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!

• Eric B

  
  "Flesh for Frankenstein" scarcely qualifies as horror -- the gore (originally shown in 3D) is too ridiculous to take seriously. Rarely has a film strained so hard for excuses to flaunt slimy, bloody internal organs for shock value. The scare-minded viewer also has to contend… More
  "Flesh for Frankenstein" scarcely qualifies as horror -- the gore (originally shown in 3D) is too ridiculous to take seriously. Rarely has a film strained so hard for excuses to flaunt slimy, bloody internal organs for shock value. The scare-minded viewer also has to contend with Arno Juerging as Frankenstein's assistant Otto, whose bulging-eyed reactions are a dependable guffaw. As for the story itself, the main twist is that Frankenstein (the inimitable Udo Kier) has created a male and female simultaneously and hopes to mate them. And as with the contemporary "Rocky Horror Show," these humanoids are ideal physical specimens rather than ugly monsters. The brightly lit, two-level laboratory even resembles Dr. Frank-N-Furter's lair in the "Rocky Horror" film. Other prime characters include Frankenstein's lusty sister/wife (Monique van Vooren) and her beefcake servant (the ever-wooden Joe Dallesandro, offering his usual furrowed-brow scowl and out-of-place Noo Yawk accent). And if you think the wriggling livers, intestines and lungs are grotesque, just wait until you see the armpit-slurping love scene between these two.

Read all 8 featured audience ratings