Smoreni Zmaj Every decade has its own specific atmosphere. As B production of the 1980s is recognizable at first glance, so the atmosphere of this film is simply screaming 1970s. They say this film is so bad it's good. I wouldn't agree. Although the idea is quite original and the story is somewhat decent, this is an extremely cheap, amateur-directed and mounted movie and acting is terrible. One of those movies where the boobs of main actress are the only thing worth watching, and since you will not see them, better skip.2,5/10Pictures of Panda-Dracula, a formless mass that should represent Frankenstein's monster and the most explicit view of Regina Carrol's tits you can easily find on Google Pictures, so you'll know what I'm talking about.

InjunNose Nobody watches an Al Adamson film in the expectation of seeing a masterpiece, but he occasionally rose above the schlock margin to craft a neat little flick ("Nurse Sherri") or at least a couple of interesting scenes ("Blood of Ghastly Horror"). "Dracula vs. Frankenstein", however, was not one of those occasions. Producer Samuel M. Sherman has noted that this is the most popular of the many horror and exploitation films that he and Adamson made together, and I have no reason to doubt him...but god, it's one jumbled mess of a movie. Mute, sweaty Lon Chaney Jr. and glass-eyed J. Carrol Naish looking as old and sickly as they were, Anthony Eisley in ludicrous hippie garb, a Dracula (Zandor Vorkov) with all the charisma of a garden hose, and the absolute worst-ever makeup job for Frankenstein's Monster (played by two different actors, John Bloom and Shelly Weiss): these are just a few of the tidbits that will delight fans of grade-Z cinema. It has in spades the vibe that permeates all of Adamson's work, but "Dracula vs. Frankenstein" lacks a certain something which the director was able to conjure from time to time.

MartinHafer This is a very painful movie to watch if you love old horror films. That's because both J. Carrol Naish and Lon Chaney, Jr. both starred in this film shortly before their deaths. As for Naish, he was so sickly that he acted in a wheelchair. Additionally, he had lost an eye and could not remember his lines, so he read from cue cards--and you could literally watch his one good eye darting back and forth while the glass one remained still. A sad and creepy effect, I must say. As for Chaney, he was killing himself with booze and he naturally looks bloated and a shadow of his former self.Not surprisingly, these performances reminded me of Bela Lugosi in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. Like Naish and Chaney, Lugosi was dying and many rather pointless scenes were dumped into PLAN 9 by director Ed Wood, Jr.. Like Wood, Al Adamson seemed to just dump film randomly into the film, as he took scenes from a planned sequel to SATAN'S SADISTS (a biker film) and dumped them into this horror of a film. Additionally, he hired a lady who looks like a stripper to play lead.So is there any reason to watch this film? Well, if you want a quality film, then keep looking!! However, if you enjoy laughing at incompetence, then this film has it in spades. There's a Dracula who looks nothing like the familiar Count (perhaps he looks a bit more like a gay porn Dracula--you be the judge). There's also a Frankenstein that looks more like a mushroom man from ATTACK OF THE MUSHROOM PEOPLE and his face is just,....well,...impossible to describe, though comparing it to Frankenstein is NOT possible! And, if that's not bad enough, the dialog and acting are horrid and the film just screams "crap" from start to finish! So overall, the film is horrible and it begs the question "was Al Adamson perhaps a worse director than Ed Wood, Jr."? With such great films to Adamson's credit as THE NAUGHTY STEWARDESSES, LASH OF LUST, BRAIN OF BLOOD, HELL'S BLOODY DEVILS and PSYCHO A GO-GO, if he ain't the worst director ever, he sure is a runner up!!FYI--Angelo Rossitto is also in the film. While he's not a household name, this midget starred in a heap of old horror films in the 30s and 40s--most notably in FREAKS and some Bela Lugosi films.

slayrrr666 "Dracula vs. Frankenstein" is a mostly cheesy creature feature.**SPOILERS**After a strange disappearance, cabaret-singer Judith Fontaine, (Regina Carrol) determines that a local carnival might have something to do with it. As Dr. Duryea, (J. Carrol Naish) and his assistant Groton, (Lon Chaney Jr.) use a sideshow exhibit in the carnival as a cover for their experiments with human blood, he is able to reanimate the dead in a special process. Soon, Count Dracula, (Zandor Vorkov) visits them to help him restore the Frankenstein Monster, (John Bloom) and requiring more blood for the process, they require more bodies to procure it. As news erupts over this, she decides to investigate the matter, and finds that the monsters are all loose from the experiments. With the creatures loose in the countryside, they all try to get away before anything can be done.The Good News: This is a really cheesy film in every way. From the make-up on the monsters to the general plot direction to the fight at the end, this here really piles on the cheese. The lumpiness on the Frankenstein mask is the most obvious, which features a really lumpy look and really looks cheesy. Only because of the large size and lumbering walk does it make the creature visible as to what it should be. The fact that the beach is obviously done on a set makes the cheesiness all the more apparent, and all the scenes in the lab aren't that much better, yet they work because of the cheesiness. The fact that so many of it's tolerable scenes occur there makes it all the more weird that it does. The first encounter, where the victim is stalked by off-screen noises only to become decapitated, is really great, as is the segment where the bikers are knocked off while attempting to rape the woman, is really nice and does have enough worthwhile to make it interesting. The opening sequence, where the monster is uncovered in a fog-enshrouded cemetery is a nice atmospheric moment, and the final meltdown looks really great. These moments of cheese really help the film.The Bad News: This here doesn't have a whole lot of flaws. The film's ability to completely throw around it's plot is something to get around. This is due to there being so many different elements to this. This one incorporates a detective story, a mad scientist revenge story, a biker gang and a separate one involving the two monsters. That's a large amount to get involved in, and by jumping around to each of them it feels really cobbled together, as it never really seems to gel together. This one could potentially do so, and there is an attempt, but it still feels really jumbled. There's several scenes that really try the viewer's patience, most importantly the musical numbers which are really painful to endure. These stretch out the film longer than it should be. There's several others here that are just as hard to get through, but these here are the big ones. The last flaw is the really obvious cheese. This may become really obvious when viewing the lumpy Frankenstein, which looks like a shriveled face and never once comes close to the look of the classic creature or inspiring chills at all. It's more laughable than anything else and becomes an example of the cheese. This is also something that not all will get and some will claim that it's an outright flaw to begin with, and is immediately unable to overlook it, simply because it's there/ these here are all the flaws with the film.The Final Verdict: This here is a mostly cheesy film that derives most of it's positives and it's negatives from that factor. That alone should be the main watchable ploy, as if it appeals to you, then this one should be given a chance, yet if it doesn't, then this won't be worthwhile viewing.Rated R: Violence, Language, Brief Nudity and attempted Rape