User Reviews

At first the movie appears to be mainly strange images shot up close, but then the narration kicks in and the plot begins to make some sense. At two times the narration is ahead of the action. I'm sure the technique is done on purpose, but it's unusual. There is very little dialogue otherwise.

Ok, there is lots of memorable material in this movie. Blood is drained from a captured woman and poured onto a live bat that actually drinks the blood (juice?). Dracula's eyes are always open, even when he sleeps. Very creepy and accented by the red eyeliner. In my favorite scene the Wolfman is called by a Gypsy curse and returns from "beyond the grave". A bloody Wrestlemania ensues with the Frankenstein Monster.

Recommended if you like twists on the old tales.

Bram Stoker and Mary Shelly would be spinning in their graves had they watched this, the story tells of Dr Frankenstein wanting to take over the world with the aid of Dracula and his vampire brides, Frankensteins monster is also involved, he kidnaps victims so the doctor can drain them of their blood , the film reaches its climax by having a mangy werewolf join in at the end and have a fight with the monster , the end What could go wrong with the classic monsters of yesteryear? Loads ! ... Dracula says nothing , he just grimaces baring his fangs , Frankensteins monster has a flakey chin and painted on stitches and the werewolf looks like he has pubic hair glued to his face replete with joke shop fangs, was this film supposed to be set in Spain or Eastern Europe? Was it supposed to be set in the 19th century? the most disturbing thing of all was seeing a real bat drowning in blood in a big jar all in all dull and recommended for insomniacs

This would-be homage to the classic Universal cycle of horror films from the 1940s could have been interesting, but it's defeated by listless presentation (marked by Franco's trademark zoom-happy technique) and inadequate plotting (what there is is extremely lazy and contrived – such as Frankenstein's idiotic manifesto for world domination and his baffling about-face towards self-destruction at the end).

It was a good idea to present the latter (played by Dennis Price) as a deluded megalomaniac, but the dire physical condition of the actor makes this something of a lost cause. Howard Vernon's Dracula, then, is underused and saddled throughout with a silly fixed expression! Alberto Dalbes plays Dr. Seward – Vampire Hunter(!), Luis Barboo gives a hammy performance as Frankenstein's mute hunchback assistant, while Fernando Bilbao gets as little screen-time playing the Frankenstein Monster as his counterpart in the latterday Universal monster flicks themselves!!

With respect to the female members of the cast, at least, we get two lovely presences in Josiane Gibert (as a tawdry chanteuse turned into unwitting sacrifice in the re-animation of Dracula – the scene where the bat is bathed in blood is actually nice and grisly) and Britt Nichols (a vampire lady with her own agenda and whose coffin is stupidly never noticed by either Frankenstein or his assistant!). Also on hand are Anne Libert (who's killed off immediately), Genevieve Deloir (as Vernon's new bride) and Mary Francis (as a gypsy girl).

The film is capped by what is the most hilarious monster mash I've ever seen – with a werewolf who comes out of nowhere, only to get beaten to a pulp by the Frankenstein monster! Just as amusing, though, is the fact that Frankenstein (and his prisoner Dracula) use a hearse as their method of transportation! Incidentally, the way such great locations as Franco had at his disposal are squandered makes this that much more of a missed opportunity – not that the visuals are helped by the dismal print utilized for this transfer (featuring washed-out colors and the wrong aspect ratio to boot)! By the way, a sure sign of the film's rushed production is its recycled score – comprising the instantly recognizable main theme from MARQUIS DE SADE'S JUSTINE (1968) and, possibly, even cues from COUNT Dracula (1969)!

In conclusion, this one emerges as easily the least of Franco's 'classic monster' films. For the record, its viewing was promptly followed by THE EROTIC RITES OF FRANKENSTEIN (1972) – by way of the version the director himself preferred. His most respectable efforts in the genre remain COUNT Dracula (not really connected to the others, as it was a Harry Alan Towers rather than Robert De Nesle production) and DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1972; a contemporaneous release with, again, much the same cast and crew but which is altogether more satisfying – mainly in view of its novel giallo elements).

