Drácula contra Frankenstein (1972) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
21 Reviews
Sort by:
Dracula contra logic
John Seal1 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The films of Jesus Franco are loved and hated in almost equal measure (well, perhaps hated a bit more than loved), but few drive viewers to extremes the way Dracula contra Frankenstein does. The haters tend to view the film as a terrible 'tribute' to the Universal horrors of the '30s and '40s, and perhaps it is (gotta love those rubber bats), but there's more going on here than a salute to glories past. There's a dreamlike quality to Dracula contra Frankenstein that, intentional or not, helps me overlook a lot of the film's sins and concentrate on its virtues. The film opens with a virtually dialogue-free first half hour that allows Franco to play to his strengths: outdoor scenes and shots of strange or unusual architecture. When people finally DO start talking, the film is barely more coherent than before, with Rainer von Frankenstein (which relative was he?) expounding on how he will bend Dracula and his vampire slaves to his will. Franco does use the zoom lens, but he tends to use it with a purpose this time--he uses it to draw particular attention to his characters' eyes, and the score (apparently co-composed by Bruno Nicolai and Daniel White) is repetitive but well applied. Look past the bats and the terrible special effects, and appreciate this film for what it is: a psychedelic monster rally, Franco-style.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Well, it's better than Poseidon...
mido50527 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Jess Franco's strangely sedate monster bash is not one of his indispensable efforts, but will hold your attention if you catch it in the right mood. Defiantly cinematic, Dracula contra Frankenstein contains very little dialog, forcing the viewer to actually pay attention to what is happening on the screen in order to follow the narrative. The problem is that the mise en scene is scrappy, poverty stricken, and erratic; dominated by pointless, jerky zooms; and offering none of the colorful wide angled delirium that makes Franco's follow up film, The Erotic Rites of Frankenstein, such a mesmerizing experience. Franco does manage to conjure up a somewhat dank, depressing atmosphere, and provide the occasional interesting image, such as Dracula being revived by slowly submerging a bat in a jar of blood, but Dracula contra Frankenstein plays for the most part like a trial run for his later masterpiece.

Of course, Dr. Frankenstein is really just Dr. Orloff under a different name; the ubiquitous amoral ubermensch is this time seeking to enslave humanity by reviving Dracula and the Frankenstein monster in order to create an army of the undead subject to his superior will. A sick and possibly drunk Dennis Price fails to make much of an impression as the good Doctor, but Howard Vernon gives an interesting performance as Dracula, playing him like Morpho from The Awful Dr. Orloff, slack jawed, bug eyed, and mute. The great Britt Nichols is also on hand as a very fetching Vampire Girl.

As I stated previously, this is lesser Franco, but like most Franco films, good and bad, it contains interesting, original elements that simply cannot be found elsewhere. Dracula contra Frankenstein is a film made by a man who loves the movies for people who love the movies. It shows. Sure, I drank most of a bottle of wine while I was watching it, which may have colored my judgment, but when I tried the same thing with Poseidon I fell asleep.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A classic type of story, despite all the strange flourishes
horrorbargainbin1 August 2002
At first the movie appears to be mainly strange images shot up close, but then the narration kicks in and the plot begins to make some sense. At two times the narration is ahead of the action. I'm sure the technique is done on purpose, but it's unusual. There is very little dialogue otherwise.

Ok, there is lots of memorable material in this movie. Blood is drained from a captured woman and poured onto a live bat that actually drinks the blood (juice?). Dracula's eyes are always open, even when he sleeps. Very creepy and accented by the red eyeliner. In my favorite scene the Wolfman is called by a Gypsy curse and returns from "beyond the grave". A bloody Wrestlemania ensues with the Frankenstein Monster.

Recommended if you like twists on the old tales.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mediterranean Monster Mash
Glen McCulla10 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Another hastily-assembled horror effort from hack / genius Jess Franco (delet as applicable) in probably the busiest phase of his career - this was filmed pretty much simultaneously with "The Curse of Frankenstein" (aka "The Erotic Rites of Frankenstein") and "Daughter of Dracula", and utilises many of the same cast members and filming locations.

Sadly, this is the least involving and most badly-paced of these three movies. Franco's trademark OTT camera pans and zooms feature prominently, and the editing is even sloppier and choppier than usual.

Dr Frankenstein (played by an ageing and ill-looking Dennis Price) arrives in a Transylvanian village in thrall to Dracula. The vampire Count (Franco regular Howard Vernon, in a sadly dialogue-free role) has been dispatched with the regulation stake through the heart by Dr Seward (Alberto D'Albes), but the deranged Doc revives him with the intention of using the Count as his mind-controlled slave. Also along for the ride are a Boris Karloff-like Frankenstein Monster (Fernando Bibao), a sexy vampire bride (the sultry Britt Nichols), a gypsy witch who befriends Dr Seward, and a rotten-looking Wolfman who turns up in the last reel to battle the Monster. Remerkably, given this free-for-all of horror elements, the film still manages to move at a leaden pace thanks to Franco's stolid direction and listless setups.

Not the greatest monster team-up movie (that remains "Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein") or even the best Jess Franco movie (for my money, that's "A Virgin Anmong the Living Dead"), but worth a watch on a Friday night with a few cans of ale - if only for such bizarre elements as a vampire victim (the ever-lovely Anne Libert) being staked through the EYE (?!!?), and some hilariously overblown dialogue: Dennis Price managing to over-act and chew the scenery even with the handicap of atrocious dubbing.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Grade Z fun
ultra_tippergore27 June 2009
Jesús Franco (aka uncle Jess) decided here to put every possible movie monster together(Drácula, Frankenstein and the werewolf) and "Dracula vs Frankenstein" was spawned. Dr. Frankenstein creates an obedient monster with his illegal activities. Then, Count Dracula (Howard Vernon) also joins Frankenstein army. This is maybe one of the oldest Dracula ever, he is so old that is a joke. The old Dracula and the evil monster begins their reign of horror in the town, fortunately for the people, the werewolf is there to help the town against Dracula and the monster (yes, this movie is a complete non-sense). Apart from the non-sense of everything here, we have a good staff of young and beautiful chicks. OK, Dracula Vs Frankenstein is more an unintentionally comedy than a horror movie, not even a 5 year old girl can be scared by this one, its even cheesier than any Ed Wood movie, but it is funny. Its one of those "so bad its good" movies, pure grade Z fun. Unfortunately, we have no gore or sex in this Franco movie, but still is recommended.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
balor199923 November 2011
This is a fantastic film, probably one of Franco's best, and definitely one of the best Frankenstein movies ever made. In runs like a magnificent homage to the Universal horror films of the 1940s, but with an intellectual level that resembles Jean-Luc Godard. Absolutely fantastic. The locations and cinematography are great, and there is a superb score by Brune Nicolai. The actors are top notch too, including the brilliant Dennice Price and Howard Vernon performing some of their best bits ever. Amazing.

This is the kind of film that should be on the shelf of every Jess Franco enthusiast or every lover of classic suspense films. It can be watched over and over again, each time discovering new layers of meaning. It is the first film in Franco's trilogy of monster movies, and definitely one of the best. I watched the original Spanish version without any subtitles, but luckily Franco used minimal dialog this time, which made the cinematographic experience even greater as it felt like TOTAL CINEMA!!! This is one of the best films I have ever seen. Highly recommended!!!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Emperor Palpatine22 November 2000
This is the horror film with the best castle I've ever seen. It's better than all that castles of the Hammer. Trust me. It's bigger and darker. Very strange and interesting. I've visited it in Alicante, Spain, and it seemed to me that Dracula was walking around. If you want to be scared go on and watch it.
11 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dracula, PRISONER OF FRANKENSTEIN (Jesus Franco, 1971) *1/2
MARIO GAUCI27 October 2007
This would-be homage to the classic Universal cycle of horror films from the 1940s could have been interesting, but it's defeated by listless presentation (marked by Franco's trademark zoom-happy technique) and inadequate plotting (what there is is extremely lazy and contrived – such as Frankenstein's idiotic manifesto for world domination and his baffling about-face towards self-destruction at the end).

