Badmovies.org Forum

Has anyone seen Andy Warhol's "Flesh for Frankenstein"?  I thought it a rather outlandish interpretation of the venerable creature and his creator.  I guess Warhol was being "artistic".  I think he also did a version of Dracula that was equally pathetic.

Actually, Warhol has only a producer credit.  Paul Morrissey is the director (with a co-credit to Antonio Marghereti).  Warhol's named got slapped on a lot of Morrissey's films. like Bad, Trash, Heat, and (of course) Blood for Dracula.

Yeah i borrowed it from this one dude a long time ago. 30 minutes into it i was like- "YAWN!." And that was the end of my fling with Warhol film's, i've heard they all stink pretty bad, of course this guy did paint cambel soup cans.

The dracula adaptation of Warhol is called "blood for dracula" I think.

starring Udo Kier as a ill vampire dying slowling because of lack of fresh virgin blood.

Very interesting adaptation. I think it's a french english production or something like that.

You can see dracula vomitting non-virgin blood and crying for not finding pure girls... lol

Probably the worst example of Warhol's "art" movies is "Chelsea Girls" which clocks in at a terrifying three and a half hours.  In cinemas it required two side-by-side projectors, each showing different, unconnected footage. The sacrifices that have to be made in the name of "art" - don't you just love 'em?

i loved "trash" and "heat" the characters were very decadent and silly in a John Waters type of way.

God, Raffles, do you really play cricket?  Remember Doug Adams' revelation of cricket as a recreation of ancient genocidal warfare?
When viewing Warhol, it's important to distinguish between things he really did -- some of which are cool in a dada/surreal way -- and stuff he just put his name on, like the Velvet Underground.
Some of it sucks royally, but he intended for it to -- one of his experiments was with boredom & how it can be willfully inflicted/what is it really/etc.  More interesting than he's given credit for, some of his stuff is at least as intriguing as Marcel Duchamp's

Douglas Adams knew what he was talking about. You can probably hear the Australians celebrating their latest massacre of the English over in the US.

I'll take warhol over Duchamp simply for the Pop element.  Duchamp eventually gave up Art for chess, which isn't surprising considering the heady nature of his work.  I like both though.  And Tango and Cash