I wanted to but couldn't!

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

A mad scientist creates a hideous monster to carry out his murderous plans.I watched this on Netflix streaming, so I have to say I do not think they had the best copy possible. At times it seemed like a poor digital transfer from an old source. This did not really hurt the movie, but I just want to say if you want to see this film in its best light, you may want to look elsewhere. (Though, for all I know, no good copy exists.) How this film ties together Orlof, Jekyll, an robots is a bit confusing, not helped in the least by the translation issue. I watched it as "Monster of Dr. Orlof", which seems to suggest a far different film than "The Mistresses of Dr. Jekyll", and yet they are one and the same.

Although the 1964 Jess Franco offering "Dr. Orloff's Monster" is commonly thought of as a sequel to his classic film "The Awful Dr. Orloff," released two years earlier, it strikes this viewer as more of a remake than a continuation. Howard Vernon does not appear in "DOM" as Orloff, nor does his human-robot brother, Morpho. In the second film, Dr. Conrad Jekyll (the brother of Henry, perhaps?) learns how to turn his dead brother, Andros (who he had murdered for philandering with his wife, just as Orloff had done), into a human robot. He gleans this invaluable info from a dying scientist who looks a bit like Howard Vernon and who the viewer infers must be Orloff himself. Jekyll (played by Marcelo Arroita-Jauregui, an actor who makes his character as difficult to like as his own name is to pronounce!) then uses his brother-robot to do his dirty work; namely, slaying various women about town. In a scenario strikingly similar to the setup in the following year's Cybernauts episode of "The Avengers," he gives these women a necklace containing an ultrasonic device that Andros homes in on. ("The Avengers" substituted a pen.) But trouble looms for the bad doctor when his pretty niece, appealingly played by Agnes Spaak, drops by with her new beau for a Xmas visit.... Though plotwise very similar to the first Orloff outing, this "sequel" also has much in common with another Franco film that I recently saw, 1962's "The Sadistic Baron von Klaus." Both films take place in the fictitious Austrian town of Holfen, feature surprisingly imaginative direction by Franco as well as stunning B&W cinematography, center on the police investigation of the various homicides, showcase some truly outre music from Daniel White, utilize the same bizarre-looking castle, and, of course, star Hugo Blanco in the titular role. "DOM" ups the ante a bit by throwing in a few more musical numbers and more topless scenes, and also treats the viewer to such striking sequences as Jekyll's visit to an opium den and Andros' visit to the local cemetery. The picture as a whole looks terrific, is well acted and makes perfect sense, ultimately; what a difference between these early to mid-'60s Franco films and the rest of his humongous oeuvre (around 190 films, as of this date!)! Hard to believe that this artful piece of horror was done by the same man who later gave us "The Devil Came From Akasava"....

If you've suffered through some of the hack work Jess Franco cranked out in the last two decades, you may find it difficult to believe that he once took some pride in his craft and evinced a certain mastery of cinematic technique, as well as a modicum of discipline. "Dr Orloff's Monster" is a case in point. Despite the title, it bears no direct relation to the creepy and perverse opus, "The Awful Dr Orloff", which put the director on the map back in the early 60s. However, it shares the same doom-laden aura -- with the expected (but always riveting) kinky asides -- that so resemble that earlier picture as well as the German Edgar Wallace 'krimi' series which was reaching its peak at the same time.The picture is rife with carefully-executed camera angles and atmospherics, something that would become anathema to Franco's slash-and-burn methods of the 80s. The best scenes are reminiscent of (dare I say) Lewton and Franju. It builds up a strong pathos for the title character, thanks to a subtle, wordless portrayal that evokes Cesar in 'Cabinet of Dr Caligari' and Christiane in 'Eyes without a Face' (such homages were a Franco specialty). There is a particularly poignant sequence in which the zombie stumbles about near his own tombstone in a bleak, wintry cemetery. No matter what depths Franco's movies plunged to, they always offered a few wonderfully oddball cabaret scenes in smoky jazz or rock bars, and this is no exception. One singer performs a wacky, rhythmic Latin ditty that must have sparked the imagination of the members of the retro band 'Les Rita Mitsouko'. (These cabaret scenes were a welcome staple of the Euro-thriller genre of the 60s, also perking up the krimi series, several of the campier works of the Italian Gothic revival, and especially the outlaw melodramas of Jose Benazeraf.)There are already foreshadowings of the director's latter-day carelessness -- a few too many zooms, cutting from the middle of one scene to another, and a general neglect of motivation. And, of course, he'd end up doing the revenge plot to death. But overall, this one (along with the much more perverse 'Sadistic Baron von Klaus') comes highly recommended for Franco skeptics and genre fans alike. Surprisingly, this film was immediately followed by his magnum opus, the delirious 'Succubus' (aka 'Necronomicon'), which in its pseudo-sophisticated Radley-Metzger-like style is miles removed from the Gothic horror of his early work.

Although made on a shoestring budget and as a sequel to The Awfull Dr. Orloff, this is a very enjoyable flick and a fine example of early Southern European horror. It's actually better than it's predecessor.The plot is not real important (it contains a zombie-like creature, a castle and a mad scientist). What makes this movie is the mood, the often beautiful camera-angles, the art direction and the hints of later Franco movies.For example, there's several scenes with women performing, often in erotic scenes, with men watching - which is exactly the kind of voyeuristic cinema Franco would turn to in later years (Vampyros Lesbos, Demoniac).There's - of course - quite some nudity, which must have been considered quite risque in 1964. And there's a small cameo for the director himself, as a pianist who seems to be blind.....Also of interest is the use of electronic devices used to make the zombie a murderous weapon, they give a strange effect to the movie and reminded me of early 50's sci-fi B-movies.All in all, recommended for Franco fans and b/w horrormovie fans. If you've never seen a Franco I suggest starting with Vampyros Lesbos or Female Vampire.