The main lesson that "ADO" gives us is that Franco was capable of pretty good work when he took his time and polished it...but even early on, it's obvious from this movie's choices that Franco was mostly interested in shock and exploitation in his films, even at the cost of common sense or real story telling. The movie is an obvious retelling of "Eyes Without A Face", not as well plotted or acted overall. It's still quite watchable thanks to some effective black and white cinematography, some attractive (or at least interesting looking) actors and character designs, and a weird, churning organ/drum based sound track that helps maintain the mood even when things drag. Alas, there are pacing problems, holes in the plot you could drive a submarine through, and some gimmicky nudity (I'll grant that the topless shots actually make sense in the context of the scenes). Franco overuses certain kinds of shots - seemingly half the movie consists of Morpho carrying dead/unconscious women from place to place. And what's the deal with Morpho, anyway? He's got some kind of vampire neck biting thing going on which is never explained, so it's obviously just Franco translating sexual assault through ripping off Universal's and Hammer's versions of "Dracula". And the dubbing (at least in the DVD I saw), sinks it. None of the English voice talent is incompetent, but it seemed as if the "main" voice roles were performed by actors not really fluent in English on a native level - lines are shouted, declaimed, recited and delivered,but nothing sounds authentic. I am sure the movie would be much better with subtitles. Decent. There were moments I forgot I was watching a Jesse Franco film - but inevitably,I would quickly be reminded. See it if you like Franco, exploitation in general, or "Eyes Without A Face".

I first-watched this on Boxing Day 2004 in the wake of my DVD viewing of Georges Franju's EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1960), which clearly inspired it; being in Spanish with no subtitles, I recall admiring the film's undeniable pictorial qualities but only ended up rating it **1/2 (incidentally, I know I jotted down notes back then but never opened these up into a proper review and, regrettably, I seem to have misplaced them in the interim!). Going through it a second time, in English now (its Spanish origins – again, this was allotted the French "Eurocine" stamp – are given away by the songs being performed in that language), the film proves every bit the solid effort the director's hardened fan-base has always claimed it to be! For the record, I am not sure off-hand how long the original was, or how it may have differed from this current copy, but the latter runs for 83 minutes. Anyway, Franco's fourth feature (but only the Spaniard's first genre outing) is naturally a seminal work within his vast canon but also the "Euro-Horror" movement since the title character (subsequently spelled with an added 'f'!) would become something of an icon and appear in myriad other (though usually unrelated) 'vehicles'! As I said, THE AWFUL DR. ORLOF – by the way, I much prefer the original title, which translates to SCREAMS IN THE NIGHT – looks great (especially given the period setting) but obviously also benefits from lead Howard Vernon (previously relegated to eccentric character parts)'s star-making turn and the presence of his unforgettably bug-eyed assistant Morpho (again, for whatever reason, Franco's filmography is littered with mute and vaguely sinister manservants, sometimes played by the director himself!); incidentally, it was an inspired touch to have Morpho introduced emerging from a closet and, needless to say, his nightly rampages for fresh victims constitute some of the film's definite highlights. The "DVD Savant" review rightly remarks of the incongruity of Morpho's condition to diligently carry out his tasks (for one thing, he has to be guided by Orlof's tapping of his cane!), but is not that part of what makes these films endearing to begin with?!; similarly, Morpho regularly attacks his victims by biting their necks ("Savant" suggests this is an externalization of the audience's own desires, with the obvious detachment represented by the assailant's own disability!) which, blind as he is, he might damage their visage...then where would he (and, more importantly, Orlof) be?! Two other recurring devices (which I also denoted in reviews of recently-viewed titles by this notorious exploitationer) are the chanteuse and the cop (a Police Procedural sequence here, unfolding two very diverse identikits of the presumed assailant, would virtually be replicated wholesale in Franco's much-later JACK THE RIPPER {1976}…who even gets stuck with the Orloff moniker!). In this case, however, they are adopted by the figures of the heroine (played by the stunning Diana Lorys, with whom Orloff becomes obsessed because apparently she looks like his daughter: the actress was later the protagonist of NIGHTMARES COME AT NIGHT {1970}, dealing with another much-reworked Franco premise i.e. the hypnotized assassin) and hero (called Tanner, who also recurs a lot in Franco's oeuvre…though, typically, he is depicted as lacking the insight to be anything like the villain's equal, when he decides to shun a letter – even if it keeps turning up – until it is nearly too late!).The plot, then, is among the first to rehash the afore-mentioned Franju masterpiece: practically contemporaneously there were MILL OF THE STONE WOMEN from Italy and THE WITCH'S MIRROR from Mexico – the three of them, along with Franco's own subsequent THE DIABOLICAL DOCTOR Z (1965) and the French-made THE BLOOD ROSE (1969), actually constitute the best of countless variations over the years…though none really came close to recapturing the deft (one might even say, audacious) mix of haunting poetry and in-your-face realism that marked the original. One significant shortcoming here is that the fire-victim daughter whose face Orloff intends to restore remains nothing more than a cypher throughout, being confined to a bed the whole time and deemed of only a handful of shots along the way (unlike the poignant Edith Scob, with her eerie blank mask, in EYES WITHOUT A FACE)! In the end, Orloff commits an imprudence by eliminating another (female) aide when objecting to more killings and especially his assertion that, for the operation to be a complete success, the face-grafting has to be done when the (unwilling) donor is still breathing! Since she had been sympathetic to Morpho, he rebels and cuts short Orloff's plans – and life – when inconveniently (indeed literally) stumbling upon her body at the climax! When he takes up the abducted Lorys to the roof of Orloff's castle (his intentions unclear – is he going to toss her over the walls or will he be keeping her as a personal prize for his pains?), Morpho is promptly shot by the nick-of-time arrival of the hero – a scene which is practically recreated in the first loose sequel to the film, namely DR. ORLOFF'S MONSTER (1964; also helmed by Franco).

