Dracula vs. Frankenstein

This has to be one of the most misunderstood films ever! It's both extremely funny and brilliantly shot. Ok, so it's not Citizen Kane. It's made by Al Adamson for crying out loud! I have this film on Laserdisc and I consider it to be one of the best of the worst..

This film gets a bad rap from a lot of people. That's understandable, because it's a low budget paste-up job, combining previously shot footage from a uncompleted biker film with the monster team-up. But Dracula Vs. Frankenstein is really a lot of fun -- particularly if you first saw it on late night TV when you were 13 or 14!

Forry Ackerman has a cameo in the film as one of Dracula's victims, so the movie got promoted in Famous Monsters magazine, with "Zandor Vorkov" gracing the cover in his dime store fangs. It was (I believe) the final film appearance of J. Carroll Naish and one of Lon Chaney Jr.'s last roles. Ken Strickfadden's Frankenstein lab equipment is used, and the music is well chosen. Parts of the film are quite moody and effective, with highly competent photograghy considering the budget and haste of production.

To compare this little film with the Hammer films is a bit unfair. No, it cannot match them on any level -- nor was it intended to -- this was drive-in fodder without the budget or resources of England's Hammer and its American partners and distributors. It's too bad none of the major American studios tried to cash in on the 1960's-70's monster boom. Then there might be some truly interesting American monster films worthy of the comparison.

I first saw this film on the Elvira mistress of the darkness show (sort of like the Joe Bob Briggs thing on TBS). I was about 5 or 6 when I saw it and like many of the movies I saw on that show, it left a permanent imprint in my brain so I had to buy it and watch it again.

Now that I have seen it again, I must say that it is still a lot of fun despite being a really terrible movie. The reason this one works and plays as a fun/bad movie instead of a bad/bad movie is because of it's pacing. It moves from scene to scene very quickly and most scenes have something funny or exciting going on. It never bores or wears out it's welcome.

The story makes almost no sense. something about a descendent of doctor Frankenstein making a blood serum and killing people but not killing them. I could not decipher it at all. There is also count Dracula running around with the Frankenstein monster and using him as sort of a henchmen. I think this all ties together somewhere but I did not see more than a small connection.

One of the funniest things about this movie is the fact that Dracula looks just like Frank Zappa. Another great thing is the way the Frankenstein monster looks. his head is all misshapen and looks like it is about to explode. You have never seen Dracula or Frankenstein look so wacky and the strangeness of the way they look adds to the films originality.

This movie has lots of hilarious sequences.. lots of hippie subculture stuff and a cool psychedelic nightclub dancing scene. The Violence is pretty tame even for the time (nothing like an H.G. Lewis movie for example) so even those with weak stomachs will not be offended by it. It's a fun goofy movie, but not really shocking at all.

The overall production quality of the movie is a mixed bag. Some of the lighting in is truly unforgivable. There are scenes where it is so dark that you can barley make out any shapes. On the other hand, the direction is pretty competent, at least Adamson never slows the pace down long enough to bore anybody and there is nothing amateurish about the way he handles the scenes. He knows all the tricks to keep the budget down and he uses them liberally while still managing to keep them from being overly noticeable. Adamson was not a master of cinema or anything, but (at least in this movie) he was better than many of his contemporary's working in the same genre (take a look at Ted V. Mickles "The Astro Zombies" for a movie that is truly butchered by it's director)

The acting is also slightly better than some of the acting in other low grade American horror movies from the early seventies and late sixties (and much better than I was led to believe). Adamson has a knack for grabbing professional actors with experience to play some of the roles. The guy that plays Dracula is pretty bad, but when you realize that he was actually the filmmakers stock broker, it makes his performance seem a little better. I was even impressed with the sad final performances of Lon Chaney Junior and J. Carrol Naish. They were obviously not in their prime (and no these are not great performances), but both still carry some screen presence and really add to the movies credibility.

Don't get me wrong, it's a bad movie, probably one of the worst ever, but it has a few good qualities here and there. I would definitely recommend this one to somebody looking for a fun schlocky horror movie with lots of unintentional humor.

Each artist has his defining moment. With Picasso, it was "Guernica". Orson Welles had "Citizen Kane".And Al Adamson's is surely "Dracula vs Frankenstein". It is the quintessential example of his style,the ultimate Adamson flick. Sure,"Satan's Sadists" was great and "Horror of the Blood Monsters" had its moments, but nothing combined so many aspects of the master's approach. Cheesy monsters, sleazy bikers, awful music, Regina Carrol, Lon Chaney, Jr.,a cameo by Forrest J. Ackerman, the original lab equipment from 1931's "Frankenstein",a wigged-out LSD trip and even a breezy Las Vegas musical number...in what other film do such iconic elements combine? Truly, "Dracula vs. Frankenstein" is a towering achievement of drive-in cinema.

Al's works are starting to be appreciated much as Ed Wood's are. And why not? Entertainment is the name of the game and Al throws everything into this ghouish goulash with maximum gusto. Put your brain beneath the chair, enter the surreal world of "Dracula vs. Frankenstein" and prepare to be blown away!

For the IMDb I gave this movie a 5 but that reflects how awful it really is. If I were to rate it as a serious horror flick I'd give it a 2 or 1; but as a comedy its an 8 or 9. I've watched this movie countless times with my crapola lovin' friends, and some of the dialogue has become a part of our everday speech, especially the line, from a man who can animate the dead, no less "When a man enters my laboratory, and bears on his hand the unholy seal of Dracula, there can be no scientific answer to anything" (generally followed by one of us shouting "Even simple force-mass equations?" "No, I said anything!") Basically, this movie should be treated like Rocky Horror is now: it should be shown in every late-night movie theater and heckled. Its horribly incompetent; we get to see the spectacle of Lon Chaney Jr. and J. Carrol Nash's last, horrible movie. See crappy bikers and hippies come into conflict! See the worst dialogue delivery ever! The Drac makeup is so bad that his hands and arms are tanned while his face is clown-white! We've dubbed him "Frank Zappula" due to his resemblance to the famous rocker. The Frankenstein figure, Dr. Duray, is dressed like COLONEL SANDERS! For this reason we feel it should be re-titled "Frank Zappula vs. Colonel Frankenstein" and released in every major market. If you have the slightest love for crap cinema,do yourself a big favor and SEE THIS MOVIE!