Home :: DVD :: Cult Movies  

Action & Adventure
Animated
Blaxploitation
Blue Underground
Camp
Comedy
Drama
Exploitation
Full Moon Video
General
Horror
International
Landmark Cult Classics
Monster Movies
Music & Musicals
Prison
Psychedelic
Sci-Fi & Fantasy
Westerns
Shadow of the Vampire

Shadow of the Vampire

List Price: $14.98
Your Price: $13.48
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 .. 13 14 15 16 17 >>

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Another fine film from Merhige, if not as good as Begotten
Review: Shadow of the Vampire (E. Elias Merhige, 2000)

Elias Merhige's first film, Begotten, is one of Nicolas Cage's favorite movies. So when Cage started up his production company and financed his first flick, he called Merhige. He had other reasons, of course, but the rather tenuous connection has caused a number of people who have seen both movies to ask why Merhige came out of semi-retirement (and a lucrative business designing stage sets and directnig creepy videos for Marilyn Manson) to work on a film that's as commercially accessible as Begotten was commercially deadly?

The obvious reason that no one seems to have come up with is that Merhige is one of only two living directors who's made a major silent film, and Mel Brooks would have been inappropriate for the material. The less obvious reason is that Merhige's favorite trope, the long repetition cut, makes itself known in this movie. It's far more subtle than it was in Begotten-- no ten-minute shots of robed figures dragging Son of Earth up a hill in this one. But as in Begotten, there are long, loving shots of landscape (and I use the term loosely; the most noticeable shot like this focuses on different parts of the train for a few minutes) with action going on around them that has nothing, really to do with the landscape whatsoever. The juxtaposition is just out-of-kilter enough to add a veneer of disturbance. With the increased action in this film, the viewer is less compelled to focus on the juxtaposition, and thus less disturbed; but for this film, in the back of the mind is enough.

Much has been made (and very rightly so) of Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Count Orlok, who takes on the persona of character actor Max Schreck through a shady deal with obsessed film director F. W. Murnau (John Malkovich). Dafoe does a fantastic job not only of playing Count Orlok as a vampire who's forced by his own greed into contact with humans he can't kill, but he also takes the silent-film exaggeration of statement and uses it in a sound film. It's unexpected, and it's wonderful. Dafoe is quite deserving of his Best Supporting Actor nomination, but if you're a betting man, remember that Dafoe was overlooked for his two finest roles (in The Last Temptation of Christ and To Live and Die in L.A.).

All the flap over Dafoe's brilliance has unfortunately eclipsed some of the minor performances in the movie which are equally as brilliant, e.g. Udo Kier as the perpetually-stressed producer Albin Grau, Catherine McCormack as the spoiled and bitchy star of the film, Eddie Izzard as her co-star, and Cary Elwes as a replacement cameraman (after the original, played by Ronan Vibert, is sent to the hospital thanks to Orlok's inability to, erm, contain himself) whose arrival on the scene is the catalyst that sets everything in motion.

Elwes' role, and the way his arrival changes the dynamic of the film set, is the one piece of this film that elevates it from an amusing, hyperbolic character sketch of a director who will go to any lengths to get his film and a piece of art. While Elwes himself is about as subtle as a cold chisel to the ear, the effects of his coming are masked by his (and those around him) aping until the final scene, when the true implications of the whole mess come to light. The final scene is so beautifully set up, and so well constructed, that the payoff would have been worth any number of errors. Fortunately, we have very few to contend with, most of which have nothing to do with the film itself (the person who composed the main title credits, for example, should be exiled from Hollywood forevermore).

As a side note, the actual scenes we see Murnau directing are quite close to the scenes in the original. Given the flights of fantasy used in other parts of the film, this is a detail that could have easily been overlooked, but it wasn't. Kudos.

While it's not Begotten-- nothing that's come out since has equaled the artistry and beauty of Begotten-- one can't say by any means that Merhige cound himself in a sophomore slump. To the contrary, the accessibility, the likability, of this film is astonishing, given the endurance-test qualities of Begotten. Very highly recommended. ****

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Totally Convincing
Review: What if Max Schreck, the actor that played Count Orlock in Nosforatu, F. W. Murnau's silent classic was actually a vampire? This is the premise of Shadow of the Vampire, which marries a treatise on the making of silent films in the twenties with the exact duplication of scenes of Nosforatu. Willam Dafoe captures exactly the spirit and moves of Schreck, who created the most convincing Dracula ever put on screen.

The film fascinates from first shot to last as the crew films Nosforatu and falls under the spell of Count Orlock. One of the great aspects of the film is the way that the scenes of Nosforatu are created in black and white, exactly mimicing the original picture.

