ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






(Review originally written at 16 December 2005) 

This take on the famous Frankenstein story is certainly an odd one.

The acting is for most of the time absolutely horrible. All of the actors are terribly overacting, especially Arno Juerging, which makes it hard to take this movie seriously. I wouldn't exactly call this movie a campy one but the acting abilities certainly reminds me of some of the worst campy movies from the '50's of the previous century.

The movie is a real rare gore-fest. Tons of blood are used and the movie features lots of dismembered body parts and insides hanging out of bodies. It's all quite fake looking but that's also one of the reasons why this movie should be appealing to fans of good old fashioned gory movies. Like you could expect from a movie with Andy Warhol's name attached to it, there is also lots of nudity of provocative sequences, such as when Baron Frankenstein makes love to one of his zombie creations. (Yes, the Frankenstein monsters are referred to as zombies in this one.)

The story is told slowly, a bit too slow perhaps. Most of the time there isn't really happening anything interesting on screen and the movie seems to take forever without heading really somewhere. It does make this movie a boring one to watch for most of the time and that's why this movie is only watchable to true fans of the genre. The movie features some certainly unique sequences and a not so bad ending.

It most certainly isn't a movie for just everyone. It's odd, gory and provocative. The acting is horrible and the dialog is laughable bad at times. Clearly a movie for fans of the genre only, even though also they will have to come to the conclusion that "Flesh for Frankenstein" is far from the best movie of all time. Oh well, it at least still has Udo Kier in it!

5/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top