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.

I guess your name simply has to be Jess Franco if you shamelessly steal the sagas of no less than three immortal horror icons (Count Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man) and still manage to make a dreadfully boring and incoherent piece of cinematic garbage out of it. How does one man pull it all off? I caught myself staring at the TV screen for several whole minutes before all of a sudden realizing there's actually nothing happening at all. There's something remotely resembling to a storyline, but you'll have to cut and edit the pieces together yourself, as good old Jess clearly didn't bother about continuity, periodic accuracy, tension building or even just plain common sense. The most astonishing thing, however, is that during the opening sequences, our director almost tricked me into believing "Dracula: Prisoner of Frankenstein" could actually become a worthwhile effort! The movie opens with atmospheric images of ominous dark castles and creepily isolated landscapes, guided by an unsettling Bruno Nicolai score. It suspiciously looks as if Franco carefully watched and studied the contemporary Hammer highlights (including the entire Dracula and Frankenstein franchises) and took notes on what scenery to use and how to create a setting. Unfortunately he quickly turns into his incompetent self again shortly after the opening credits and comes up with a totally ludicrous plot. The nauseatingly pale body of Count Dracula lies died in his coffin (perhaps that is because all the vampire attacks take place in broad daylight, duh!) when no less than Dr. Frankenstein invades the castle turf. The power mad doctor – NOT Baron this time – instructs his homemade monster to abduct a strip dancer and subsequently uses her blood to resurrect a bat. I think the bat is meant to represent Count Dracula or at least some vampire, as it is Frankenstein's intention to raise an army of vampires under his command and then overtake the earth. After this series of retarded plot twists, I just lost all further interest, so don't even ask me at what point the Wolf Man joined in. This is just an incredibly retarded movie and I honestly can't fathom that nobody who was involved in this production seemed to notice so as well. Wasn't there any of producers, cast or crew members courageous enough to step up and say something like: "Sorry Jess, no offense but … this is absolute rubbish we're filming here!" No? Anyone? Although it's probably a good thing, there are hardly any lines or dialogs in this movie. It takes nearly twenty minutes before anyone speaks and the characters that do open their mouths only talk nonsense. The sleaze factor is disappointing, the amount of gore and bloodshed is weak and the make-up effects are embarrassing. The Frankenstein creature looks like a cheap mannequin doll from a bankrupt Halloween store, the Wolf Man is just some Spanish bloke with a severe body hair problem and Dracula …well… Howard Vernon looks pathetic in his umpteenth collaboration with director Jess Franco. Personally I think Vernon owed Jess Franco a lifetime of favors for borrowing money once, or something, and therefore was forced to star in each and every dud the director ever made.

A creepy castle; rubber bats on string; hot women; stock sound effects*; crash zooms; out of focus shots; extreme close-ups of eyes. Be warned... with Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein, we're not just in vampire territory - we're in Jess Franco territory as well, which is not for the faint-hearted. Those who venture forth will face a nonsensical story, erratic pacing, and a general feeling that no-one involved really knew what was going on.

The film begins as Doctor Jonathan Seward (Alberto Dalbés) tracks down Dracula (Howard Vernon, employing the one expression throughout the entire film) and despatches the vampire using a teeny tiny travel hammer and stake, small enough to fit neatly in one's hand luggage. Dracula transforms into a little dead bat, but is rescued by Doctor Frankenstein (Dennis Price), who, assisted by scarred mute Morpho (Luis Barboo) and his loyal monster (Fernando Bilbao, sporting truly awful make-up), is able to revive the flying mammal by soaking it in the blood of a sexy bar singer (Josyane Gibert).

With Dracula in his power, Frankenstein sets about assembling an army of obedient vampires, including Doctor Seward's voluptuous patient Maria (Paca Gabaldón). Seward attempts to stop the megalomaniacal scientist and his unholy army with a little help from a band of gypsies, a jealous female vampire (Carmen Yazalde) and, in the film's chaotic finalé, a wolfman (Brandy, whose monster make-up is even worse than Bilbao's).

Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein sees Franco at his laziest, the director chucking in everything but the kitchen sink with little regard for logic. Of course, this totally haphazard approach and the sheer silliness of proceedings will no doubt hold some appeal for fans of schlock Euro-horror and avid Franco fans, but those unaccustomed to the Spanish director's 'style' will more than likely struggle with the general slipshod nature of the movie.

4/10. Very little in the way of gore and nekkidness - just a little blood and some 'cheesecake' (the lack of nudity is especially surprising given it's a Franco flick).

*We never actually see that bloody peacock!!!

This is the horror film with the best castle I've ever seen. It's better than all that castles of the Hammer. Trust me. It's bigger and darker. Very strange and interesting. I've visited it in Alicante, Spain, and it seemed to me that Dracula was walking around. If you want to be scared go on and watch it.

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/

Jesús Franco (aka uncle Jess) decided here to put every possible movie monster together(Drácula, Frankenstein and the werewolf) and "Dracula vs Frankenstein" was spawned. Dr. Frankenstein creates an obedient monster with his illegal activities. Then, Count Dracula (Howard Vernon) also joins Frankenstein army. This is maybe one of the oldest Dracula ever, he is so old that is a joke. The old Dracula and the evil monster begins their reign of horror in the town, fortunately for the people, the werewolf is there to help the town against Dracula and the monster (yes, this movie is a complete non-sense). Apart from the non-sense of everything here, we have a good staff of young and beautiful chicks. OK, Dracula Vs Frankenstein is more an unintentionally comedy than a horror movie, not even a 5 year old girl can be scared by this one, its even cheesier than any Ed Wood movie, but it is funny. Its one of those "so bad its good" movies, pure grade Z fun. Unfortunately, we have no gore or sex in this Franco movie, but still is recommended.

I actually bought this because I am a fan of hoaky monster pics. Altho I viewed it, I can still honestly say I have not seen it! The lighting was as dim as the plot. Honestly, a firefly would have put out more wattage. Don't waste your time buying or renting this -- just turn your tv off for 90 minutes and watch it, and you will come away with the same experience. *I want my $3.99 back!*

Dr. Frankenstein (Dennis Price) arrives at his new abode only to find the dead bat body of Dracula (Howard Vernon) in his basement. With the help of his Frankenstein monster, the doc has a local burlesque dancer kidnapped and uses her blood to revive ol' Drac. He repeats this process in order to create an army of bloodsuckers that he controls telepathically. Of course, this doesn't sit well with Dr. Seward (Alberto Dalbes), who thought he got rid of Dracula in the first reel. With the help of some gypsies and The Wolfman (!), he decides to storm the castle and take care of business.

Well, I think this one put the nail in the coffin for my recent Franco mini-festival. As my friend described it, this is the "best" of his "worst." To the film's credit, it is well shot in places and has some nice locations. But nothing can prepare you for the level of cheapness on display like Frankenstein's monster having drawn on stitches. Vernon is a hoot as Count Dracula, with a constant snarl on his face to make sure to expose his teeth. He ends up looking like Dracula who smelled something funny. Franco apparently didn't bother with much of a script either as I think maybe there are 20 spoken lines in the film. Although the thing runs only 80 minutes, it seems to go on for days.

Now that I think of it, this could be the worst movie of all time. There is no dialog. None. OK, maybe a little, but 80% of the movie is screaming women and no dialog. The acting is the pits. There is a Frankenstein monster modeled after Karloff's version that is made with the worst makeup in the history of motion pictures.

You actually can see the rubber prosthetics they put on him and didnt even bother to match them with his real skin tone.

And for some reason on the monster AND Dracula they put an abundant amount of red eye liner on the bottom eyelash. It looks ridiculous.

Not really sure why this movie got backing. It's horrible.

This is a fantastic film, probably one of Franco's best, and definitely one of the best Frankenstein movies ever made. In runs like a magnificent homage to the Universal horror films of the 1940s, but with an intellectual level that resembles Jean-Luc Godard. Absolutely fantastic. The locations and cinematography are great, and there is a superb score by Brune Nicolai. The actors are top notch too, including the brilliant Dennice Price and Howard Vernon performing some of their best bits ever. Amazing.

