cinema history class: frankenstein's bloody terror (1968)

 

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Crocker Picks the April Hits (Week 4)
Movie: Frankenstein's Bloody Terror (1968)
Directed by Enrique Lopez Eguiluz

Plot:

A pair of lovers accidentally release a wolfman who proceeds to wreak havoc on a village. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

The first thing to understand about Frankenstein's Bloody Terror is that it's not a Frankenstein movie. There's a werewolf (referred to as a "wolf monster," I assume because of trademark issues), a vampire and a "ghoul woman" (who seems to me to be a female vampire). But no Frankenstein's monster. Keith explained the situation to us. Producer Sam Sherman had contracted to provide a Frankenstein movie for theatrical release, but his film was being held captive by a lab. So he took The Mark of the Wolfman, added a half-minute animated prolog to explain that a branch of the Frankenstein family had become werewolves and took the name Wolfstein. And that's the last time there's any Frankenstein element of the film.

Even putting that interesting bit of chicanery aside, this really isn't a particularly good movie. Other than Paul Naschy (more on him later), the acting was unimpressive. And the plot was both muddled and tedious. Monsters kind of show up without adequate explanation, and dance away at the end in a weird inexplicable display.

There was an odd mismatched quality to the film in that it felt very much like an 18th or 19th century period piece, but set in modern times with modern machinery such as cars. That just seemed disconcerting.

Naschy, for his part, does a good job in a bad role. His energetic performance was fun to watch. I think it was Dave who compared it to some of the old professional wrestling shows. I enjoyed the moments where we saw it as weird shadow puppets.

Ratings

Me: 5 or 6*

Bob-O: 9.4

Christina: 9.25

Dave: 9.7

Ethan: 6

Joe: 10

Sharon's reaction to the trailer: "I just thought that was a really ugly Frankenstein's monster"

Cats: Again, no cats. But lots of dogs.

____________________________________________________

*If I'm judging this as a Frankenstein movie, it gets a 5. But it's not really the film's fault that Sam Sherman retitled it in such a deceptive way. If I'm judging it as the werewolf movie it's sup[posed to be, I give it a 6.