Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein

1972
4.1| 1h28m| en
Details

Dracula kills another innocent victim and Dr. Seward decides it's time to wipe him off the face of the earth. Armed with a hammer and a wooden stake, he arrives at Castle Dracula and duly dispatches the vampire Count. Next day, however, Dr. Frankenstein arrives with his assistant, Morpho, and a large crate containing the monster. Using the blood of a pub singer who has been abducted by his creation, the doctor brings Dracula back to life and uses him for his own ends. The Count and a female vampire continue to terrorise the town, so Dr Seward once again sets out for Castle Dracula. Unfortunately, he is attacked by the Frankenstein monster and left for dead. Amira, a gypsy, rescues him and summons up a werewolf to do battle with the forces of evil...

Director

Producted By

Comptoir Français du Film Production (CFFP)

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Palaest recommended
Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic
Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.
Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
John Seal The films of Jesus Franco are loved and hated in almost equal measure (well, perhaps hated a bit more than loved), but few drive viewers to extremes the way Dracula contra Frankenstein does. The haters tend to view the film as a terrible 'tribute' to the Universal horrors of the '30s and '40s, and perhaps it is (gotta love those rubber bats), but there's more going on here than a salute to glories past. There's a dreamlike quality to Dracula contra Frankenstein that, intentional or not, helps me overlook a lot of the film's sins and concentrate on its virtues. The film opens with a virtually dialogue-free first half hour that allows Franco to play to his strengths: outdoor scenes and shots of strange or unusual architecture. When people finally DO start talking, the film is barely more coherent than before, with Rainer von Frankenstein (which relative was he?) expounding on how he will bend Dracula and his vampire slaves to his will. Franco does use the zoom lens, but he tends to use it with a purpose this time--he uses it to draw particular attention to his characters' eyes, and the score (apparently co-composed by Bruno Nicolai and Daniel White) is repetitive but well applied. Look past the bats and the terrible special effects, and appreciate this film for what it is: a psychedelic monster rally, Franco-style.
MartinHafer 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.
markreederflesh 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.
bensonmum2 Because this is Franco, giving a plot rundown is something of a futile challenge, but I'll do my best to hit some of the highlights. Dr. Frankenstein arrives in some unnamed village to work in a supposedly abandoned castle. The castle actually isn't so abandoned as it's really the home of Dracula and his vampire servants. It's not long before Dr. Frankenstein revives his creation. Dr. Frankenstein puts his monster and Dracula to work kidnapping local women for his experiments. Why? I have no idea, but he straps them to a table and does his thing. But Dracula being Dracula is sucking the life out of some of the locals. It's up to Dr. Seward and the local gypsies/werewolves to put a stop to Frankenstein and Dracula. During the first few moments of Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein, I was having trouble believing that this was a Franco film. The opening shots of the castle with Bruno Nicolai's score are well done and, for the lack of anything better, un-Franco-like. But this impression only lasted a few moments as Franco quickly shifts from the imposing and foreboding castle to a shot of a random dog on a random staircase. That's Franco for you. Compared with some of the other Franco films I've seen, Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein isn't too bad. Don't misunderstand, it's not very good, but if you've seen something like Franco's Oasis of the Zombies, this movie is a winner. You get a lot of what you expect from Franco – suspect acting, poor make-up effects, and shaky camera work. One thing that really bothered me, though, is that Franco can't seem to decide what time period his film is set. While some characters drive cars, Dr. Seward gets around in a horse and buggy. And even though Dr. Frankenstein has a large collection of machines that require electricity, there's not a light bulb to be found anywhere. Things like this just bug me. . In the end, I can't in good conscious recommend Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein to anyone other than the most die-hard of Franco completists.