Nigel P 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.

Boba_Fett1138 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.5/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Glen McCulla 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.

MartinHafer 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.