It was a good idea to present the latter (played by Dennis Price) as a deluded megalomaniac, but the dire physical condition of the actor makes this something of a lost cause. Howard Vernon's Dracula, then, is underused and saddled throughout with a silly fixed expression! Alberto Dalbes plays Dr. Seward – Vampire Hunter(!), Luis Barboo gives a hammy performance as Frankenstein's mute hunchback assistant, while Fernando Bilbao gets as little screen-time playing the Frankenstein Monster as his counterpart in the latterday Universal monster flicks themselves!!

With respect to the female members of the cast, at least, we get two lovely presences in Josiane Gibert (as a tawdry chanteuse turned into unwitting sacrifice in the re-animation of Dracula – the scene where the bat is bathed in blood is actually nice and grisly) and Britt Nichols (a vampire lady with her own agenda and whose coffin is stupidly never noticed by either Frankenstein or his assistant!). Also on hand are Anne Libert (who's killed off immediately), Genevieve Deloir (as Vernon's new bride) and Mary Francis (as a gypsy girl).

The film is capped by what is the most hilarious monster mash I've ever seen – with a werewolf who comes out of nowhere, only to get beaten to a pulp by the Frankenstein monster! Just as amusing, though, is the fact that Frankenstein (and his prisoner Dracula) use a hearse as their method of transportation! Incidentally, the way such great locations as Franco had at his disposal are squandered makes this that much more of a missed opportunity – not that the visuals are helped by the dismal print utilized for this transfer (featuring washed-out colors and the wrong aspect ratio to boot)! By the way, a sure sign of the film's rushed production is its recycled score – comprising the instantly recognizable main theme from MARQUIS DE SADE'S JUSTINE (1968) and, possibly, even cues from COUNT Dracula (1969)!

In conclusion, this one emerges as easily the least of Franco's 'classic monster' films. For the record, its viewing was promptly followed by THE EROTIC RITES OF FRANKENSTEIN (1972) – by way of the version the director himself preferred. His most respectable efforts in the genre remain COUNT Dracula (not really connected to the others, as it was a Harry Alan Towers rather than Robert De Nesle production) and DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1972; a contemporaneous release with, again, much the same cast and crew but which is altogether more satisfying – mainly in view of its novel giallo elements).
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Really liked it, until it started to focus more on its story.
Boba_Fett113819 March 2012
No big secret I'm not a big Jesus Franco fan. On the contrary quite really, since I believe he's the worst still living movie director and writer out there. But every now and then I come across a movie by him that I at least can stand and finish watching, without getting a headache.

I was actually quite surprised how much I was loving this movie at first. I liked the movie for not really having a story in it, since it made the movie all about its atmosphere and there were no distractions from any bad actors, or horribly written lines, since the movie featured hardly any dialog in it at all. The movie felt like a good old fashioned horror production, that focused more on atmosphere than anything else really. It's a real shame that toward its end the movie suddenly decides to still focus on its story, which is just not all that very well written.

To be frank, I often had absolutely no idea what was going on with its story. This is a problem I have with basically all of Jesus Franco's movies and something that rapidly gets worse and more annoying in this movie, as it headed closer toward its ending. It will make you loose interest real fast and it makes you wish for this movie to end. Unfortunately it all goes on for far too long, which makes the movie feel overlong, even while its only 88 minutes short.

It isn't an all that interesting or original monster mash-up movie. It has Dracula, the Frankenstein monster and even the wolf-man in it but really, the movie does nothing good, with any of it. I know it sounds like every classic horror fan's dream but trust me, you are better off skipping this movie.

I really liked the first hour or this movie for its atmosphere and overall approach but this got mostly ruined by a weak story, which was just too prominently present in the movie its second half. I guess that the most positive thing I can say about this movie is that's truly far from the worst thing, I have seen, done by Jesus Franco.


