Rating: 
Summary: The Best Vampire Movie of All
Review: Murnau's silent classic is presented with original tints and intertitles, a choice of two musical soundtracks and one scholarly film commentary. This is the longest running and most complete version -- almost twenty minutes longer than some other versions. GET THIS - you won't be disappointed. Every vampire movie since NOSFERATU owes a debt to this groundbreaking film.
Rating: 
Summary: It'll never die.
Review: Because *Nosferatu* is the very first adaptation of Bram Stoker's *Dracula* (filmed only 2 decades after the book was written, in fact), it will always be of interest to several types of "buffs": the overall movie buff, the horror buff, the Expressionist buff and more explicitly the F.W. Murnau buff. It's an open question if it will SUSTAIN the interest of the DISCRIMINATING movie buff. I actually think it will . . . though I'm the first to concede that the movie is not quite the masterpiece its reputation suggests. The fact is, Murnau's celebrated mastery of cinematic technique is straitjacketed by the movie's one-note need to creep us out: with a purpose so single-minded in scope, the master-touches are themselves diminished. One can even argue that Murnau was still developing his art, here: the trick photography (time-stops, negative-splicing, et al.) are not terribly impressive, even when you make allowance for the age of the movie (1922). Simply compare this to the astonishing visual fluidity of Murnau's *The Last Laugh*, released a couple of years later, and you'll see what I mean. Finally, it's fair to say that Max Shreck's Count Orlok, in his appearance and movements, is genuinely scary, yes . . . but almost equally ludricous. But enough nitpicking! The moviemakers are to be commended for removing terror from the then-fashionable, Jamesian interior to the in-your-face exterior, setting a trend that continues to this day. They are also to be commended, frankly, for changing Stoker's mustachioed eastern European gent to a sickly, hideous leech. Despite the moments when Schreck looks merely silly, he's still preferable to Bela Lugosi, who never looks (and especially sounds) anything BUT silly. [The DVD is shockingly decent, when you consider it's by Image Entertainment. The picture quality is probably as good as it's going to get; you can choose between two audio scores; and it even has worshipful commentary from someone called Lokke Heiss, a "German silent film enthusiast" (why am I reminded of Steve Buscemi's "Seymour" from *Ghost World*?). I do feel that he overinterprets the movie -- a forgivable fault of the "enthusiast", I suppose.]
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant! But What the Hell Was that Music?
Review: I've always been a fan of the silent film era, and NOSFERATU stands out as one of my favorites. I had only seen it once on a late night channel, then I saw this version of it at a Blockbuster. So I bought it, got all ready to enjoy it, and then(although it was still brilliant) the music came on. This pseudo-scary weird accompaniment totally unhinged the creepiness and overall feel of the entire film. I ask all filmmakers or film distributioners, WHY DO YOU THIS? The films are fine by themselves! If they're such great cult classics already, why change them? Sure, I can completely tolerate Director's Cut Versions of a film, geez, I actually prefer it if that is the vision the director had in mind(Speaking of which, catch the 20th Anniversare Director's Cut of Dawn of the Dead, there's an example of a great directors cut). Anyways, NOSFERATU is an amazing film, and I say go see it, but if you happen to see the cover above, I would personally steer clear of this version unless you're deaf or have a high tolerance level...See Nosferatu, the original gothic, and if that wasn't enough, catch Shadow of the Vampire. Willem Dafoe's performance is worth the entire strange little film. Oh, and John Malkovich is cool in it too.
Rating: 
Summary: Watch out! Nofsreatu is a really old movie!
Review: Some body told me that I should see this movie because its supposed to br the first Dracula movie and I like vampire movies alot. But this movie is'nt even about Dracula as far as I can tell! For one thing his name is'nt even Dracula its Count Nofsreatu! And he does'nt even wear a cape! And this movie is way too old IMHO. Its like the acters don't even know how to act! Its not evey scarey! Do yourself a faver and watch one of the Newer Dracula movies like Lost Boys or Blade 2. Those movies have lots of aciton and blood that Nofsreatu does'nt have (and their in color, I might add). If you wan't to go to sleep watch this movie! Ill give it 2 stars because theres a vampire in it. Bwa ha ha!
Rating: 
Summary: A great classic to watch, not to good orchestration though.
