Great review. I'll have to check this one out.
Great review. I'll have to check this one out.
I am currently on a binge of director Jess Franco's work, and this entry in his filmography, while not "good", points to a few facets of the man's work that make him so intriguing to some of us movie fans.
Firstly, and impressively, there is very little dialogue in the film. The first line spoken is sixteen minutes in, and it tells you nothing about the story or the characters. The first dialogue pertinent to the story and characters is later, not quite thirty minutes into this 85 minute movie. Which means that the movie relies utterly on visuals (and sound effects and ambient sound) to work.
On top of that, while you can work out what is going on and why, very little is handed to you on a platter, even in the visuals. What is presented is not intricate or complex, but it is also not spoon-fed, so if you're used to movies telling you everything you need to know, you might be a bit lost at sea.
That said, on a plot and storytelling level, the film would be considered a disaster. Stuff happens more or less randomly, with little to no explanation, and virtually no set-up.
As one example, the climax involves a Wolf Man, who had previously not even been a character in the story. About ten minutes before the climax, a gypsy predicts that a werewolf will help end things on the full moon, but that is it, and that prediction comes out of nowhere.
For another: Dr. Frankenstein exerts a kind of mind control over Dracula (and, later, another vampire). How? No idea. It is never explained or even really hinted at, except perhaps that Frankenstein's technology somehow enables it. But even that is, I think, this viewer stretching to find some kind of explanation. And another: Frankenstein says (in actual dialogue, albeit voiceover) that he is going to use his vampires to rule the world. How? No idea. There's not even a hint of how to get from A to Z.
But if you only approach the film on that level, I think you will be missing the point. The entire thing unravels with a sort of dream logic; or perhaps with a sense of fatalism --- these things happen, because these things always happen in this sort of story. If you give yourself over to the dreamstate of the movie, and flow with its (very slow) rhythms, it is much more enjoyable than if you pick apart the plot logic.
As with most post-1970 Franco films, the budget is tiny, and it was shot entirely on location. Unlike most post-1970 Franco films, there is no nudity. One woman's cleavage is on display, and one of her breasts is nearly revealed, but that's it. Shockingly tame, by Franco standards, and indeed, almost inexplicable given where it falls in Franco's filmography. Which is another reason people love Franco --- even when you think you know what to expect, he deceives you.
Other online critics have said that the film can be seen as a deconstruction of Hammer Films' increasingly creaky attempts to extend Universal horror tropes into the contemporary film scene. You can also view it as a deconstruction of the last two Universal pictures in the original sequence, House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula. You've got the multiple monsters, vampires, Frankie's monster, and the werewolf. You've got gypsy lore thrown in. You've got the mixing of various eras --- the "hero" travels by horse-drawn carriage, where Dr. Frankenstein gets about by late 1960s automobile; and candles are used almost as much as electric lights. And then you've got the reason I put "hero" in scare quotes. He does basically nothing in the movie. In the early going, he kills Dracula. But once Frankenstein resurrects the vampire, the hero either disappears for extended periods, or hangs out with the gypsies, and he has no interaction with the climax at all, despite the gypsy girl implying that he would be part of it in saying the werewolf would help him.
One almost gets the sense that Franco is simultaneously saying "I love all of these tropes to death" and "even so, they really don't work together, not in this way, maybe we should do something different". And considering that he made two other films at the same time with the same cast, Dracula's Daughter and Erotic Rites of Frankenstein, both better-loved than this film, you could even view the trilogy as demonstrating "we can do something different, and here's how."
That said, while it is not good by any objective measure, I found myself enjoying it, even if I was frustrated by the lack of hot '70s Franco babes getting naked. I wouldn't give it a general recommendation, but if you approach it on its own terms, or view it as a critique of other, similar films, you might get something out of it.
The trailer (invidio.us).
This review by D. Jason Fleming is published under a CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org) International license.
