for Frankenstein got a second chance at life when it was screened at the 2002 Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival. ~ Rebecca Flint Marx, Rovi

Rating, Runtime: R, 1 hr. 35 min.
Directed By: Paul Morrissey
Written By: Tonino Guerra
Genres: Drama, Horror, Classics, Science Fiction & Fantasy

In Theaters: Mar 17, 1974 Wide
On DVD: Dec 22, 1998

Critic Reviews

Tim Brayton, Antagony & Ecstasy
Disgusting? Yes. Obscene? Oh, certainly. Likely to deprave and corrupt? Paul Morrissey absolutely hopes so. And above all else, wildly funny.
Fernando F. Croce, CinePassion
The copious entrails-spillage is lyrically positioned for the 3-D effects
Rob Nelson, City Pages, Minneapolis/St. Paul
The film's gross-out climax has the mad-scientist Baron (Udo Kier) screwing his undead Bride on a gurney, then ravaging Marlon Brando with a spot-on parody of Last Tango.
Ken Hanke, Mountain Xpress (Asheville, NC)
To say that the film is for specialized tastes understates the case. It's simply a gloriously decadent, degenerate joke that you either get, or you don't.
Dennis Schwartz, Ozus' World Movie Reviews
It succeeds only in being raunchy.
Leo Goldsmith, Not Coming to a Theater Near You
Morrissey's grotesque, ravishing film situates the Frankenstein story squarely in the world of the Freudian uncanny.
James Kendrick, Q Network Film Desk
pure camp taken to the highest extremes with a careful and purposeful hand

Read all 7 critic reviews

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

Featured Audience Ratings

Graham J

One of the best midnight movies, I would have loved to see this in theater back in the day in 3D. Udo Kier is brilliantly creepy and hilarious.
Austen R

Nearly 40 years ago when CGI was non-existent, and 3-D technology was at its most primitive, Paul Morrissey made a preemptive strike against a turn that Hollywood took that he didn't particularly care for. You see, Paul Morrissey is one of those "credible" directors… More
Nearly 40 years ago when CGI was non-existent, and 3-D technology was at its most primitive, Paul Morrissey made a preemptive strike against a turn that Hollywood took that he didn't particularly care for. You see, Paul Morrissey is one of those "credible" directors who actually cares about art, and would never bastardize art just for the sake of entertaining the increasingly dumber audience... In Flesh For Frankenstein, Morrissey chose to call out Hollywood by making a film that is not only exploitive in nature, but one that is exploitive of Hollywood gimmicks. In order to accomplish this, Morrissey assembled a team of a few competent actors and actresses... and then told them not to give a fuck! In Hollywood action flicks, the only thing the actors care about are their paychecks. (The cast knew what they were getting into in this case.) Next, Morrissey got a shit-ton of gore. All that was left was to create set pieces that would exploit the hell out of the cheap 3-D technology. What about the story? Fuck it. Hammer in some sex and violence to overpower the audience's desire for any sort of substance. (That's assuming that the audience gives two shits about substance.) As it turns out, audiences get confused if there's a lack of a straightforward narrative. Oh, well. Entertained audience? No, is it because the movie had the audacity to insult your intelligence? This movie is definitely a challenging sit-thru, and I might be alone on this one; but I believe it to be much more effective than its follow-up. (The actors cared too much in that one!) I think the demographic of people who watch this movie nowadays is made of of film students, or people in that profession that appreciate film as a thematic vehicle. The film's a scathing commentary of the times, and is even more relevant today. I know I'm being a bit critical of audiences, but if I'm trying to reflect the intent of the filmmaker, I have to be in this case. This movie is intentionally way over-the-top, and audiences today won't understand this. (Unless they research the movie ahead of time, in which case they probably understand art as a medium to communicate ideas rather than "enjoyment." In that case, they'd be in on the joke!) I don't do this frequently, but I give this take on Frankenstein a 100%. Yes, I think Andy Warhol's Frankenstein is pitch-perfect. Maybe it's a piece that is more to be appreciated than enjoyed, but I've revisited the movie many times. Every one of those times, I've managed to laugh... then cry because Morrissey failed in intriguing a wider audience. That's evident today.
AJ V

One of the worst Frankenstein movies I've seen. Warhol's vampire movie is much better. Still, it's not that horrible, it's okay.
Cindy I

This is the heartwarming tale of an incestuous necrophiliac doctor (Udo Kier)who is building a pair of humans to procreate a whole race of...well, I'm not really sure what or for what purpose. Some of the most bizarre scenes you will ever see. Oh my...where to begin? The part… More
This is the heartwarming tale of an incestuous necrophiliac doctor (Udo Kier)who is building a pair of humans to procreate a whole race of...well, I'm not really sure what or for what purpose. Some of the most bizarre scenes you will ever see. Oh my...where to begin? The part where the good doctor is married to his sex maniac sister (Monique Van Vooren)? Or the part where they have two children that come across as more sinister versions of Wednesday and Pugsley Addams? Or the part where the doctor gets it on with his female creation, first by putting his hand in her gut and massaging her entrails while his eyes roll back in his head and he moans in ecstasy, then having "conventional" intercourse with her dead body, while berating his servant as a filthy pervert for wanting to watch? Or maybe when the servant has his own way with the female creation by licking her freshly-sewn abdominal scar? Or maybe the scene where the good doctor's wife/sister noisily sucks the armpit of houseservant Joe Dallesandro during a sexual encounter, while the children spy on them through the window? After a view of Joe's nude form, I can't say that his armpit would be the first part I would be attracted to. To each her own, I guess. I think my favorite part is when the doctor (not actually ever referred to as Frankenstein, but only "Baron") describes his plans for his male and female creations to reproduce while music box-style tinkley music plays softly in the background. I could also go into the terrible acting or the complete lack of believable scenery or the laughable gore effects. Or maybe while everybody else has thick German accents, Joe has his normal New York accent, even though he's supposed to have lived with these people all his life. But I shouldn't be giving EVERYTHING away, should I? I'm tempted to give this more stars just because it's so damn bizarre that it almost is worth seeing...but not quite. My only regret is that I never got to see it in its original 3-D format.
xGary X

I caught some of this on late night TV. Why on Earth would anyone want to sit through 90 minutes of the worst acting, worst direction and worst dialogue you have EVER seen to be rewarded by the sight of unconvincing rubber internal organs covered in scarlet poster paint...? Utter,… More
I caught some of this on late night TV. Why on Earth would anyone want to sit through 90 minutes of the worst acting, worst direction and worst dialogue you have EVER seen to be rewarded by the sight of unconvincing rubber internal organs covered in scarlet poster paint...? Utter, utter garbage.
vieras e

Not particularly good but worth a watch for Udo and Joe alone.
Ken S

To know death Otto, you have to fuck life... in the gall bladder!