IMDb > Blackenstein (1973) > IMDb user reviews

IMDb user comments for
Blackenstein (1973) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 18 reviews in total 

16 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Blackenbad, Blackenwonderful., 20 May 2002
2/10
Author: acidxian from Haddonfield, IL

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS (eeeeeee!)

"Blackenstein" is an unbelievably amateurish romp that cannot even be considered true blaxploitation. It's got no action, and even worse, no attitude. Instead, this simply was designed to capitalize on the trend of inserting "black" into the names of famous monsters, like "Blacula" or "Dr. Black & Mr. Hyde". It's the kind of movie that was intended to play on the second bill of a drive-in feature, or draw people into a sleazy theater based on the title alone.

Hilariously terrible on every level, this is compellingly awful viewing. In terms of film-making, "Blackenstein" is a great example of a half baked cash-in rushed into production with only vague ideas about what the final product was supposed to be like.

Consider, if you will, the plot: Dr. Winifred Walker is a young woman seeking to continue her studies with one of her college professors, the cleverly-named Dr. Stein. She just shows up on his doorstep one day (at his suitably cardboard-Gothic style mansion) and he immediately takes her on as his assistant. Winifred is devoted to her boyfriend, Eddie, who has lost all of his limbs (and apparently his personality) after stepping on a land mine in 'Nam. Coincidentally, Dr. Stein's experiments involve DNA and the replacement of lost body parts (or something like that). Dr. Stein's injections miraculously restore Eddie's limbs, seemingly within hours, but fate interferes. Dr. Stein's servant, Malcomb, takes revenge on Winifred when she spurns his love. Malcomb alters Eddie's injections and they turn him into a monster, complete with a square forehead and a huge afro. Whatever.

Since the makers of the film seem to feel as if a "Frankenstein" flick needs a dungeon, Winifred & Dr. Stein inexplicably banish Eddie to a basement cell after his results start turning out badly. They are also oblivious to the fact that he gets out at night to embark on nocturnal rampages.

The story takes every liberty to work in any type of Frankenstein/mad-doctor cliché possible, even to the point of absurdity: bubbling beakers, crackling electrodes, inappropriate thunder & lightning, and a monster with confusing motivations. The dialogue, terribly stilted, is delivered by non-actors on all counts. One hilarious sequence involves Liz Renay as a victim who appears for a few minutes, only to be ripped open by Eddie, who eats her intestines. Her performance is the only believable one in the entire film.

The absurdities don't stop there, though. An incredibly silly soul song floats over the title credits. The Halloween-style sound effects are not to be missed, and also don't miss the scene inside a nightclub that features Cardella De Milo, prefaced by an emcee who delivers a painfully unfunny joke. And ah, let's see...I can't leave out the hilariously inappropriate music that pops up from time to time, offering shock and suspense cues while actors walk leisurely through hallways or glance around aimlessly. The attack scenes are also executed with a complete lack of suspense or logic, with many of the "victims" hurling themselves directly into the monster's outstretched arms. One especially stupid victim somehow eludes the monster, yet suddenly forgets how to climb a ladder, allowing the unbelievably slow creature to sneak up behind her.

The editing is inept, and goof-spotters usually notice the phenomenon of Winifred's hairstyle changing drastically from scene to scene. I'll be damned if one of the victims didn't have on the same dress as Winifred, too, as if nobody was supposed to notice.

The film's one innovative idea? The credits roll from top-to-bottom instead of bottom-to-top.

In spite of all of this, I don't agree with everybody who commented on this film and said it is not worth watching. It's not every day you come across a movie THIS bad. What did you expect with a title like "Blackenstein"? I adored it.

Was the above comment useful to you?

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
one bad brutha, 17 October 2006
10/10
Author: magicinema from United States

WOW! Watching Blackenstein the Black Frankenstein (what a title!) is a one of a kind experience. It's a unique spectacle that must be seen to be fully appreciated. I can truly say that I've never seen a film quite like it. Is it as bad as everybody says it is? Oh yeah! Absolutely! It's horribly edited and extremely incoherent. It's INSANE and that's the beauty of it! The abundant and endless flaws are all a part of this flick's crazy charm. I loved it! Watch this one with your Z Grade movie loving friends and plenty of cold beverages. It's perfect for that kind of viewing. Invite your friends, serve some drinks, laugh your butt off, and enjoy!

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Pimp My Mary Shelley!, 20 January 2008
4/10
Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls

Nothing's sacred in the world of exploitation cinema, not even Mary Shelley's legendary novel or the classic Universal make-up effects on Boris Karloff. And thank the heavens for that, otherwise we never would have seen this wondrously demented Blaxploitation interpretation of Frankenstein. "Blackenstein" is a delightfully inept movie, some would even categorize it under so-bad-it's-great, and the script goes far beyond simply copying the original Shelley tale. There are even flashes of "The Island of Dr. Moreau" to be found here and there's another mini sub-plot about a rejuvenation serum. The actual Frankenstein plot is moderately altered as well, since the mad doctors (yes, two in this case, black & white brotherly messing with Mother Nature and God's creation together!) don't intend to re-insert life into dead body parts, but supply a wounded Vietnam veteran with new arms and legs. The procedure doesn't go as planned, due to the sabotaging of a jealous assistant, and a monstrous creation arises from the operating table. The genetically altered Brutha goes on a murder rampage but his endearing wife still doesn't give up on him. "Blackenstein" is original and funny because of its ineptness, but after a while it nearly becomes unendurable to sit through. The pace slows down fast and the story reverts to boredom, the dialogs are horrible, the make-up effects are miserable and the acting performances are lamentable. Especially Roosevelt Jackson, as Malcomb the assistant, is the hammiest performer I've seen in a long time. The DVD states that the operating sequences were shot with the same and carefully persevered scenery and sets of the original Frankenstein film. That's quite difficult to believe but, as said, everything's possible in the 70's exploitation industry. "Blackenstein" is definitely not a good film, but nevertheless recommended to people with a morbid & insatiable curiosity for weird film-making.

Was the above comment useful to you?

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
blackenstien, 12 May 2006
Author: soulman_27585 from United States

Well the movie is silly now but you got to really understand that was 1973 and it was scary back then. even the original movies are not scary now . But they was back then. so come on now. if today they do a remake of blackenstien YES it would be scary now .THINK ABOUT IT.AND THE MOVIES THEY make now unless the music is really hard people are not that scared now. but on the real tip the movie was not all that bad for it,s time that it came out.the end of it was a bit silly. It did not have that hard core thunder to it . and really if it was a black movie why all the white women getting kill . you don,t see that many black women getting killed in the white movies . just asking OK don,t get it wrong . just something to think about.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Uneven and Forgettable, 10 September 2009
4/10
Author: (flakmagnet15@gmail.com) from United States

This kitschy blaxploitation film was originally intended as a serious movie, which (ultimately) earns it some points in the camp department. However, the movie's slow starting pacing pace, wooden acting, and (periodically) decent production value make for a largely uneventful ride. Using sets from the original 1931 "Frankenstein," as well as similar art direction, "Blackenstein" was a movie that tried hard to be legitimate, and the first half of the film rises above typical exploitation schlock. However, once the Blackenstein monster is created, the film begins to fall apart, and what follows is a terrible, "Blood Freak"-style horror movie, with laughably amateurish scene direction and gore effects. The result is a very uneven film, and a difficult one to recommend without reservations. The highlight is the awful acting, (particularly of Blackenstein himself), which makes for decent joke material, but I can't say we consistently laughed our way through this one. Fans of H.G. Lewis and Ray Dennis Steckler should be pleased, as the film has a somewhat similar feel, but most others can give it a pass. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet

Was the above comment useful to you?

Not as good as it sounds...and it sounds truly awful!, 12 October 2008
1/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

BLACKENSTEIN is a terrible movie and its title wouldn't suggest otherwise. Like ABBY (sort of like a Black version of THE EXORCIST), BLACKENSTEIN has practically no budget whatsoever and the acting is just terrible. Believe it or not, the two Blacula movies aren't that bad--BLACKENSTEIN, however, is abysmally bad--so bad that bad movie fans might (but probably won't) love it. Others with taste, however, won't!

One of the first things you'll notice on the DVD is that the print is really, really bad--though it does get a bit better later. This is because there just isn't much money to be made from this film and adding closed captions or digitally restoring the picture just isn't going to happen! You also will probably notice how odd Los Angeles is in the film. Most nights, there seems to be thunder and lightning and often there is an eerie fog about as well (perhaps this is just smog). Regardless, it's pretty funky weather for sunny Southern California! As for the plot, it's really not like the traditional Frankenstein story. There is no mad scientist and no dead people are reanimated. Instead, a sane researcher and his assistant work to attach dead limbs to living people who lost theirs in accidents. However, instead of working in a hospital, they work in the doctor's home which is more like a castle (in Los Angeles, okay?). Heck, the place even has a dungeon and Frankenstein-like laboratory! The assistant is a young Black lady whose boyfriend lost his limbs in an explosion in Vietnam. While the transplant looks promising, no one realizes that the doctor's evil butler switches the genetic formulas and the poor Black man starts to mutate and become evil. He, of course, goes on some obligatory rampages and since this is a so-called "Blaxploitation" film, you see two ladies' breasts--though it really made no sense at all and was very, very contrived. It's amazing to see how this made no sense at all, but given that NONE of the film makes sense, it's understandable.

So what is to like about the film......well,....nothing really except for the small sequence involving the comedian. One of the jokes, though a bit crude, is funny and he was pretty cute. The acting is purely amateur, the script is amazingly static and dull (something you'd never expect in a horror film--even a bad one) and the sets are cheap and make no sense. It's really too dull for bad movie fans to enjoy and I found myself falling asleep from time to time--it was that unexciting. By contrast, even the very worst Hammer horror film was light years better.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Don't blame Sam !!!!, 23 September 1999
1/10
Author: Mark_D-2

After the huge success of "Blacula", Sam Arkoff made plans for a similar knock-off called "Blackenstein". In the meanwhile, write-producer Frank Salteri decides to beat him to the proverbial punch by taking the Black Frankenstein concept, dashing out something resembling a script, gathering together a considerably less than stellar cast (including ex-mob moll Liz Renay and a couple of 40's has-beens who appear to have needed some extra bucks to pay the phone bill that month), and spending what appears to be about $30, slaps out one of the worst pieces of cinematic drek to have ever played inside the confines of a movie theater. If the wooden acting and laughably inept gore effects don't get you, how about the inappropriate musical and stand-up comedy routines (such as they are), or the long-shot camera work during crucial scenes, or how the title character shuffles about with his arms outstretched, just like every parody of Frankenstein you've ever seen.

For years, Sam Arkoff has taken the blame for this cinematic blunder. Sam: A lot of people owe you a hell of a big apology!!!!

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
one of the worst, 16 May 2003
Author: horrorbargainbin (warrenraccoon@yahoo.com) from hollywood, CA

The moving has serious pacing problems, so it's pretty tough to watch. The best part of the movie is the laboratory set, which must have been where most of the budget went. There are three moments of gore involving intestines and they are not too impressive. A few strange shots might catch the eye, but they are probably ripped off from some other movie. At least Blackenstein is not a pimp or anything, though that's probably what viewers want from their campy movies. My tape is from Media. Well, I used a coupon when I bought it.

Was the above comment useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Badenstein, 29 February 2008
Author: Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY

Blackenstein (1973)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

A black man has his arms and legs blown off in Vietnam but Dr. stein puts him back together again using his DNA potion. However, an crazy assistant injects him with another potion, which turns him into a monster. I had heard this was one of the worst films ever made but I didn't find it that bad. If you enjoy bad drive-in flicks then you should get a few laughs out of this thing. Being blaxploitation, it's mostly dumb white people being killed by the monster but the stereotypes are rather hilarious. The monster looks very stupid but the death scenes are rather brutal, although the special effects are a joke. I would tell you how the monster dies at the end but you really need to see if for yourself.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Horror and blaxploitation with Malcomb & Eddie., 7 November 2006
4/10
Author: bluethunder35 (bluethunder35@hotmail.com) from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I wanted to originally call this the original "Malcolm & Eddie" but apparently the guy's name in this movie is Malcomb. Whatever.

The blaxploitation phenomenon of the early 1970's yielded some very interesting and memorable product, albeit low-budget. There were a number of black themed horror films that were made. Many are aware of the Blacula series that probably gave ideas to Eddie Murphy and Wes Craven when they made Vampire In Brooklyn during one of Eddie's many low periods. Of course, they also decided to remake Frankenstein.

The movie begins as Dr. Winifred Walker has come to her mentor Dr. Stein in Los Angeles asking for his help. Her boyfriend Eddie Turner is a Vietnam vet who came back to the U.S. with both his arms and legs amputated due to a landmine explosion. Dr. Stein is one of those "mad doctors", although he's not "mad" in the sense. His experiments in healing and DNA are only known to a select few. He agrees to help Eddie.

During the operation, which takes three steps, Dr. Stein's assistant Malcomb falls in love with Dr. Walker. He professes his love for her. Winifred tells Malcomb that she can only like Malcomb as a friend because she loves Eddie and wants to marry him once he's recovered. Malcomb then switches Eddie's DNA with the DNA of someone (something?) else and when they keep injecting the DNA in him, he mutates into the title character: BLACKENSTEIN! Of course, Blacky goes around killing his victims; although he seems to have an agenda when it comes to his slayings. The first one who dies is a male nurse that would verbally assault him for going to Vietnam and wouldn't give him ice cream. His slaying is done behind a screen and we see him pounded into hamburger and then having HIS limbs torn apart. All this while the doctors try to figure out why Eddie has mutated to this form.

The acting in this movie is atrocious. It is obvious none of the actors were naturals. Malcomb, played by Roosevelt Jones, does come off as effective due to Jones' wooden acting since he is playing a simple but sinister man. I did like the spiel of victim Number One, played by Bob Brophy; it's kind of a rant that was expected by the former hippies by 1973. The lighting is terrible, the sets are cheap looking and the script for the most part is on the level of George Lucas' efforts. There's too much dead time and the movie lurches from scene to scene. And boy, does Blacky move slow and look silly with his afro and threads.

If you do like bad movies, this is worthy, but it is missing that special ingredient that something like Plan 9 From Outer Space or Showgirls offered. There is better in every genre (blaxploitation, horror, so-bad-it's good or a mix) so you should look elsewhere.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history