Review: The movie is quite frigthening in some scenes, and it shows the great talent of murnau and max shreck himself, i bought this dvd recently and i enjoyed it, because everytime i play the movie it i find something new, and gives that eerie feeling of the movie not being actually a movie but something else.The image is ok, for a 1920's film i cant ask for something better, the audio department mostly ... sadly, the new audio essay performed by the silent orchestra has to much rythim for the movie and makes it a bothersome most of the times its like hearing to a fairy tale story, i was dissapointed with the new audio essay because it appears that its going sound really great(mainly on the main menu) but i expected a really creepy music to accent the movie but i found most of the time a dumb cheesy interpretation, it has also the original organ soundtrack, but it sounds different from the one that i recalled, besides it sounds repetitive and sometimes boring. The add ons where great though, it has a good audio commentary, and several images and comments about the making of the film and the locations where it was filmed. this is one of my favorite movies and the dvd has many good features but its preffer to watch it mute and playing a good instrumental cd orchestration like bach.
Rating:
Summary: Creepy and intriguing
Review: From the point of view of someone in 1922, this must have scared the daylights out of people. We now are a lot less frightened; gore-driven horror films and hyper-realistic special effects have inured us to a lot of things that would have scared our great-grandparents into unconsciousness. But even now, Max Schreck's performance is sublimely creepy. His Orlok/Nosferatu is not the suave sexual vampire of post-Bela Lugosi times. He's an incarnation of sickness and disease, whose totem animal is the plague-carrying rat rather than the bat. He seems to carry the miasma of the grave, of rotting wood and mold and things that have decayed too far to even have the stench of death any more. The other actors' performances are sometimes laughable and hammy, no doubt about that. Greta Schroeder only seems to get into her character at the end, while Gustav Von Wangenheim, well, his performance is just plain odd and sometimes guffaw-worthy. But Schreck, as Nosferatu, drains the inadvertent humor away, and makes you watch him every time he's onscreen. He makes your skin crawl looking at him. It's brilliant work for an actor in that period, handicapped as they were by the absence of sound and color. Schreck seems to use these handicaps to his advantage, almost as if he knew they were there. It's a very prescient role, in a sense; he set a tone, and put across a unique vision of the Vampire, that has never been matched or equaled. The association of Nosferatu with the Black Plague is clearly drawn. Nosferatu does not offer the vampire life as an eternal party where one never grows old. He offers a vision of the vampire as someone who is ill unto death but cannot die. He draws the life from others to keep himself at the edge of survival, while causing others to die from the disease he cannot let himself succumb to. He points up something the other vampire movies do not address; the survival of the vampire is a trade-off. He trades the Devil your life for his. This makes the vampire worse than a simple predator. It makes him diseased in both mind and body, and willing to spread that disease. Schreck's Nosferatu puts this point across with chilling power. Yes, the restoration is as good as could be expected, especially considering this movie was thought to be utterly destroyed at several points in its history. And I don't have a problem with the new music, although I can see why some people prefer to play gothic rock while watching it. (Nick Cave, in particular, would go well with this movie.) But the real reason you should see this is to watch Max Schreck, to watch Murnau's direction (which is an artistic statement in itself), and to sit and think about the question of what Nosferatu represents. Nosferatu will not scare the pants off you. But in the night, in the wolf hours, he will lurk at the back of your mind. And what he represents is more frightening than anything his descendents have been able to show us.
Rating:
Summary: Great film, bad soundtracks
Review: An unsettling masterpiece that seemingly is without origin. It says 1922, but it could easily be 1522. There is an incredible attention to cinematic narrative and detail - all with static shots -- and the screen's creepiest Dracula. Sadly, I agree with the others. The organ score is bland and detracts from the horror, while words like "doofus" and "cheesy" are apt words for the modern soundtrack (the best way to imagine how it'll sound in 20 years is to think of what a "modern" soundtrack from the 70s would sound like now). Years ago, there was a VHS version that had the perfect soundtrack, which was seemingly composed with an organ that came from the same murky past as the movie itself. The movie isn't the same without it.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Greatest Motion Pictures
Review: and the most consistantly recognized 'horror' flick. This actor, Max Shreck is incredible. Very forboding, just what horror should be! Good DVD extras, but I dislike the menus which cheapen the film and the main character out of perspective into goofiness. ...
