Lust for Frankenstein

I bought this video used for $1 when my local video store was switching over to DVD's and getting rid of their never-been-rented videos. $1 was too much. The movie tries to be too artistic to be a good porn-esque video, and there's far too much pornography for it to be a good artistic film. The main actress (Frankenstein's descendent) is ugly, has saggy tits which, unfortunately, are shown prominently through the whole movie, and is way too old to be in a movie like this. I watched this a long time ago and haven't bothered with it since. All I can remember is waiting anxiously for it to get good, and then being continually disappointed. It's been so long since I've seen it, I'm having trouble thinking of reasons for people to NOT SEE this movie, but I pretty much blocked it all out of memory after watching it the first time. The only reason I was looking at this page is because I was browsing the 100 Worst Movies list on imdb and was surprised to find this one absent. Even Kazam had more entertainment value than this horrible...HORRIBLE piece of crap.

I don't have much of any experience with evaluating these kinds of films (one could criticize the film for excessive nudity, but that's kind of the point of the subgenre), so I'll do my best at reviewing it. Its story wasn't the easiest to follow and the poor quality of the dialogue didn't help much, but I think I got the gist of what was going on. To get what I enjoyed out of the way, I liked the use of colored filters for several sequences, a few shots which obscured the actors in shadows worked pretty well, and the soundtrack was nice as well. Overall though, I was deeply unengaged with the film. I got that Moira had to lure victims for the monster to kill, but this premise grew thin rather quickly and that the film seemed half an hour longer than it needed to be didn't help much. So yeah, story was kind of just whatever, but the style made up for this to a degree as this is the kind of bizarre, risk-taking film that's hard for me to hate. Also, in spite of what I said about the story, I did enjoy the final scene with Moira's former husband as a confirmation that she had lost interest in him (I have no idea what was going on after that though). So yeah, I don't have a lot to say for this one, but I'm curious to hear what some other people have to say about it.

Lust for Frankenstein (1998)

* (out of 4)

Softcore take on the famous story has Moira Frankenstein (Lina Romay) seeing a vision of her dead father and bringing back his creature (Michelle Bauer). Franco had previously made two other Frankenstein films, both in the 70s and while neither of them are classics they certainly are miles better than this thing, which is just downright trash. The film pretty much brought a new style in Franco's career, which has become known as the One Shot years. I'm not a fan of this period and for countless reasons that could be seen here. For starters, the film looks incredibly cheap even by Franco standards with its digital video. The movie features all sorts of strange visual effects, which don't add anything. The worst thing is that the film is pretty much disgusting as it features the elderly Romay in all sorts of sexual situations. She's certainly seen better days and I'm not meaning to insult the elderly folks out there but when you make an erotic movie it's probably better that you show two young people making out the entire time. I think it's a sad state for Romay who really comes off bad in this film but it would get worse with future One Shot films. If someone can find an actual story in this movie then they'll win a dollar from me because I couldn't spot one.

This erotic-horror movie is an extremely annoying one. There is absolutely no story and the movie is impossible to follow, also due to the horrible accents of the main characters.

Why on Earth did they ever casted two over 40 year old to play the main characters? They also managed to cast about the two least attractive 40 year old which makes this movie also a disgusting one. Yesterday I posted a comment for "Dracula Vs. Frankenstein" saying that the Frankenstein creature never looked worse, well I was wrong, this Frankenstein monster is even uglier and she doesn't need no make-up effects for that!

And what is up with the endings of Jesus Franco's movies? He always seems to put in a surprise ending in his movies but problem is that the endings never make any sense and are extremely confusing for all the wrong reasons.

Every time when you think you have figured the story out, it turns out to be totally different. Nothing about the story makes any sense and the movie therefor is almost completely unwatchable.

And what was with those high peeping sound during the 'resurection' scene's? I thought my head was going to explode and I seriously had to turn the sound off to not go completely mad.

Horrible, disgusting movie!

2/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

What the hell was this movie about? What was the point of it? What were they thinking when they made it?

You should not - I repeat, NOT - spend a cent of your own money to watch this crap. But if there was some kind of a fly-on-the-wall documentary available, that might shed light on what they were thinking, I'd pay good money to see it.

What happened to Jess Franco? He started out with a classic horror film, 1961's "The Awful Dr. Orloff", and just drove his talent straight into the ground. This isn't even really a movie.

Ignore any "plot description" you might find online. This movie has no plot. It's also not related to the classic Frankenstein story in any sense at all. The movie basically just shows Lina Romay wandering around, often undressed, and Michelle Bauer naked with fake stitches on her body and bolts on her temples. It is amusing to see her stomping naked up to people and killing them by twisting their heads, which she does once or twice. What the hell did she think about her role in this movie? Some might say it's kind of degrading.

Who wants the sight of their naked body to be met with laughter? Especially a beautiful woman like Michelle Bauer.

The movie has minimal dialogue, and what it does have is weirdly filtered so you can't understand it. Much of the footage is also filtered, so that even on DVD, it looks like you're watching a decaying VHS tape. Actually, these visual effects are so weird and pointless and ugly that I wonder if they were even done on purpose. Perhaps Franco just spilled something on the lens, or accidentally pointed it at the sun and didn't realise until too late.

You know, the kind of mistakes you'd expect from a forty year veteran of the film business.

There are only two things you could possibly remember about "Lust for Frankenstein". One is the shocking ineptitude in its filmmaking, and I believe I have made that point strongly enough. The other is the fact that the movie features a liberal dose of sex and nudity from its two middle-aged stars. There are regrettably few movies in which we are given an opportunity to admire the beautiful bodies of 40+ year old ladies. It's such a shame, then, that they had to use such a crappy movie to provide us that.