A Major Disappointment

The first must-see film of the year.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Jess Franco's painfully dull weird ass Frankenstein film with a silver monster. Insomniacs look no further-if you can get past the fact it makes no sense- none- zippo- nada- then the boredom will put you out. (Interestingly the color of the Monster changed for what maybe the follow up Dracula Prisoner of Frankenstein, where the monster is gold.That film is greatly superior to this one Take it from me this is a turkey. I'm on record as defending Franco since he's made some good trash films-and he's made some films that should be tossed in the trash. This one needs to go out by the curb 3 out of 10 for reasons I can't fathom

This one's undoubtedly superior to Dracula, PRISONER OF FRANKENSTEIN (1971) – displaying a fair evidence of style throughout (notably some Bavaesque lighting).It utilizes a lot of the same cast as that film: Dennis Price, in fact, returns as Frankenstein but gets little to do (this is his least performance in a Franco film – especially embarrassing when his character is regenerated); Howard Vernon now turns up as Cagliostro (I had been underwhelmed by his performance when I watched the Spanish version a few years back, but he's actually quite commanding); Anne Libert gets her most impressive role as Melissa, the blind and eccentric "Bird Woman" in Cagliostro's service (though the mysterious zombie-like figures who witness the titular events from behind bars are just as grotesquely made-up); Britt Nichols is underused, but her luscious figure gets exposed this time around (and, in any case, she's perfectly cast as Cagliostro's proposed bearer of a new master race); Alberto Dalbes also returns as Dr. Seward where, again, he's the hero; ditto Fernando Bilbao as Frankenstein's monster (given a curious silver make-up here); Luis Barboo is on hand as well but, now, he plays Cagliostro's henchman rather than Frankenstein's (the latter role is taken all too briefly at the very start by Franco himself); Daniel J. White also gets more screen-time than in the previous film (where he was just an extra) as a Police Inspector.Missing here – consequently, the film runs for a mere 70 minutes! – is the irrelevant gypsy subplot (featuring Lina Romay) filmed some time later and eventually incorporated into the Spanish variant, dubbed LA MALDICION DE FRANKENSTEIN aka THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN...though the English-language edition I watched also bears this title!! Still, the would-be erotic rites (presented clothed in Spain) are silly rather than titillating: actually, there's only one (in which the monster is made to whip the naked figures of Barboo and Frankenstein's daughter in a dungeon with a spiked floor), as the intended procreation scene involving Bilbao and Nichols is ultimately interrupted by the heroes. Cagliostro's flight at the end, then, suggests that a further instalment may have been intended – but it never transpired.Opinions about this particular version seem to go from one extreme to the other: it's neither one of Franco's top efforts nor among his worst, hence the middle-of-the-road rating I gave it. On the other hand, everybody seems to agree that the alternate Spanish release is a lesser achievement – even so, it's not that the loss of the tacked-on footage (or, for that matter, the benefit of nudity) dramatically alters the quality of the finished product!

The beginning of the movie doesn't stray far from what you might expect - Dr. Frankenstein and his assistant are transplanting a brain into their creature. The transplant works and the monster is not only capable of performing simple tasks, but can think and speak. But before the Doc has time to celebrate his victory, he is interrupted by Melissa, the Bird Woman. She kills the Doctor and assistant and takes the monster to her master, Cagliostro. He has other plans for the creature. Dr. Frankenstein's monster will be the father of a new race of supermen.First, a word of warning. I bought Image's The Rites of Frankenstein that came out August 9, 2005. I didn't pay much attention and just assumed it would be the edition that is commonly known as The Erotic Rites of Frankenstein - a movie I've wanted to see for a while. But this version is actually the Spanish movie - La Maldición de Frankenstein. The big difference is that the Spanish movie is heavily cut (meaning all the naughty bits are cut out) and extra scenes with Lina Romay have been added (which do nothing for the movie). It seems that almost everything you normally look for in a Franco film has been left on the Spanish editing room floor. I'm positive my rating and opinion of this movie would improve when and if I ever get a chance to see the real thing.For those unfamiliar with Franco, a first time viewing can be puzzling and jarring. To begin with, Franco has a tendency to put shots in his films that are totally unrelated to the story. The scenes I mentioned with Lina Romay are the perfect example. They're just there. Sometimes Franco will allow his camera to linger on an inanimate object for what seems like an eternity. In this movie we get a random, close-up shot of a tree for no purpose that I could see. Shooting things out of focus doesn't appear to bother Franco. There were a couple of scenes in The Rites of Frankenstein where I had to stop myself from yelling "Focus, Franco. Focus". There are other examples as I've just scratched the surface of what you're likely to see in an average Franco movie. Whether you like them or not, his movies provide an experience like no other.Visually, Franco has filled The Rites of Frankenstein with all sorts of treats (at least what wasn't cut from my version). I've already mentioned Melissa, the Bird Woman. She's a blind half-bird/half-woman with steel looking talons, green feathers, and an appetite for human flesh. That's definitely something you don't see everyday. Franco could have made the whole movie about her and it might have been more interesting. Frankenstein's monster has a unique look - he's completely silver. Cagliostro has the ability to summon the undead. The site of these shrouded figures wandering through the forest is one of the highlights of the movie.But mixed with these interesting scenes, Franco has seen fit to include some ridiculous moments. One of my "favorites" in The Rites of Frankenstein are continual close-ups of Cagliostro's eyes. Somehow Howard Vernon was able to go the entire movie without blinking and, for some reason known only to him, Franco felt compelled to show us Vernon's non-blinking eyes over and over and over and.... Don't ask why - it's Franco. I'm convinced they had a representative from Guinness and were going for some sort of world record.In short, if you're a fan of Franco, you might find some enjoyment in the movie - but wait for the uncut version. If you don't like Franco, skip it all together.

Most people watch Franco it seems specifically because it is junk, or so they think. The cheapness and (for the era) exotic nudity must give some sort of trailer park thrill.But these films seem important to me. The reason is that today's most exiting cinema comes from the Spanish tradition of layered realisms. While the main source is Latin literature, I fancy that it can be traced back to Franco and buddies as well.About half of these that I encounter make me yell "This! This must be the ultimate Franco!" I had that experience when gliding through this.Yes, of course it is cheap, with bad acting and so on. But nearly _every_ movie is for me. Its just a matter of degree and earnestness. Overlook that, dear viewer.The story alone should be enough to attract you. I won't recount it here, but it is complex and ambiguous, borrowing from several genres and reinventing them capriciously. One character is the evil genius's erotic soothsayer. She is blind but sees, a vampire but humanly erotic, our surrogate on screen.That evil genius wraps us up in capturing Frankenstein's monster to mate for a purpose I didn't understand. This eventually involves Frankenstein's beautiful scientist daughter who temporarily reanimates her now carrion dad and ends up getting nudely whipped... well it hardly matters.The real thing is in how he creates a gauzy, abstract world that floats above the normal world of movies. It is a movie like other movies, but not. It engages us in a conspiracy to weave a new world. Who cares about what that world contains, it is how it is woven that matters.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.