Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Winifred The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Bezenby This was made at the same time as Garrone's Hand That Feeds the Dead, starts mainly the same people, with scenes occurring in the same place. It's also just as boring as that film, and I had to force myself to watch it to the end. Hand That Feeds the Dead had a kind of mad scientist thing going on, whereas this one goes for the Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde deal, which is a bit of problem as Klaus Kinski kind of looks like Mr Hyde in real life. So how can we tell when Klaus has turned into a sex-crazed killer? His shirt is a bit dishevelled and he looks a bit tired.Klaus and his wife are drifting apart, it would seem, and have moved into a new house (giant castle) in order to repair their relationship. His wife hits it off with the local doctor so in his despair Klaus somehow manages to turns himself into an insane killing machine, courtesy of something he finds in a hidden laboratory inside the castle. Was it a book? It was hard to maintain interest in this one.Don't get all excited about that sex-crazed killer part either, because sex and gore are at the bare minimum for this one. Kinski rampages through the landscape, attacking people and gurning for the camera (i.e just acting like Klaus Kinski), while we are dragged kicking and screaming through a sub-plot about a homeless man accused of carrying out the killings, and a whole load of scenes between Kinski's wife and the doctor that make the entire one-hour, twenty-three minute film seem like an eight hour miniseries. This is nineteen seventy four, Garrone, which you seem to remember ten second from the end, judging by the downbeat ending.Sergio Garrone, who started off with the pretty good Django the Bastard, would sink much lower by giving us the Nazisploitation film SS Experiment Love Camp. This one nearly de-railed the 'watch all the Euro-films' project.

BA_Harrison Jealous husband Alex (Klaus Kinski) moves into his late father-in-law's villa with his estranged wife Anijeska (Katia Christine). While investigating the property, Alex discovers a hidden laboratory and begins to restore the equipment, activating machinery that frees his inner monster—his insane jealousy—turning him into an uncontrollable killer.Written and directed by Sergio Garrone, the man responsible for sleazy Nazisploitation classics SS Experiment Camp and SS Camp 5: Women's Hell, with crazy cult actor Klaus Kinski in the lead role, Lover of the Monster sounds like a guaranteed good time for fans of trashy 70's Euro horror, its lurid title suggesting all manner of debauched sexual behaviour between man (or woman) and beast.Unfortunately, those expecting a delightfully deviant tale of tawdry sex with oodles of gore will more than likely be disappointed, the film being a relatively tame affair on all counts: the 'monster' is extremely lame, with the transformed Kinski simply looking like the actor has had a few late nights; the killings are virtually bloodless (the grisliest scene involves the dissection of a dead dog); and the gratuitous female nudity is remarkably reserved when compared to many other Euro horrors from the same era.Avid Euro horror fans might glean a little fun from a couple of in-jokes—a grave bears the name of actor Ivan Rassimov, while one character is called Polanski—and the ending is surprisingly harsh, with an innocent vagabond paying the price for Alex's crimes, but on the whole this is a fairly unremarkable and ultimately rather dull example of European Gothic horror.

