Nigel P Accompanied by some of the most misleading promotional material ever (just how did they get away with using images of Karloff and Chaney Jr in Jack Pierce's classic make-up to advertise this?), Jess Franco brings us an apparent tribute to those old Universal films.In this, Doctor Seward (Alberto Dalbes) is so incensed by Dracula (a wide-eyed and impressive Howard Vernon) and his killings that he travels to the Count's castle, opens his coffin and taps a twig-like stake into the old boy's heart, reverting him to a dead bat. Quite why this simple act hadn't been carried out earlier in Dracula's reign of terror is a mystery.The first dialogue in this film is 15 minutes in, when a gaggle of gypsies notice the arrival of Doctor Frankenstein as he heads towards Dracula's castle. Dennis Price plays the doctor, and we first see him struggling to get out of his shiny black car as Morpho (Luis Barboo) brings into the castle a suspiciously large crate. In 1948, Price had been voted tenth most popular actor by the UK box office; by this stage of his life, 'excessive living and inadequate gambling' had left him alcoholic, bankrupt and ill. Unlike this film's sequel, 'The Erotic Rites of Frankenstein' (in which Frankenstein spends much of the running time bed-bound), Franco's direction here makes no secret of Price's difficulty walking, and as such, Frankenstein is a frail, somewhat bloated figure. An excellent actor, Price's very few lines were dubbed for this.Our first glimpse of Fernando Bilbao's Monster, after a series of mis-matched jump-shots, is in unforgiving close-up. Permanent marker seems to have provided the drawn-on scars, which seriously lets down the otherwise impressive performance Fernando gives. Franco's camera chases after the actors often failing to keep track of the intended action. Unlike many of his films, there is little in the way of location or the usual sumptuous scenery, and the drab and tatty sets here help to create an enclosed, poverty-stricken environment.The lines that are spoken are usually given in voice-over, an artistic decision probably to ease the process of dubbing for any overseas sales. This approach, and the disembodied voices give the whole production a ghostly effect.This is a slow maze of a film smothered with Franco's trademark zooming camera, punctuated with a handful of screaming young women (Anne Libert, who is killed off immediately, makes a bigger impression in 'Rites', and Britt Nichols as a female vampire who, despite making no attempt to hide herself, no-one ever notices!), fabulously rubbery bats and for no readily apparent reason features a cameo by a curly-haired wolf man, who is brought in to fight the monster, get battered, and disappear! So, why do I enjoy this? I'm not sure, but possibly, it is because it reminds me in parts, of the work of French Director Jean Rollin, with whom Franco's work is often – and undeservedly, in my view – compared. At least here, the comparison is occasionally justified.

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.

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.

dbborroughs Jess Franco madness about Dracula, Frankenstein and a wolfman. Dracula is staked in his Coffin and left for dead. Frankenstein with the monster in tow shows up and brings both the monster and the vampire back to life. Somewhere in there a werewolf is brought in to help stop the two monsters. This is a good looking film(though the Frankenstein monster is a golden throw back to a high school production with scars and such clear drawn on with grease paint). Decidedly retro with beautiful women thrown in, this is one of Franco's mid-range movies. Its not as bad as some of the stuff he's turned out and its nowhere near as good as other stuff(Give the man credit he's directed at least 189 movies). The retro style of handling the classic monsters unfortunately kind of wears thin, especially since the monster looks so silly. There are also the typical long passages where no one says anything and people wander about. Its a movie that just sort of is. Its also a movie that more likely to help you nod off.