I can't tell if this is painfully bad or inspired. Add one brain of a homosexual monk to an already f-ed up Frankenstein premise, where Udo basically rapes a dead body with his hand, and you have a film that will always appeal to a particular clientele, however mixed its execution might be.
I prefer Morrissey's other work (Heat/Trash/Flesh), but these two films (+ Dracula) are exquisite masterpieces. He and Warhol were at the top of their potential when they made these two, or at least it seems that way to me. Gore doesn't bother anyone really, does it? It's only a movie...
Universal and Hammer Horror homage with a 70s Italian twist. Though there are some arresting visuals and ideas, overall the film is too slow moving for its own good and not helped by the fact that the artists involved don't appear to have really known whether they want to make this a spoof or a straight forward horror.
the quote below me is probably one of my favorite parts of this film. another extremely sexual/graphic adaptation of a classic horror tale. I can't tell if I like this or "blood for dracula" better. both are really fantastic. this sort of reminded me of Dahmer a bit (Udo Kier).
Oh, how I love this trashy, sick film. It's exquisitely beautiful and well-made on an artistic level while reveling in sleaze and intentional hilarity. Anyone who criticizes this film for being a "bad movie", as I did the first time I saw it, is missing the point. It's an easy mistake to make. I like it a lot better than Blood for Dracula, which feels rather cheap and rushed in comparison, but both are essential.
This one has all the elements of a camp classic: Udo Kier's scenery-chewing performance as Dr. Frankenstein, terrible dialogue, voyeuristic children, abundant kinky sex, and plenty of gory beheadings, dismemberings, and disembowelings. Unfortunately, it's also very slow-paced and talky - never developing the manic atmosphere it needs to be a cult masterpiece.