Sandy Petersen Lover of the Monster wants to be a Gothic horror film, with a touch of the mad scientist, but fails so abysmally that one wonders if there was a serious disconnect between the scriptwriter and the director. In fact, the credits at least on IMDb don't list a writer, and it's no surprise.The plot, as described, makes no sense. A wife (an attractive Dutch actress) and her new husband (Kinski) are moving back to the wife's old family home. The doctor in town is kind of still in love with the wife, and the married couple seems a bit estranged, so I expect jealous shenanigans. Do I get them? No. The wife goes on chaste walks and takes tea with the doctor, and that's all. Kinski's envious "rages" consist of minor piques and a few semi-harsh words. For this, the wife accused him of monstrous jealousy. On the other hand, if my wife spent lots of time, even chastely with a former lover, perhaps there is reason for a bit of pique.Kinski, rather than make up with his wife, though this is what they're ostensibly at the manor for, goes into the basement and looks up what his deceased father-in-law was doing. Apparently he was interested in the reanimation of the dead, and all kinds of monstrous evil works. So ... I think. I now expect some cool mad science deeds. Do I get them? No. Kinsky goes into the basement, and gets shocked by some of the electric equipment. And that's all.Then Kinski goes on occasional rampages into the countryside and kills people. At last hope springs. Perhaps the electric shock in the basement has turned Kinsky into some kind of monster? Well, all too soon we see Kinski-as-monster, and it is identical to Kinsky-as-man. A little white powder and that's it, though he does manage to pop his eyes out a bit.Is there gore? No. We get a little bit of blood dribbled on the dead people, who apparently die of fear, because there are no wounds visible.Do we at least get to see lots of luscious wenches nude for the asking? Again, no. We do see the Dutch actress semi-naked in the film's last scene, but it's too little, too late.How about artsy psychodrama? Well, personally I detest artsy psychodrama, but I don't even get THAT in this stinker, unless seeing Kinsky and the Dutch woman whine at each other while staring in opposite directions counts. Ecch.The movie does not provide ANY of the elements necessary for exploitation (no sex, gore, horror, or action). It does not provide any of the elements needed for a normal movie (no plot, crappy dialog, and few good scenes). It is very disappointing. There are a couple of kind-of interesting subplots, if you're concerned about the fate of a raggedy hobo thief or whether the wife finally goes off with her ever-patient doctor admirer.But I gave up all hope, and watched the film glumly. I stuck it out only because I am a Kinski and Italian cinema completist. The act gave me no joy. Not recommended. It's not a giallo. It's not a Gothic horror, really, though it is a period piece. It has no mad science. It has no artsy psychodrama. It has no romance. It has nothing. Kinski does bug out his eyes really good in the snail-paced "action" scenes though.

MARIO GAUCI In hindsight, this obscure, meaninglessly-titled Italian horror movie is to "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde" what LADY FRANKENSTEIN (1971) was to "Frankenstein" but, as an erotic version of the classic tale, it is a long way behind Walerian Borowczyk's brilliantly delirious DOCTEUR JEKYLL ET LES FEMMES (1981). The atrocious print displayed on this bootleg DVD – replete with fuzzy video and annoyingly processed audio as if it had been recorded under water! – destroys any attempt at the Gothic feel the film strives for but, in truth, the whole production is a mind-boggling hodgepodge of every horror cliché in the book with elements of Frankenstein, Jekyll and Hyde and Jack The Ripper (whom star Klaus Kinski would play, far more successfully, for Jess Franco a couple of years later) thrown into the mix…not to mention an impotent villain given to raging fits of jealousy, indigestible dollops of Freudian self-analysis (usually uttered by a wimpish Kinski while lounging from one sofa to another), a rival doctor vieing for the attentions of the mad scientist's neglected wife, gore (the gratuitous vivisection of a dog), not one but two distinct tramps convicted of the murder spree (lazy writing, if you ask me!), hilarious character names (Nijinsky, Polanski, Boris, Ygor, Ivan Rassimov), etc.! Having said that, Kinski – who is unusually subdued here - is always worth watching but, while the movie is mostly dull, it is occasionally alleviated by the vivid colors and two effective sequences: Kinski's savage attack on his wife while transformed and the conscience-stricken flashback to his past murders. The film's final image is arresting as well, the music score is rather nice and Katia Christine makes for a lovely leading lady (almost like an older Scarlet Johansson) and the intermittent bits of nudity certainly don't hurt any. Still, all the frenzied cutting and odd camera angles prove laughable rather than laudable; Kinski's make-up only extends to close-ups of his bulging eyes and, what's worse, although a serum is concocted, his transformation seemingly occurs when he comes in contact with a certain laboratory lever (what the f***?)…but what about the other times (unless his jealousy attacks bring on the mutation)? For the record, writer-director Sergio Garrone is brother to actor Riccardo (best-known nowadays for portraying God on a slew of coffee commercials on Italian TV!) and THE LOVER OF THE MONSTER itself was simultaneously filmed with another obscure international potboiler, THE HAND THAT FEEDS THE DEAD (1974), with most of the same cast and crew participating in both productions.