PDA

View Full Version : Which is better? Blood For Dracula, or Flesh For Frankenstine?


Matt
01-29-2001, 04:17 AM
I haven't seen either.

Mark Relford
01-29-2001, 04:55 AM
Both are great in my opinion, but I prefer Blood over Flesh. FFF was gorier and more over the top. BFD had more restraint, but still packed a punch. (Loved that hilarious, blood soaked ending!)

------------------
"Have you ever had an Egyptian feast?"

"They're back from the grave and ready to party!"


[This message has been edited by Mark Relford (edited 01-29-2001).]

Paff
01-29-2001, 07:02 AM
My vote goes for Flesh for Frankenstein. It was the only one they PLANNED to make, Blood for Dracula was literally an afterthought when they found out they came in under-budget and had enough money to make another movie. Blood for Dracula had no script, they wrote the night before they shot, and it shows. It's an OK movie, but it wanders about fairly aimlessly for around an hour before they "get down to business"

Flesh for Frankenstein is very ironic, very beautifully photographed (Luigi Kuvieller who also shot Deep Red), and damn funny. They don't skimp on the blood, that's for sure.

Ya have to have both, but Frankenstein is slightly better.

The Chaostar
01-29-2001, 03:15 PM
Sorry but on numerous horror books I read that Blood For Dracula was filmed first. In fact, various essays on Morrisey state that there was a THREE movie deal with producer Carlo Ponti. Apparently Andy Warhol wanted a take on the Werewolf myth as well, but things didn't work out with the producer. Blood was indeed filmed first, heance the appearance of famous directors Vittorio De Sica and Roman Polanski as guest stars.

Now, I do preffer Flesh For Frankenstein but only in 3D!

Diamondhead
01-29-2001, 03:32 PM
When I first got the Criterion LDs I was sure I was going to like Flesh better but Blood turned out to be my favorite. As stated earlier Flesh is far gorier and over the top, but Blood worked better for me. And it has the great line "the blood of these whores is KILLING me"!

Paff
01-29-2001, 04:35 PM
Actually Chaostar, there's so many rumors about the making of those movies it's possible no one will ever know the real story behind them. Dracula was supposed to have been done in 3-D as well. I tend to support the Frankenstein first theory, since it clearly has higher production values than Dracula: A more coherent script, more detailed sets, scope photography. The two movies were released so close together that I doubt it was the "success" of Dracula that led to more money for Frankenstein.

There's even a rumor that Paul Morrissey didn't even direct them!

My info comes from the audio commentary on the discs. Udo Kier mentions the wrap party of Flesh for Frankenstein, where they asked if anyone wanted to stick around to make another movie. Check out those commentaries sometime, they're actually a lot of fun. Also, the Roman Polanski bit was done on a day when Udo Kier was unavailable for shooting, so they wrote in a quick subplot that wouldn't involve Kier.

Like I said, I'm only getting this info from the audio commentaries on the discs. Maybe someone should confirm this with Udo himself (he does show up at conventions quite a bit)

The Chaostar
01-30-2001, 01:00 AM
Well, Paff, I've checked the dates of release of the films in Greece and Italy. In both occasions Blood was screened before Flesh (in italy both films were released in 1974, in Greece the first in 1974 the other in 1975).

However, maybe what Udo says in the commentary is true. Maybe Flesh was FILMED first. Who knows, right?

Yeah, there are rumors that both films where directed by Antonio Margheriti or Mario Bava.
But on TRASH (a book on Morrisey), Paul states that he did directed these two films. It's a mess trying to figure out what happened.

Oh, and a month ago I viewed Blood in a cinema in Greece and it was filmed also in scope.

That's hardly surprising. Scope was cheaper for Italians! They had invented a way to submerge TWO images on one 35'' still! They used to call it 2-perf Tecnoscope. A 35'' still has 4 perfs (the holes on each side of the still). They had altered the cameras to print each 2 perf! That's why films like BEYOND have this amount of grain: You are actually seing half of a 35'' still magnified! Funny thing isn't it?

Paff
01-30-2001, 01:57 AM
Well, one thing we DO know for sure, is that to know death Otto, you have to....

hahahaha I love these movies!

The Chaostar
01-30-2001, 07:26 AM
Hahahaha!