My wife, who never has seen the original classic, was full of questions about what really happened during the filming of the twenties classic. She was completely taken in by Shadow to the point of actually questioning what actually had taken place. Very interesting, very creepy, very strange, and very worthwhile seeing both Shadow of the Vampire and the original, most scary original silent picture.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: What happened to the midle?
Review: I too was greatly looking forward to this one. Though they've had spotty track records, I am in general a fan of both Malkovich and Dafoe. I was especially eager for the kick of Eddie Izzard as a silent-screen male ingenue. But who is this E. Elias Merhige clown? His first major feature, produced by Nicolas Cage, a great cast and a truly interesting story idea, and he has the temerity "to treat the script as a staring off point"? Both leads, although gentlemanly in tone, admitted that he didn't have enough experience behind the camera to finish the film on time and on budget. Even the director stated that he and Malkovich had to sketch out a new ending at the last minute as the production was being closed on them. And watching the movie, all of this shows. Characters (such as Izzard's) disappear without mention, others die without note from their fellow-characters. Filming of NOSFERATU suddenly jumps from the opening scenes to the final shot with no note of how shooting the rest of the picture went. Poor Willem Dafoe is caught wringing his hands and rolling his eyes and tongue in the comedy that the trailers promise, while everyone else (save a handful of humorous lines) is left in a film that wants to be tense and serious. The only truly interesting aspect of the film is the device of fading from the murky color of reality to the grainy iris-framed black and white of the film-within-a-film (the washed graininess, of course, being as anachronistic as a scene of ancient Rome littered with modern-day ruins would). I was sad but quick to remove this film from my potential top 10 list for 2000. SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE leads the way in erasing the myth that last year was not as bad as everyone says.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: More profound than just a vampire movie
Review: Like most of John Malkovich movies, there are always more layers than the titles. This movie really isn't about vampires. To me, it was about sacrifice, dedication, and the human cruelty is at the same level as the immortals. To everyone else, you might find something different out of this movie. But if you were looking for something scary and spooky, you would not like this one. This is a movie that make you think.

John Malkovich is a great actor as Murnau. If you like him, you would really enjoy his originality, acting and humor. The special makeup for Willem Dafoe is fantastic.

This movie is definitely worth seeing. After all, when was the last time you really thought about the idea, "the vampire and a movie director are no different"?

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: BEING JOHN MALKOVICH part 2
Review: I liked this thinking person's take on the classic tale of the vampire demon. Don't expect the typical blood and guts shots of victim after victim. This one's paced slowly and methodically, and works as a movie within a movie. Dafoe is deliciously creepy and Malkovich always delivers in whatever he's in. Not for everyone, but definitely an art house hit and a classic re-telling of the vintage film.

Naysayers: stick to Hammer films versions of the toothy boy.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Good Acting, Bad Movie
Review: I was looking forward to seeing this film, but was terribly dissapointed. As other have said, the acting is great, and has some fairly good humor, and comments nicely on what is real vs. illusion. Unfortunately, the narrative is muddled, scenes are poorly edited, and some lighting is absolutely terrible. I was easy to forgive these shortcomings, but with ending scene I had lost all hope that this film has any redeeming qualities. I came away with a grisly impression that I was watching a movie about the making of a snuff film. The film cheapened the original classic Nosteratu.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: A quirky but enjoyable film
Review: This is probably the kind of movie that you will either like or not. Don't expect to be terrified by it, because it wasn't supposed to be an excruciatingly frightening movie. There were however, some extremely funny parts between John Malkovich as the director and William Dafoe as Count Orlock, and the acting at times seems as if it's really happening. This movie is definetly a must see for anyone who is looking for something a little different, a little freaky, and very entertaining.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Vampire Movies just don't scare anymore
Review: This was a poorly ploted movie.About the only reason it gets two stars is the teaming of John Malovitch and Willem Dafoe, and the acting they do in this movie is very good. But the lack of a good script really keeps this film from being so much more then it was.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: One of the best of 2000/2001
Review: This was by far one of the best movies that came out this year. To refer to the above comment: The movie really isn't supposed to be that scary. It's a drama. You can throw in some comedy in there too. John Malkovich was awesome. You can't deny that he is one of the most underrated actors around. And Willem Defoe rocks. Must see movie if(Big If) it comes to a city near you. THe most surprising thing about this movie is that Nicholas Cage produced it. Never would have thought that this good of a movie would have Cage's name linked to it.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Nothing To It
Review: I was told that »Shadow Of The Vampire« is a much better movie than most productions of its genre. The starring of charcacter actor John Malkovich propped up this expectation, and so did the fact that it's filmed in my country of residence, Luxembourg.

But no. There are only two good things about this movie! The acting is very very good, and the plot is much more original than in ordinary vampire stuff.

And that's all! The movie itself is not at all exciting. Not catching, in no way scary, and not very well-written either.

A disappointment - avoid it.


<< 1 .. 13 14 15 16 17 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates