ÉVALUATION IMDb
3,5/10
2,3 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueDracula conspires with a mad doctor to resurrect the Frankenstein Monster.Dracula conspires with a mad doctor to resurrect the Frankenstein Monster.Dracula conspires with a mad doctor to resurrect the Frankenstein Monster.
Lon Chaney Jr.
- Groton
- (as Lon Chaney)
Ann Morell
- Samantha
- (as Anne Morrell)
Forrest J. Ackerman
- Dr. Beaumont
- (as Forest J Ackerman)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesJ. Carrol Naish was very old and frail at the time this film was made and, as a result, he could no longer remember dialogue, so he read his lines in it off of cue cards. However, he had only one working eye; the other one had been replaced with a glass eye long ago. In Naish's close-ups in the film with dialogue, one eye can be seen moving back and forth when he is reading his lines, while the other eye does not move at all.
- GaffesJ. Carrol Naish's character of Dr. Durea / Dr. Frankenstein first refers to Lon Chaney Jr.'s character as "Grodin," although his name in the film is actually "Groton." After that one time, Naish gets it right from that point onward.
- Générique farfeluFor his bit part of Dr. Beaumont in this film, Forrest J Ackerman's first name is misspelled in the credits as "Forest."
- Autres versionsAccording to the film's co-director and co-writer, Samuel M. Sherman, its TV version removed the brief topless nudity of the girl on Dr. Durea's operating table. It also removed a sign that said "Society Sucks".
- ConnexionsEdited into FrightMare Theater: Dracula vs Frankenstein (2018)
Commentaire en vedette
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.
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.
- Golden_ninja
- 13 oct. 2002
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Dracula vs. Frankenstein?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Dracula vs. Frankenstein
- Lieux de tournage
- Somers, New York, États-Unis(the old abandoned church)
- société de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 31 minutes
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.66 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Dracula contre Frankenstein (1971) officially released in India in English?
Répondre