IMDb > Frankenstein's Great Aunt Tillie (1984) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 6 reviews in total 

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Painful, Just painful.

Author: capkronos ( from Ohio, USA
31 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I cringe at the thought of ever stumbling across something as bad as this in the future. To make it worse, the damn thing goes on forever. Over TWO HOURS of horrendous, non-amusing gags, irritating overacting, stupid dialogue, multiple senseless flashbacks (not that the main plot-line makes much sense), 'comic' sound effects, toilet humor, cartoonish dubbing (on the Mexican extras) and various scenes that seem like rejected outtakes from YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. It should also be noted that this shot-in-Mexico cheapie was of mammoth mini-series length (!!) at one point and the version I saw is actually the condensed version of the story! No way in hell am I ever going to punish myself by trying to seek out the full-length version.

There's a period setting, costumes, cars, etc., but the time frame is never revealed other than a title card that says "100 Years Later." Donald Pleasence has (possibly) the worst role of his entire career as Baron Victor Frankenstein, who shows up in the small Transylvanian village of "Mucklefugger," along with his "190-year-old" feminist "aunt" Fraulein Matilda "Tillie" Frankenstein (Yvonne Furneaux) and mega-busted, mega-stupid blonde wife Randy (played by over-the-hill former sex-pot June Wilkinson). The three inadvertently stir up a variety of problems for the townspeople, who have been free of the antics of the Frankenstein family for over a hundred years.  Tillie saves the "Cradle of Compassion" orphanage and holds "ERA" rallies where the women protest for equal rights by holding up signs that say "No Vote, No Whoopee!" They spray seltzer water on cops, demand a woman get a place on municipal counsel and wear "bloomers" to pi$$ the guys off. Tillie and co. must also come up with money to pay back taxes on the castle before it is repossessed and discover a Frankenstein monster in the basement, that is brought back to life for more lame gags. The creature is big, blue, has bangs, wears suspenders and has very little to do in this movie.

Pleasence, acting drunk and/or senile throughout, mumbles through most of his dialogue. During one scene, he is seen running around in a dress, lipstick, a frilly hat and an apron, sniffing shoes and playing the flute to calm down the monster. Not a pretty sight. Poor Donald. Poor Furneax, too. She gave excellent performances in two genre classics: playing one of Hammer Studios' all-time finest heroines in THE MUMMY (1959) and then Catherine Deneuve's self-absorbed sister in Polanski's REPULSION (1965), before being reduced to garbage like this. Wilkinson has always been a low-grade schlock regular whose massive mammaries do the acting for her. She almost does a nude scene after a bubble bath, has multiple scenes in bed with Pleasence and always wears clothes so tight they can barely contain the "twins." The other two notable guest stars here are Aldo Ray (playing it completely straight) as Burgomeister Niederhangen and Zsa Zsa Gabor (!) as Clara, Victor's first wife. Gabor must have had a larger role in the unedited version, because here she is seen for a few seconds in a silent flashback lying in bed with Pleasence, which is an effortlessly campy sight if there ever was one. 

There's also an incredibly mind-bogglingly bad gag poking fun at the original FRANKENSTEIN (1931). When the monster (Miguel Angel Fuentes) approaches a little girl named Maria by a pond playing with a flower, you almost expect him to pick her up and throw her in. Instead, the little girl says "Want to play with me? On second thought, you're too old for me. Why don't you play with my sisters over there? Sleepy, Sneezy, Grumpy, Dopey, Happy, Horny and Doc." (??) The 'sisters' then do a frantic dance in Capri pants, disappear and reappear in long flowing white gowns doing ballet (???) Another example of the general level of comedy in this mess is a sign hanging on the castle gate saying "Beware of low flying bats." Another oh-so-unfunny moment has two guys trying to spy on the Frankenstein family using binoculars. One says "I can't see a damn thing," so his buddy removes the lens covers for him. I'll just stop right here.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:


Author: Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY
8 March 2008

Frankenstein's Great Aunt Tillie (1984)

