Frankenstein vs. the Mummy

"That Bella chick gets shiny vampires and hunky werewolves, and I get a couple of reanimated corpses? What is up with that." The lead actress, by the way, is the only thing worth watching in this film. She's easy on the eyes.

The film starts with the university with the most lax research rules, ever. While Doctor Victor F. is on one side of the campus reanimating corpses and paying the janitor for body parts, his whacky Egyptologist girlfriend brings back a cursed mummy from Egypt. after 140 minutes of plodding dialog, gory special effects and more contrivances than you can shake a test tube at, we get the fight between the two titular monsters.

I give the actor credit for trying. The special effects artists also did a good job given what must have been a low budget. The direction and writing are the problems here.

In New York, the professor of the medical university Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Max Rhyser) is buying body parts from the janitor Carter to build a corpse and reanimate it. The Egyptologist Naihla Khalil (Ashton Leigh), from the same university, has just returned from an expedition and brought the Mummy of Usekara (Brandon deSpain), an evil and cruel pharaoh that was cursed, leaving his soul trapped in his mummified corpse. Victor and Naihla have a crush on each other and they date. Meanwhile Professor Walton (Boomer Tibbs), who is chief of department where Naihla works, accidentally releases Usekara's soul and is possessed by him. He kills his assistant Isaac (Robert MacNaughton) and his blood awakes the Mummy. Then Walton lures his student Lenora (Stefanie Merola) and the Mummy eats her heart. Frankenstein's monster (Constantin Tripes) is reanimated and Victor is surprised with his capacity. But soon both monsters want Naihla: Frankenstein's creature to force Victor to transfer his brain to a new body and the Mummy believes she is the sorcerer that trapped his soul and wants Naihla to call off the spell. What will happen to Naihla?

"Frankenstein vs. The Mummy" is an entertaining horror movie that uses the classic Universal monsters. There are good lines, but the limited budget limits the film to few characters. The exotic beauty of Ashton Leigh is impressive and the plot is well resolved. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): Not available on DVD or Blu-Ray.

Was drawn into seeing 'Frankenstein vs. The Mummy' with a cool poster/cover, a very intriguing if not creative premise and as someone with a general appreciation for horror. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive.

From the title, one would understandably think that 'Frankenstein vs. The Mummy' would be an affectionate homage to the Universal and Hammer House of Horror films, have a lot of fondness for them mostly and there are a lot of classics. That cannot be said for 'Frankenstein vs. The Mummy' and an affectionate homage or a well-made and well-put-together film it is not. As has been said already, the title is very misleading, the two monsters are mostly apart and their one "battle", or one scene together, is far too brief and neither creepy or exciting. It's actually treated rather indifferently.

It's not an appealing film to look at. The limitations in budget shows throughout in almost every area, it all looks drab and hastily put together in particularly the editing and effects look like they were constructed on the small remains of the small budget having been neglected. The two monsters, especially the lumbering Frankenstein monster, are not that creepy and their scenes individually are not suspenseful or that atmospheric at all.

None of the rest of the characters engage or endear, with the lead character frustratingly characterised as a complete idiot. The acting is weak at best, with Max Rhyser and Ashton Leigh lacking charisma, Boomer Tibbs reduced to pantomime and Brandon deSpain and Constantin Tripes failing to bring menace to the titular characters. Stefanie Merola comes off least badly, at least having some allure and spots of charm.

The script is a cheesy, awkward and limp mess and the story takes too long to get going and never properly comes to life. Suspense and creepiness are nowhere in sight and some of it is insultingly ridiculous.

Only one other thing, the other being Merola's allure, redeems the film from an irredeemable film to a very bad one and that is the make-up. It looked as though a lot of effort went into it, looking like most of the budget was dedicated to it in fact, and provides some eeriness. Sad that it deserved a much better film.

All in all, very bad with a misleading title. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Maybe the intent was to make a modern-day equivalent of some of those Universal Monsters crossover movies from way back in the 30s and 40s, but it feels more like Damien Leone making an Asylum film, sadly. I think it's better than the handful of Asylum releases I've seen, but that doesn't mean I'd go so far as to call it good.

Also, anyone who feels Terrifier 2 is too long will have whatever the opposite of a field day is with Frankenstein vs. The Mummy. Some of those Universal movies were 60 to 70 minutes long, and this one should've taken inspiration from that aspect of them.

At least the Mummy looked kind of cool. We could use a good gory/modern-day full-horror take on the Mummy one of these days.

I stumbled upon "Frankenstein vs The Mummy" in 2019, and hadn't even heard about it up until now. Granted with a title such as this, I can't really claim to have held any hopes up particularly high for the chance of being in for a grand movie experience here. But still, the movie does have two very iconic horror characters in it, and that was more than sufficient to make me give the movie a chance.

The script and storyline in "Frankenstein vs The Mummy" was straight forward, which at least counted for something. But at the same time it was so horribly simplified that it offered nothing for the audience, it didn't require the audience to do any thinking or participation of any kind. You just shut down, sit back and watch the movie as it unfolds on the screen.

The effects in the movie were adequate and actually were on the better end of the mediocre movie special effects scale - if there is such a thing. By that I mean that there are monster movies out there with far, far worse special effects than what was present on the screen in "Frankenstein vs The Mummy". The mummy was actually quite decent to look at, whereas the Frankenstein golem was sort of not all that great, especially because his torso and arms were ordinary skin colored, whereas his face had a sick yellow hue, it just didn't look natural and looked so askew that it stole focus from everything else. That was just bad in terms of monster make-up.

Now, as for the acting, well let's just say that you will not be in for any award winning performances here. But given the concept of the movie, then you know aforehand what you are getting yourself into. Mind you, I am not saying that the actors and actresses here were bad; I am merely saying that it was adequate performances taking into consideration the script and material they had to work with.

Take heed, as the movie is branded as 'horror'. Well, it might rightfully be so by default because of the mummy and Frankenstein's golem, but the movie wasn't particularly scary. It felt more like a movie that tried to embrace multiple genres all at once but failing to do so with grace and good execution. Don't sit down to watch this movie if you expect a proper horror movie.

I sat through the entire movie, and found it to be adequate entertainment for sure. However, it is hardly a movie that will find its way back to my movie system for a second viewing, because the movie just doesn't have the contents to support multiple viewings.