2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
At least it has a decent Bruno Nicolai score
bensonmum212 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Because this is Franco, giving a plot rundown is something of a futile challenge, but I'll do my best to hit some of the highlights. Dr. Frankenstein arrives in some unnamed village to work in a supposedly abandoned castle. The castle actually isn't so abandoned as it's really the home of Dracula and his vampire servants. It's not long before Dr. Frankenstein revives his creation. Dr. Frankenstein puts his monster and Dracula to work kidnapping local women for his experiments. Why? I have no idea, but he straps them to a table and does his thing. But Dracula being Dracula is sucking the life out of some of the locals. It's up to Dr. Seward and the local gypsies/werewolves to put a stop to Frankenstein and Dracula.

During the first few moments of Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein, I was having trouble believing that this was a Franco film. The opening shots of the castle with Bruno Nicolai's score are well done and, for the lack of anything better, un-Franco-like. But this impression only lasted a few moments as Franco quickly shifts from the imposing and foreboding castle to a shot of a random dog on a random staircase. That's Franco for you.

Compared with some of the other Franco films I've seen, Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein isn't too bad. Don't misunderstand, it's not very good, but if you've seen something like Franco's Oasis of the Zombies, this movie is a winner. You get a lot of what you expect from Franco – suspect acting, poor make-up effects, and shaky camera work. One thing that really bothered me, though, is that Franco can't seem to decide what time period his film is set. While some characters drive cars, Dr. Seward gets around in a horse and buggy. And even though Dr. Frankenstein has a large collection of machines that require electricity, there's not a light bulb to be found anywhere. Things like this just bug me. . In the end, I can't in good conscious recommend Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein to anyone other than the most die-hard of Franco completists.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Okay movie may make you nod off
dbborroughs4 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Jess Franco madness about Dracula, Frankenstein and a wolfman. Dracula is staked in his Coffin and left for dead. Frankenstein with the monster in tow shows up and brings both the monster and the vampire back to life. Somewhere in there a werewolf is brought in to help stop the two monsters. This is a good looking film(though the Frankenstein monster is a golden throw back to a high school production with scars and such clear drawn on with grease paint). Decidedly retro with beautiful women thrown in, this is one of Franco's mid-range movies. Its not as bad as some of the stuff he's turned out and its nowhere near as good as other stuff(Give the man credit he's directed at least 189 movies). The retro style of handling the classic monsters unfortunately kind of wears thin, especially since the monster looks so silly. There are also the typical long passages where no one says anything and people wander about. Its a movie that just sort of is. Its also a movie that more likely to help you nod off.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
this film is excellent! every fan of this genre should own it
markreederflesh3 October 2007
if you - like me - love trashy horror movies, then i can safely say, this film is excellent! every fan of this genre should own it (even if its in a unfathomable language - it all adds to the effect). the first time i saw this film i cried with laughter from beginning to end. fabulous! its a total masterpiece of its genre, yet sadly its practically unknown. as with all of jess francos brilliant films, it is unintentionally funny and highly entertaining. it delivers all the usual franco trademarks: sex, blood, death, nudity, more blood, tits, violence and great overacting. for sure, mr Tarantino would have loved to have made this film. he certainly couldn't have made it anymore over the top. i love the way the overdubbed clip-clops of the horses, sound exactly like someone clicking two pieces of metal together (or they obviously went to great lengths to recorded two-legged horses). visually, it has some really creative camera-work too, indeed, its like watching a movie after eating one of my reeders digestive biscuits! franco guaranteed everyone would be happy. any film that contains Dracula, frankenstein AND wolfman all in one movie, certainly wanted to make sure no fan would be left to freeze in the crypt. its entertaining in every way, even the original poster artwork is so wonderful it could almost be mistaken for a modern replica. if this film is available - anywhere, buy it. i guarantee you will not be disappointed. whatever, i loved it.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Spoilers follow ...
Nigel P16 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Accompanied by some of the most misleading promotional material ever (just how did they get away with using images of Karloff and Chaney Jr in Jack Pierce's classic make-up to advertise this?), Jess Franco brings us an apparent tribute to those old Universal films.