BOMB (out of 4)

Incredibly awful film has Baron Frankenstein (Donald Pleasance) and his Aunt Tillie returning to the family estate to try and get money. When they discover the monster's body they decide to bring him to life to make some cash off of him. This so-called comedy is without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen. I'm a firm believer than every film has at least one fan but I don't see how anyone could enjoy this mess. The comedy doesn't work on any level and the story is so confusing that I had a hard time following it. The subplot with women's rights also didn't work. No horror, no laughs, no nudity, no gore, no violence. Worthless on all levels even when Pleasance goes out in drag.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Not worth the plastic it's printed on!!!!!!!!1

Author: bhardesty from United States
22 December 2006

I swear I thought someone put acid in my drink when this little nugget got rolling. I'm even a little ashamed that I'm taking the time to write about this flick. I haven't looked for this title as an individual product and I got this through a Brentwood collection for like $4.00. If it is available as a stand alone DVD, they should be paying the customer to take this crap away. I think this DVD would fail as a coaster. Stay away from this Great Aunt. She sucks big time.

Oh yeah, this movie is terrible...and not in a good way.

Actually I don't think anyone in this gem knew what the thing was about. I don't think they cared. There isn't one thing in this DVD (since I can't call it a "film" anymore without throwing up in my mouth)that provides it any redemption. Don't even watch it for giggles, you won't giggle at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Monster Flop

Author: James Christopher Conner ( from Dallas, TX
22 November 2004

I guess movies like this are aimed at a specific audience, but, for the life of me, I can't figure out who that would be. I'll admit I only watched as much as I could stand, and I feel kind of wrong about reviewing something I could only stay with for about 30 minutes. However, you don't really need to sniff a pile of crap for a second time to know it's still gonna stink.

Apparently, some of Victor Frankenstein's relatives return to his abandoned estate because they've run out of money. I think. I'm not sure because the 'plot' is buried beneath a lot of other subplots that don't seem to fit immediately (maybe it becomes clear if you can actually watch this entire travesty, but I can't go there again). They end up finding Frankenstein's monster by accident and cook up some kind of half-assed idea to revive the creature and somehow glean cash from this whole thing.

I get the feeling that this was supposed to be a comedy, but the laughs never come. When a group of 'wayward' girls turned seltzer bottles on the local police in the middle of an Equal Rights protest, that was my cue to exit. Avoid.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Bizarrely bad

Author: davidh-15 from London England
11 June 2009

So appalling I nearly stopped watching. I only continued when I realised that only once or twice in a lifetime would one be privileged with the opportunity to see a film quite this bad. It was so stunningly bad I felt compelled to watch it all.

The cast comprised no-name actors and a couple of b-movie actors who one can only assume had very large tax bills to pay that year. To describe the acting as wooden would be only partly accurate it was rotten wooden acting. The dialogue was poorly conceived badly delivered and delivered with the comic timing and deftness only available to those suffering from autism.

It was intended to be funny and tongue in-cheek and had the script not been written by the directors 9 year old it may have succeeded. The cinematography looks like it was done by the 5 year old's elder brother playing with a cheap camcorder he was given for Christmas.

So, then, bad acting, dire script, ludicrous production values. Should you watch it. Yes but remember the eye bleach.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:


Author: I_am_the_Chosen_One from Australia
12 October 2006

This movie sucked! Poor acting, poor script! I think it was meant to be a comedy but the only thing funny about the film is that it wasn't funny all. There's not much more to say about this terrible excuse for a film, the film was apparently made in 1984, when I watched without knowing what year I thought it must have been late sixties early 70's.

There were only 2 actors that I'd heard of before watching it & that was ZaZa Gabor & that Donald guy(u know from Halloween & B grade horror flicks)anyway if you do ever force yourself to watch the film you'll get a laugh at the goofy and wimpy Frankenstein. The only reason I watched it was because it was going on sale with 10 other dvds for a total of 11 bucks! Wasn't I a SUCKER!

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history