This originally played on the bottom half of a double-bill toplining "The Horrible Dr. Hichcock" (note: NO *t* in "Hichcock) and was a bonanza for every theater that played it, especially the drive-ins: I saw it at a drive-in in Rhode Island near Narragansett August '64, which was a cool '60s summer spot---they even had a race track (thoroughbreds, not NASCAR). Featuring a classic ad campaign---the one-sheets in mint condition are prized by collectors---this twin-bill followed a well-established trajectory for independent "exploitation" films: Played drive-ins Memorial Day to Columbus Day, then regular theaters ("hard tops" in trade lingo of the era) from Thanksgiving through New Year's. It topped the box-office grosses (reported in weekly Variety) when it broke wide in New York and Chicago Thanksgiving 1964. Unusually for such a tandem, both films fully delivered on their opening premise : mad doctor goes off the rails with his obsessions. "Hichcock" was director Freda's best---the U.S. version was only 76 min., the original ran 88 min---I saw this latter when I lived in London 1969, and was surprised that the English version had dubbing by English voices: this is *definitely* the version to get. I am aware that certain Franco aficionados regard this first "Dr. Orloff" as his best---I think "Succubus" aka "Necronomicon" ( in U.S. '68, Trans-American Films, subsidiary of A.I.P.) is and I saw it at its N.Y.C first run at the 59th Street East Theater, though I'd like to see ·VENUS IN FURS aka "Paroxismus" ('69)again, as well as 99 WOMEN ('69) aka "Island Of Despair", as well DIABOLICAL DR. Z ('66). I never trust home-viewing to give the full measure of a film---films of the pre- 1980 era were made with the theatrical audience firmly in mind. That goes double for B & W horror sci-fi. Like "The Awful Dr. Orloff". All other posts here note the similarity to what they call "Les Yeux Sans Visage". That film saw release as "Horror Chamber Of Dr. Faustus" ('62, Lopert Films through UA) with "The Manster". I was aware of the original title because at the time I got the French film mags "Positif" and "Midi Minuit Fantastique". For French class in high school I would do film reviews of these horror films and quote these mags while the other kids were reviewing "The 400 Blows" (*hawk-ptoo*), "Jules And Jim" (*barf*) and other flicks that were WAY too sensitive for my crude and primitive mental process. Franju's classic did not hit the U.S. with its original title until the late '80s, with the advent of the dvds catering to film"buffs". It is more plausible to point to "Circus Of Horrors" ('60) as a primary influence since it was a much bigger hit worldwide , by far. Same set-up: Mad surgeon undone by his obsessions. Since I've only seen "Awful Dr. Orloff" at home recently, I must reserve judgment. I'm very "high church" about that---the small screen experience is nothing like the impact of a theatrical viewing. This films was, and remains, ruggedly serviceable of its type. If you go for '60s mad doctor films, and relish black & white, this will fully satisfy. Others looking for more gore should stick with the post-1980 product.

This film has nothing outstanding or even average about it, on the whole, it is the work of a very immature director who only wanted to make a film for money on the quick. The plot, or the tedious 1 & 1/2 hour worth of filler, is absolutely ridiculous. Insane dialogue is scattered in long tedious shots. The acting is atrocious, most of the actors look like they belong in some cheap cabaret on a skid row area of town, they can't express true emotion that the roles demand. Take for example the lead inspector, he is an insincere and unbelievable character whose inability to solve the obvious murder case is incredulous. I sat there bored to death, and the other reviewers said it was 'scary'. Nothing at all was frightening about this, the dumb monster is played by a guy in rubber make-up and he's also blind, someone should have just torched him. The ending is not only expected (heroine saved, monster killed) but abrupt and absurd, the lead inspector shoots the monster while it is holding the heroine from about 80 yards while it is up on the castle balcony. Avoid this if you can, it isn't worth anything.