In this, Doctor Seward (Alberto Dalbes) is so incensed by Dracula (a wide-eyed and impressive Howard Vernon) and his killings that he travels to the Count's castle, opens his coffin and taps a twig-like stake into the old boy's heart, reverting him to a dead bat. Quite why this simple act hadn't been carried out earlier in Dracula's reign of terror is a mystery.

The first dialogue in this film is 15 minutes in, when a gaggle of gypsies notice the arrival of Doctor Frankenstein as he heads towards Dracula's castle. Dennis Price plays the doctor, and we first see him struggling to get out of his shiny black car as Morpho (Luis Barboo) brings into the castle a suspiciously large crate. In 1948, Price had been voted tenth most popular actor by the UK box office; by this stage of his life, 'excessive living and inadequate gambling' had left him alcoholic, bankrupt and ill. Unlike this film's sequel, 'The Erotic Rites of Frankenstein' (in which Frankenstein spends much of the running time bed-bound), Franco's direction here makes no secret of Price's difficulty walking, and as such, Frankenstein is a frail, somewhat bloated figure. An excellent actor, Price's very few lines were dubbed for this.

Our first glimpse of Fernando Bilbao's Monster, after a series of mis-matched jump-shots, is in unforgiving close-up. Permanent marker seems to have provided the drawn-on scars, which seriously lets down the otherwise impressive performance Fernando gives. Franco's camera chases after the actors often failing to keep track of the intended action. Unlike many of his films, there is little in the way of location or the usual sumptuous scenery, and the drab and tatty sets here help to create an enclosed, poverty-stricken environment.

The lines that are spoken are usually given in voice-over, an artistic decision probably to ease the process of dubbing for any overseas sales. This approach, and the disembodied voices give the whole production a ghostly effect.

