TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Michael_Elliott Monstrosity (1963) * 1/2 (out of 4)An elderly woman (Marjorie Eaton) funds the scientific projects of Dr. Frank (Frank Gerstle) but it's not out of the kindness of her heart. No, she funds his atomic experiments in hopes that the doctor will be willing to put her brain into the body of a young hot model. You see, she's never known love from a man so she wants to be young again and good looking.MONSTROSITY, also known under the title of THE ATOMIC BRAIN, is considered by many to be one of the worst films ever made. If you discuss bad movies with people then someone will usually bring this one up but I must admit that I've never really hated this movie because it's really so bad that you can find yourself being entertained by it.There's really not anything good you can say about this thing. It's cheaply made, which is to be expected but it's clear that the director didn't know how to make, frame or shoot a movie. He certainly wasn't able to tell a story because this thing rarely makes too much sense and takes way too long for its main story to get going. The performances are downright awful and especially those playing the models because their various accents come and go throughout the picture and often times throughout a sentence. There are some really campy moments including the "cat woman" and there's a hilarious scene where she's trying to catch a mouse. There's also a rather strange factor of having the elderly woman constantly drooling over the young women. Other silly things include every second of the ending, which I certainly won't spoil here but it's quite funny. Obviously, MONSTROSITY isn't meant to be taken serious and it's a poorly made but campy movie.

Uriah43 "Hetty March" (Marjorie Eaton) is a wealthy—but extremely old and greedy—woman who uses her money only for her own selfish ways. Realizing that she have only a few years left in life she finances a brilliant—but equally self-absorbed—scientist by the name of "Dr. Otto Frank" (Frank Gerstle) to conduct experiments concerned with the transplanting of a brain from one body to another with the intent of having Miss March's brain transferred to the body of a beautiful, young woman. To that end she hires three young ladies by the names of "Beatrice Mullins" (Judy Bamber), "Nina Rhodes" (Erika Peters) and "Anita Gonzalez" (Lisa Lang) from foreign countries to work as housekeepers at her mansion. At least that is what she tells them. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this was a low-budget project which fails to rise above its limitations. Thankfully, it doesn't last that long (only 64 minutes) otherwise it would have been an even bigger waste of time. As a matter of fact, other than the presence of Judy Bamber and Erika Peters there was really nothing worth much interest at all. Accordingly, I rate this movie as below average.

dougdoepke Three good-looking immigrant girls are hired into a majestic mansion, where a surprise awaits them.I got this flick as part of a package called "Best of the Worst". Up to this one, the others really are terrible (Eegah!, Track of the Moon Beast, et al.). However this 60-minutes isn't half-bad and doesn't belong with the others. Of course, it's a really cheap production, but the screenplay also has some imaginative touches, along with a few good performances. I'm thinking particularly of Janet Leigh-look-alike Erika Peters, and Lisa Lang whose impersonation of an angry cat is jolting. Too bad the familiar Frank Gerstle looks in pain at times. But then he does get top billing for maybe the only time in his sturdy career. On the other hand, the old witch Marjorie Eaton certainly looks the part, even as her performance varies. There's also a pretty good skin show for the guys, especially Judy Bamber who's got a knockout figure.Sure, the concept is hokey: using atomic power to transfer brains, but that's really just a variation on the horror classic Frankenstein (1931). Too bad a spooky noir director didn't get the material. The visuals could really use more shadowy lighting to heighten suspense. Naturally, there are the expected snickers from a drive-in special like this, but there are also a few unexpected jolts not typical of the genre. Anyhow, the little flick has more compensations than expected for a barrel bottom production. Overall, the 60-minutes is certainly better than a 2.5 rating.

Boba_Fett1138 It's hard to say anything useful about this movie. It's just one of those '60's B-horrors that can't even be really regarded as a real movie because it does basically everything wrong.In all honesty, the concept still could had worked out. It would had never made a great movie but at least it showed some potential of a decent and fun genre film. But all of this got simply wasted. The movie very often doesn't even make sense, due to the extremely messy way the story gets told in. It's a good thing that Joseph V. Mascelli never attempted to direct a movie again, after this one. Same goes for most of the cast, who never appeared in a film-role again after this movie.It's a very cheap movie with a real offbeat pace. There is basically too little happening in the movie and when there is something happening you'll have an hard time trying to understand it because it all gets presented so incredibly bad and confusing. Also none of the characters ever work out, due to this. It's funny to see how the girls keep doing their shores, from the first day on, even though they figure out soon that something is terribly wrong in the house. They however never really make any attempts to get out of the situation or try to figure out what mysterious things are happening and why.I could go on about what this movie does wrong but it would simply also suffice to say that the movie simply does nothing right at all.2/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/