Blackenstein

The moving has serious pacing problems, so it's pretty tough to watch. The best part of the movie is the laboratory set, which must have been where most of the budget went. There are three moments of gore involving intestines and they are not too impressive. A few strange shots might catch the eye, but they are probably ripped off from some other movie. At least Blackenstein is not a pimp or anything, though that's probably what viewers want from their campy movies. My tape is from Media. Well, I used a coupon when I bought it.

I thought fellow-blaxploitation horror flick "Blacula" (1972) had slipshod production values and was campy, but, wow, it's "Citizen Kane" compared to "Blackenstein." I understand the other IMDb reviews and voters who voted this movie 1/10, a rating I usually reserve for motion pictures that lack even the most basic of technical competence, for which in many ways this one is wanting. But, I found its wretchedness to be amusing.

The story is thin, the plotting repetitive (the monster interrupts three near rapes, Malcolm exchanges way too many creepy glances, and there are far too many lingering exterior shots of Dr. Stein's residence), the science-y stuff is ludicrous. the monster is pathetically slow and his victims hilariously too stupid to just keep running away, or merely walking away at a comfortable pace, and the editing is some of the worst I've ever seen. I wonder if the film was cut for censorship or something during its violent scenes, because the version I saw was extremely choppy. But, the editing is bad all over the place. The cuts to close-ups of Malcolm and Dr. Walker, for instance, which are also poorly directed and acted--I didn't even know what the movie was trying to convey, at first, until Malcolm declared his love for her.

Like "Blacula" and its sequel "Scream Blacula Scream" (1973), "Blackenstein" has at least one nightclub interlude, where we're treated to a stand-up act and some singing. The dog joke, though, as with much of the movie, is bad, although it's not nearly as atrocious as the use of dogs in the film's conclusion. The actor playing Eddie turned the monster has his arms and legs covered by blankets in too obvious of a way during the scenes where he supposedly has no arms and legs. Choppy editing and dark lighting help hide the later makeup job, where he's made to look like a cross between Universal's Frankenstein monsters and a giant Neanderthal. Additionally, "Blackenstein" doesn't deal with anything like the racial issues that elevated the Blacula films beyond mere camp. The semi-mad doctor Stein is white, but there's also a female black doctor assistant. One detective is black, the other white. Race is never really mentioned. And you can forget about there being any intelligent reworking of Mary Shelley's novel.

But, Dr. Stein's lab is fabulous. I have nothing bad to say about it; it's all I could hope for from a low-budget, bad 1970s exploitation monster movie trying to rip-off the 1931 "Frankenstein," complete with pseudoscientific gizmos, beakers that are always burning with bubbling liquids, shadows cast on the walls, flickering lights, spinning things and other nonsense. The film's lingering and repetitive shots and scenes also are put to good use in showing off the space.

This kitschy blaxploitation film was originally intended as a serious movie, which (ultimately) earns it some points in the camp department. However, the movie's slow starting pacing pace, wooden acting, and (periodically) decent production value make for a largely uneventful ride. Using sets from the original 1931 "Frankenstein," as well as similar art direction, "Blackenstein" was a movie that tried hard to be legitimate, and the first half of the film rises above typical exploitation schlock. However, once the Blackenstein monster is created, the film begins to fall apart, and what follows is a terrible, "Blood Freak"-style horror movie, with laughably amateurish scene direction and gore effects. The result is a very uneven film, and a difficult one to recommend without reservations. The highlight is the awful acting, (particularly of Blackenstein himself), which makes for decent joke material, but I can't say we consistently laughed our way through this one. Fans of H.G. Lewis and Ray Dennis Steckler should be pleased, as the film has a somewhat similar feel, but most others can give it a pass. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet

Well the movie is silly now but you got to really understand that was 1973 and it was scary back then. even the original movies are not scary now . But they was back then. so come on now. if today they do a remake of blackenstien YES it would be scary now .THINK ABOUT IT.AND THE MOVIES THEY make now unless the music is really hard people are not that scared now. but on the real tip the movie was not all that bad for it,s time that it came out.the end of it was a bit silly. It did not have that hard core thunder to it . and really if it was a black movie why all the white women getting kill . you don,t see that many black women getting killed in the white movies . just asking OK don,t get it wrong . just something to think about.

BLACKENSTEIN is a terrible movie and its title wouldn't suggest otherwise. Like ABBY (sort of like a Black version of THE EXORCIST), BLACKENSTEIN has practically no budget whatsoever and the acting is just terrible. Believe it or not, the two Blacula movies aren't that bad--BLACKENSTEIN, however, is abysmally bad--so bad that bad movie fans might (but probably won't) love it. Others with taste, however, won't!

One of the first things you'll notice on the DVD is that the print is really, really bad--though it does get a bit better later. This is because there just isn't much money to be made from this film and adding closed captions or digitally restoring the picture just isn't going to happen! You also will probably notice how odd Los Angeles is in the film. Most nights, there seems to be thunder and lightning and often there is an eerie fog about as well (perhaps this is just smog). Regardless, it's pretty funky weather for sunny Southern California! As for the plot, it's really not like the traditional Frankenstein story. There is no mad scientist and no dead people are reanimated. Instead, a sane researcher and his assistant work to attach dead limbs to living people who lost theirs in accidents. However, instead of working in a hospital, they work in the doctor's home which is more like a castle (in Los Angeles, okay?). Heck, the place even has a dungeon and Frankenstein-like laboratory! The assistant is a young Black lady whose boyfriend lost his limbs in an explosion in Vietnam. While the transplant looks promising, no one realizes that the doctor's evil butler switches the genetic formulas and the poor Black man starts to mutate and become evil. He, of course, goes on some obligatory rampages and since this is a so-called "Blaxploitation" film, you see two ladies' breasts--though it really made no sense at all and was very, very contrived. It's amazing to see how this made no sense at all, but given that NONE of the film makes sense, it's understandable.

So what is to like about the film......well,....nothing really except for the small sequence involving the comedian. One of the jokes, though a bit crude, is funny and he was pretty cute. The acting is purely amateur, the script is amazingly static and dull (something you'd never expect in a horror film--even a bad one) and the sets are cheap and make no sense. It's really too dull for bad movie fans to enjoy and I found myself falling asleep from time to time--it was that unexciting. By contrast, even the very worst Hammer horror film was light years better.