This is the kind of film that should be on the shelf of every Jess Franco enthusiast or every lover of classic suspense films. It can be watched over and over again, each time discovering new layers of meaning. It is the first film in Franco's trilogy of monster movies, and definitely one of the best. I watched the original Spanish version without any subtitles, but luckily Franco used minimal dialog this time, which made the cinematographic experience even greater as it felt like TOTAL CINEMA!!! This is one of the best films I have ever seen. Highly recommended!!!

Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein (1972)

** (out of 4)

This Franco product, also known as Dracula CONTRA FRANKENSTEIN is perhaps one of his most seen films because with a title like this, people are going to check it out. In what was rumored to have been his attempt at a HOUSE OF Dracula remake, Dr. Frankenstein (Dennis Price) brings Dracula (Howard Vernon) back to life so that he can use him as a slave. At the same time he creates a monster and soon everyone is doing battle as a female vampire (Britt Nichols) also shows up. Oh yeah, a werewolf shows up out of nowhere as well. Those going into this expecting a pure homage to the early Universal films are probably going to be disappointed because this aspect of the film doesn't happen until the final five minutes. For the most part this film comes off as an attempt for the Spanish director to make a silent film because there's very little dialogue here. I've heard some say this was to make the film more marketable around the world but I doubt this since dubbing wouldn't have been that big of an issue. The film doesn't really work for several reasons but the biggest is that it's never quite clear what's trying to be done. As I said, the first seventy-five minutes features very little action while the final five minutes goes into overdrive in terms of camp. The final showdown between Frankenstein's monster and the werewolf is bound to get many laughs as it's extremely funny especially the sequence where the werewolf goes to jump on the monster but misses. The fake bats used here are among the worst I've ever seen and why Franco uses a real bat shown drowning to death is beyond me. The make up on the monster is pretty bad but it's unique in a strange way. Vernon looks the part of Dracula but he doesn't really do too much. Price, who would die the following year, doesn't look too good as he comes off ill and doesn't get to do that much either. Nichols is always easy on the eyes even though she actually doesn't get naked here for a change. In the end, most people are going to find the film extremely boring and I really don't blame them. I do respect what Franco was going for in regards to the silent nature of the film but in the end it just doesn't work.

This a Dracula movie. It is not really Frankenstein movie. It is also a wolf man movie. It is a great film very scary. One of the scariest movie you will ever see. It is a true of classic. It should be higher then 4.1. This is underrated. It is one of the better Dracula sequels. It is also one of the better Wolf man sequels. You deed to see this movie before you die. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If this movie does not scary you I do not think any movie will. This is one the best horror of all time. More people need to see this movie. It is so cool. This is scary then The Shinning. And that is not easy to do.

if you - like me - love trashy horror movies, then i can safely say, this film is excellent! every fan of this genre should own it (even if its in a unfathomable language - it all adds to the effect). the first time i saw this film i cried with laughter from beginning to end. fabulous! its a total masterpiece of its genre, yet sadly its practically unknown. as with all of jess francos brilliant films, it is unintentionally funny and highly entertaining. it delivers all the usual franco trademarks: sex, blood, death, nudity, more blood, tits, violence and great overacting. for sure, mr Tarantino would have loved to have made this film. he certainly couldn't have made it anymore over the top. i love the way the overdubbed clip-clops of the horses, sound exactly like someone clicking two pieces of metal together (or they obviously went to great lengths to recorded two-legged horses). visually, it has some really creative camera-work too, indeed, its like watching a movie after eating one of my reeders digestive biscuits! franco guaranteed everyone would be happy. any film that contains Dracula, frankenstein AND wolfman all in one movie, certainly wanted to make sure no fan would be left to freeze in the crypt. its entertaining in every way, even the original poster artwork is so wonderful it could almost be mistaken for a modern replica. if this film is available - anywhere, buy it. i guarantee you will not be disappointed. whatever, i loved it.