This is a slow maze of a film smothered with Franco's trademark zooming camera, punctuated with a handful of screaming young women (Anne Libert, who is killed off immediately, makes a bigger impression in 'Rites', and Britt Nichols as a female vampire who, despite making no attempt to hide herself, no-one ever notices!), fabulously rubbery bats and for no readily apparent reason features a cameo by a curly-haired wolf man, who is brought in to fight the monster, get battered, and disappear! So, why do I enjoy this? I'm not sure, but possibly, it is because it reminds me in parts, of the work of French Director Jean Rollin, with whom Franco's work is often – and undeservedly, in my view – compared. At least here, the comparison is occasionally justified.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Three classic horror fables ruined at once! Bravo, Senõr Franco…
Coventry1 April 2009
I guess your name simply has to be Jess Franco if you shamelessly steal the sagas of no less than three immortal horror icons (Count Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man) and still manage to make a dreadfully boring and incoherent piece of cinematic garbage out of it. How does one man pull it all off? I caught myself staring at the TV screen for several whole minutes before all of a sudden realizing there's actually nothing happening at all. There's something remotely resembling to a storyline, but you'll have to cut and edit the pieces together yourself, as good old Jess clearly didn't bother about continuity, periodic accuracy, tension building or even just plain common sense. The most astonishing thing, however, is that during the opening sequences, our director almost tricked me into believing "Dracula: Prisoner of Frankenstein" could actually become a worthwhile effort! The movie opens with atmospheric images of ominous dark castles and creepily isolated landscapes, guided by an unsettling Bruno Nicolai score. It suspiciously looks as if Franco carefully watched and studied the contemporary Hammer highlights (including the entire Dracula and Frankenstein franchises) and took notes on what scenery to use and how to create a setting. Unfortunately he quickly turns into his incompetent self again shortly after the opening credits and comes up with a totally ludicrous plot. The nauseatingly pale body of Count Dracula lies died in his coffin (perhaps that is because all the vampire attacks take place in broad daylight, duh!) when no less than Dr. Frankenstein invades the castle turf. The power mad doctor – NOT Baron this time – instructs his homemade monster to abduct a strip dancer and subsequently uses her blood to resurrect a bat. I think the bat is meant to represent Count Dracula or at least some vampire, as it is Frankenstein's intention to raise an army of vampires under his command and then overtake the earth. After this series of retarded plot twists, I just lost all further interest, so don't even ask me at what point the Wolf Man joined in. This is just an incredibly retarded movie and I honestly can't fathom that nobody who was involved in this production seemed to notice so as well. Wasn't there any of producers, cast or crew members courageous enough to step up and say something like: "Sorry Jess, no offense but … this is absolute rubbish we're filming here!" No? Anyone? Although it's probably a good thing, there are hardly any lines or dialogs in this movie. It takes nearly twenty minutes before anyone speaks and the characters that do open their mouths only talk nonsense. The sleaze factor is disappointing, the amount of gore and bloodshed is weak and the make-up effects are embarrassing. The Frankenstein creature looks like a cheap mannequin doll from a bankrupt Halloween store, the Wolf Man is just some Spanish bloke with a severe body hair problem and Dracula …well… Howard Vernon looks pathetic in his umpteenth collaboration with director Jess Franco. Personally I think Vernon owed Jess Franco a lifetime of favors for borrowing money once, or something, and therefore was forced to star in each and every dud the director ever made.
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dude, where's my movie?
Spycat2 April 2004
I actually bought this because I am a fan of hoaky monster pics. Altho I viewed it, I can still honestly say I have not seen it! The lighting was as dim as the plot. Honestly, a firefly would have put out more wattage. Don't waste your time buying or renting this -- just turn your tv off for 90 minutes and watch it, and you will come away with the same experience. *I want my $3.99 back!*
5 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The nail in the coffin for Franco
udar553 October 2009
Dr. Frankenstein (Dennis Price) arrives at his new abode only to find the dead bat body of Dracula (Howard Vernon) in his basement. With the help of his Frankenstein monster, the doc has a local burlesque dancer kidnapped and uses her blood to revive ol' Drac. He repeats this process in order to create an army of bloodsuckers that he controls telepathically. Of course, this doesn't sit well with Dr. Seward (Alberto Dalbes), who thought he got rid of Dracula in the first reel. With the help of some gypsies and The Wolfman (!), he decides to storm the castle and take care of business.

Well, I think this one put the nail in the coffin for my recent Franco mini-festival. As my friend described it, this is the "best" of his "worst." To the film's credit, it is well shot in places and has some nice locations. But nothing can prepare you for the level of cheapness on display like Frankenstein's monster having drawn on stitches. Vernon is a hoot as Count Dracula, with a constant snarl on his face to make sure to expose his teeth. He ends up looking like Dracula who smelled something funny. Franco apparently didn't bother with much of a script either as I think maybe there are 20 spoken lines in the film. Although the thing runs only 80 minutes, it seems to go on for days.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Madame Toussaud's wax figures have more action and life than these dullards!
MartinHafer11 October 2009
The problem with "Drácula Contra Frankenstein" is not its cheesiness--though the film is truly the Velveta of horror films. The low production values and silly props can be forgiven. But what cannot be forgiven, especially in a film of this genre, is the amazing dullness of this film. If you were to go to the nearest branch of Madame Toussand's wax museum to cast a film, you couldn't get any less life-life and uninteresting people than the idiots who play monsters in this film. First, the Frankenstein looks like he was created by a group of 4th graders--complete with scars that are obviously drawn onto it face and skin that looks like green bonito shavings (fans of Japanese cuisine, this comment's for you). Second, Dracula could have almost as easily been played by a mannequin, as much of the film he stares into space like Captain Christopher Pike's head in Star Trek's "Menagerie". Most of his "action" is confined to widening his eyes--a bit. What makes it even more ridiculous are the bats that the vampires supposedly turn into, as they are the worst and most unrealistic bats you'll ever see (this includes in Ed Wood films and Three Stooges shorts as well as the little plastic ones you buy around Halloween).