I am currently on a binge of director Jess Franco's work, and this entry in his filmography, while not "good", points to a few facets of the man's work that make him so intriguing to some of us movie fans.
Firstly, and impressively, there is very little dialogue in the film. The first line spoken is sixteen minutes in, and it tells you nothing about the story or the characters. The first dialogue pertinent to the story and characters is later, not quite thirty minutes into this 85 minute movie. Which means that the movie relies utterly on visuals (and sound effects and ambient sound) to work.
On top of that, while you can work out what is going on and why, very little is handed to you on a platter, even in the visuals. What is presented is not intricate or complex, but it is also not spoon-fed, so if you're used to movies telling you everything you need to know, you might be a bit lost at sea.
That said, on a plot and storytelling level, the film would be considered a disaster. Stuff happens more or less randomly, with little to no explanation, and virtually no set-up.
As one example, the climax involves a Wolf Man, who had previously not even been a character in the story. About ten minutes before the climax, a gypsy predicts that a werewolf will help end things on the full moon, but that is it, and that prediction comes out of nowhere.
For another: Dr. Frankenstein exerts a kind of mind control over Dracula (and, later, another vampire). How? No idea. It is never explained or even really hinted at, except perhaps that Frankenstein's technology somehow enables it. But even that is, I think, this viewer stretching to find some kind of explanation. And another: Frankenstein says (in actual dialogue, albeit voiceover) that he is going to use his vampires to rule the world. How? No idea. There's not even a hint of how to get from A to Z.
But if you only approach the film on that level, I think you will be missing the point. The entire thing unravels with a sort of dream logic; or perhaps with a sense of fatalism --- these things happen, because these things always happen in this sort of story. If you give yourself over to the dreamstate of the movie, and flow with its (very slow) rhythms, it is much more enjoyable than if you pick apart the plot logic.
As with most post-1970 Franco films, the budget is tiny, and it was shot entirely on location. Unlike most post-1970 Franco films, there is no nudity. One woman's cleavage is on display, and one of her breasts is nearly revealed, but that's it. Shockingly tame, by Franco standards, and indeed, almost inexplicable given where it falls in Franco's filmography. Which is another reason people love Franco --- even when you think you know what to expect, he deceives you.
Other online critics have said that the film can be seen as a deconstruction of Hammer Films' increasingly creaky attempts to extend Universal horror tropes into the contemporary film scene. You can also view it as a deconstruction of the last two Universal pictures in the original sequence, *House of Frankenstein* and *House of Dracula*. You've got the multiple monsters, vampires, Frankie's monster, and the werewolf. You've got gypsy lore thrown in. You've got the mixing of various eras --- the "hero" travels by horse-drawn carriage, where Dr. Frankenstein gets about by late 1960s automobile; and candles are used almost as much as electric lights. And then you've got the reason I put "hero" in scare quotes. He does basically nothing in the movie. In the early going, he kills Dracula. But once Frankenstein resurrects the vampire, the hero either disappears for extended periods, or hangs out with the gypsies, and he has no interaction with the climax at all, despite the gypsy girl implying that he would be part of it in saying the werewolf would help him.
One almost gets the sense that Franco is simultaneously saying "I love all of these tropes to death" and "even so, they really don't work together, not in this way, maybe we should do something different". And considering that he made two other films at the same time with the same cast, *Dracula's Daughter* and *Erotic Rites of Frankenstein*, both better-loved than this film, you could even view the trilogy as demonstrating "we can do something different, and here's how."
That said, while it is not good by any objective measure, I found myself enjoying it, even if I was frustrated by the lack of hot '70s Franco babes getting naked. I wouldn't give it a general recommendation, but if you approach it on its own terms, or view it as a critique of other, similar films, you might get something out of it.
***
[The trailer](https://invidio.us/watch?v=5kToSy9u8yo).
***
*This review by D. Jason Fleming is published under a [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) International license.*
(post is archived)