Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

jacobjohntaylor1 This a Dracula movie. It is not really Frankenstein movie. It is also a wolf man movie. It is a great film very scary. One of the scariest movie you will ever see. It is a true of classic. It should be higher then 4.1. This is underrated. It is one of the better Dracula sequels. It is also one of the better Wolf man sequels. You deed to see this movie before you die. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If this movie does not scary you I do not think any movie will. This is one the best horror of all time. More people need to see this movie. It is so cool. This is scary then The Shinning. And that is not easy to do.

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.

Coventry I guess your name simply has to be Jess Franco if you shamelessly steal the sagas of no less than three immortal horror icons (Count Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man) and still manage to make a dreadfully boring and incoherent piece of cinematic garbage out of it. How does one man pull it all off? I caught myself staring at the TV screen for several whole minutes before all of a sudden realizing there's actually nothing happening at all. There's something remotely resembling to a storyline, but you'll have to cut and edit the pieces together yourself, as good old Jess clearly didn't bother about continuity, periodic accuracy, tension building or even just plain common sense. The most astonishing thing, however, is that during the opening sequences, our director almost tricked me into believing "Dracula: Prisoner of Frankenstein" could actually become a worthwhile effort! The movie opens with atmospheric images of ominous dark castles and creepily isolated landscapes, guided by an unsettling Bruno Nicolai score. It suspiciously looks as if Franco carefully watched and studied the contemporary Hammer highlights (including the entire Dracula and Frankenstein franchises) and took notes on what scenery to use and how to create a setting. Unfortunately he quickly turns into his incompetent self again shortly after the opening credits and comes up with a totally ludicrous plot. The nauseatingly pale body of Count Dracula lies died in his coffin (perhaps that is because all the vampire attacks take place in broad daylight, duh!) when no less than Dr. Frankenstein invades the castle turf. The power mad doctor – NOT Baron this time – instructs his homemade monster to abduct a strip dancer and subsequently uses her blood to resurrect a bat. I think the bat is meant to represent Count Dracula or at least some vampire, as it is Frankenstein's intention to raise an army of vampires under his command and then overtake the earth. After this series of retarded plot twists, I just lost all further interest, so don't even ask me at what point the Wolf Man joined in. This is just an incredibly retarded movie and I honestly can't fathom that nobody who was involved in this production seemed to notice so as well. Wasn't there any of producers, cast or crew members courageous enough to step up and say something like: "Sorry Jess, no offense but … this is absolute rubbish we're filming here!" No? Anyone? Although it's probably a good thing, there are hardly any lines or dialogs in this movie. It takes nearly twenty minutes before anyone speaks and the characters that do open their mouths only talk nonsense. The sleaze factor is disappointing, the amount of gore and bloodshed is weak and the make-up effects are embarrassing. The Frankenstein creature looks like a cheap mannequin doll from a bankrupt Halloween store, the Wolf Man is just some Spanish bloke with a severe body hair problem and Dracula …well… Howard Vernon looks pathetic in his umpteenth collaboration with director Jess Franco. Personally I think Vernon owed Jess Franco a lifetime of favors for borrowing money once, or something, and therefore was forced to star in each and every dud the director ever made.

MARIO GAUCI This would-be homage to the classic Universal cycle of horror films from the 1940s could have been interesting, but it's defeated by listless presentation (marked by Franco's trademark zoom-happy technique) and inadequate plotting (what there is is extremely lazy and contrived – such as Frankenstein's idiotic manifesto for world domination and his baffling about-face towards self-destruction at the end).It was a good idea to present the latter (played by Dennis Price) as a deluded megalomaniac, but the dire physical condition of the actor makes this something of a lost cause. Howard Vernon's Dracula, then, is underused and saddled throughout with a silly fixed expression! Alberto Dalbes plays Dr. Seward – Vampire Hunter(!), Luis Barboo gives a hammy performance as Frankenstein's mute hunchback assistant, while Fernando Bilbao gets as little screen-time playing the Frankenstein Monster as his counterpart in the latterday Universal monster flicks themselves!!With respect to the female members of the cast, at least, we get two lovely presences in Josiane Gibert (as a tawdry chanteuse turned into unwitting sacrifice in the re-animation of Dracula – the scene where the bat is bathed in blood is actually nice and grisly) and Britt Nichols (a vampire lady with her own agenda and whose coffin is stupidly never noticed by either Frankenstein or his assistant!). Also on hand are Anne Libert (who's killed off immediately), Genevieve Deloir (as Vernon's new bride) and Mary Francis (as a gypsy girl).The film is capped by what is the most hilarious monster mash I've ever seen – with a werewolf who comes out of nowhere, only to get beaten to a pulp by the Frankenstein monster! Just as amusing, though, is the fact that Frankenstein (and his prisoner Dracula) use a hearse as their method of transportation! Incidentally, the way such great locations as Franco had at his disposal are squandered makes this that much more of a missed opportunity – not that the visuals are helped by the dismal print utilized for this transfer (featuring washed-out colors and the wrong aspect ratio to boot)! By the way, a sure sign of the film's rushed production is its recycled score – comprising the instantly recognizable main theme from MARQUIS DE SADE'S JUSTINE (1968) and, possibly, even cues from COUNT Dracula (1969)! In conclusion, this one emerges as easily the least of Franco's 'classic monster' films. For the record, its viewing was promptly followed by THE EROTIC RITES OF FRANKENSTEIN (1972) – by way of the version the director himself preferred. His most respectable efforts in the genre remain COUNT Dracula (not really connected to the others, as it was a Harry Alan Towers rather than Robert De Nesle production) and DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1972; a contemporaneous release with, again, much the same cast and crew but which is altogether more satisfying – mainly in view of its novel giallo elements).