For about the first 50 minutes or so, not a whole lot happens in the film. No, wait,...after 50 minutes STILL nothing happens in the film....nothing. There is almost no dialog (perhaps to supposedly make it easier to dub for international release)--with very, very long stretches with nothing being said or a bit of over-dubbed speech only. The "dialog" in many places consists of heavy grunting and a hilarious scene where a woman writhes about screaming like she's passing a kidney stone--a kidney stone the size of a basketball! Towards the end, there is more dialog but actual conversations between characters are almost completely absent. In some cases, the face was filmed from the nose up--so you couldn't see the mouth moving (again, to make over-dubbing easier). The net effect of all this is appallingly dull.

The plot, when it is at all apparent, involves Dr. Frankenstein reviving Dracula to be his slave (ooh, that won't end well) as well as the evil scientist reviving his green cheese-like monster. Dracula makes some female vampires and eventually a wolf-man shows up...though I have no idea why. It was as if the lack of coherent plot and dialog could somehow be compensated for by tossing in more and more monsters. Heck, I was almost expecting the Creature from the Black Lagoon or Godzilla to eventually make an appearance!! And they might have, had director Franco thought of it! The only thing going for this terrible film are the locales. Because it was filmed in Europe, the settings can't help but look pretty good. That alone is the only reason I gave this movie a score as high as 2--otherwise, it's even more dull and stupid than an Al Adamson horror film.

In a final note, you PETA-types out there may want to skip this one. Aside from the cheap fake bats, there are a some real ones that are mistreated rather badly. One was either drowned or near-drowned in blood in a jar and another one is held by his wingtips and made to flutter wildly (as best it could). I must say it was the first film I ever saw that made me feel sorry for the poor creatures.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dracula, Prisoner of Franco
Michael_Elliott30 October 2009
Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein (1972)

** (out of 4)

This Franco product, also known as Dracula CONTRA FRANKENSTEIN is perhaps one of his most seen films because with a title like this, people are going to check it out. In what was rumored to have been his attempt at a HOUSE OF Dracula remake, Dr. Frankenstein (Dennis Price) brings Dracula (Howard Vernon) back to life so that he can use him as a slave. At the same time he creates a monster and soon everyone is doing battle as a female vampire (Britt Nichols) also shows up. Oh yeah, a werewolf shows up out of nowhere as well. Those going into this expecting a pure homage to the early Universal films are probably going to be disappointed because this aspect of the film doesn't happen until the final five minutes. For the most part this film comes off as an attempt for the Spanish director to make a silent film because there's very little dialogue here. I've heard some say this was to make the film more marketable around the world but I doubt this since dubbing wouldn't have been that big of an issue. The film doesn't really work for several reasons but the biggest is that it's never quite clear what's trying to be done. As I said, the first seventy-five minutes features very little action while the final five minutes goes into overdrive in terms of camp. The final showdown between Frankenstein's monster and the werewolf is bound to get many laughs as it's extremely funny especially the sequence where the werewolf goes to jump on the monster but misses. The fake bats used here are among the worst I've ever seen and why Franco uses a real bat shown drowning to death is beyond me. The make up on the monster is pretty bad but it's unique in a strange way. Vernon looks the part of Dracula but he doesn't really do too much. Price, who would die the following year, doesn't look too good as he comes off ill and doesn't get to do that much either. Nichols is always easy on the eyes even though she actually doesn't get naked here for a change. In the end, most people are going to find the film extremely boring and I really don't blame them. I do respect what Franco was going for in regards to the silent nature of the film but in the end it just doesn't work.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No Frankenstein but Vampires and Werewolves make this movie awesome.
jacobjohntaylor129 April 2016
This a Dracula movie. It is not really Frankenstein movie. It is also a wolf man movie. It is a great film very scary. One of the scariest movie you will ever see. It is a true of classic. It should be higher then 4.1. This is underrated. It is one of the better Dracula sequels. It is also one of the better Wolf man sequels. You deed to see this movie before you die. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If this movie does not scary you I do not think any movie will. This is one the best horror of all time. More people need to see this movie. It is so cool. This is scary then The Shinning. And that is not easy to do.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews