SunnyHello Nice effects though.

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

richardskranium I cannot claim to know much of anything about the director,actors,or genre. However,I can say that I loved this film.A film is supposed to entertain-and that is exactly what this film does.It truly must be seen,words cannot do it justice.There are so many things about this film that are laugh-out-loud funny I don't know where to begin.This is considered a"B" movie but it's really not badly made. The direction was good,the movie moved along.The acting was decent.The camera-work-cinematography was solid.The lighting was fine for about half the film. The dialog is inane and usually unintentionally funny..It is often way- too- much ! Dracula's appearance and voice was great.Frankenstein is also interesting. This film is a lot of fun to watch,very amusing on so many levels. If you have an honest sense of humor this film cannot miss for you.

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.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a great movie. It a Dracula sequel. It is also a Frankenstein sequel. It is very scary. It is one of the scariest movies ever made. It is scarier then The exorcist. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. Dracula meet the descendant of Doctor Frankenstein. They resurrect the Frankenstein monster. They use him for revenge for Doctor Frankenstein. Then he turns on Dracula. Very scary. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say. This a great movie. It is very underrated. It is a horror movie classic. Great movie great movie great movie great movie.

John austin Sometimes it's difficult to rate low budget horror that can be terrible, yet you can't pull your eyes away from it. Dracula vs. Frankenstein attempts a stab at greatness on a shoestring budget with classic monsters battling in a psychedelic background. J. Carroll Nash and Lon Chaney Jr. add some legitimacy to a no-name cast, although Chaney is starting to look pretty rough by 1971. The echo effect on Zander Vorkov's voice as Dracula is priceless! Dracula vs Frankenstein would be great as a grade Z double bill with other great horror failures of the era like the Astro Zombies or maybe The Curse of Bigfoot!