Rating:
Summary: Great Edition of the movie, but not perfect
Review: I don't want to repeat too much of what others may have said about this movie - considering there are over 80 reviews posted at the time of this writing. (87 to be exact) This was an unlicensed movie version of the novel "Dracula." Names were changed in an attempt to hide that fact that the movie was being illegally made. Somehow the movie survived even though there had been a court order to destroy the prints. Some video editions will have the original names, others may have the characters matched up to their names in the novel. For example, "Dracula" instead of "Orlok" or "Harker" instead of "Hutter." This DVD uses the original names. I have the Video Yesteryear videotape edition, Arrow Video videotape edition (with music by Type O Negative), the LaserDisc by Image/Blackhawk Films, and now the DVD by Image/Blackhawk Films. I find it interesting that each version has a different version of the onscreen titles. The LaserDisc edition might be the only one that appeared to have original titles. All of the others had re-created the titles for that edition except for titles that involved handwritten notes. This DVD is different - all titles were redone. Plus, it seems to use a different translation. Some of the titles appear to be more wordy on the DVD than some other editions. There is a different style for each type of title - speech, narration, and handwritten stuff. The speech titles follow the more traditional silent film title format with large text, but they don't use a basic font. It's not the best choice, but it's not too bad. Handwritten notes use a simple font that look like handwriting, but not too fancy. It looks like basic letters. I hate the narration titles - overly fancy letters with loops all over the place. It looks more like a handwritten title, but it is the narration. All of the titles were created with a character generator (electronic device used to add titles to video) with simulated scratches added in to make the titles fit in. Overall the quality of the film itself is very good. You do have the option of two different musical tracks - new age or organ. I personally don't like the new age music, and it doesn't seem to fit what's happening onscreen. The same could be said for the organ score, but I feel the organ fits it better. (It may not be new age, but to me it seems like it is.) I felt my Video Yesteryear tape had the best music, and later I found out it was simply Vivaldi's Four Seasons - but it actually fit fairly well. Because of differences in frame rates and possible differences in the prints the companies had access to plus the composition may not have been played in proper order, simply playing a CD of Vivaldi may not match as well. Some parts may have also been repeated. "Summer - Presto" was used for the coach ride to the castle on that videotape. I wish this DVD had some classical style music written for it. You can also listen to a somewhat boring expert on the other audio track. The expert sounds as if it's reading his words and tends to speak in a monotone. He is the same person who speaks during some of the bonus material. The extras on this DVD are very nice. Although I don't care for the voice, there is much information here about each of the exteriors used during the filming - what they were then and how they look now. There is also some information about some of the techniques used in the filming of this movie. The DVD menus are nicely done - a little Orlok head is used as the selection pointer. When you go to the extras menu, you see a part of the movie where a door opens, and the menu options fly through the doorway before becoming an active menu onscreen.
Rating:
Summary: Giant Human Mosquito
Review: I was most struck by the acting of the characters, which was very exaggerated. It has been said that Nosferatu's actors were directed this way because it was German expressionism. Even so, it seems that many older films have rather unrealistic acting and, in talkies, unrealistic modes of speech, such as the vocal inflections and accents. Since there was no talking in this one, the latter doesn't apply, but no doubt that would have occurred had there been. Much of the physical mannerisms appeared influenced by stage acting, which is understandable since the actors would have had experience in only that sort of setting. Nonetheless, all of this didn't detract from the film and made their emotions much more obvious to an audience that can't hear them speak. I seem to remember the film Metropolis being at a higher than normal speed, like it was filmed at 15 or 20 frames a second and sped up a little. Most of Nosferatu appeared to have been filmed at a higher frame rate with only a few parts at accelerated speed for a purely artistic effect. In fact, much of this film seemed slowly filmed, with subtle, extended shots. The most notable is when the vampire is coming into the protagonist's bedroom for the first time. He very slowly creeps in, for almost equally creepy effect. There seemed to be a fascination with tall buildings, prominent shapes, and framing symbols. In Nosferatu, the dominant shapes are arches and windows. I am not certain what, if any, metaphorical symbolism is meant by this. However, it does serve to show us how tall the vampire is when he stands in an arch and how much the city folk stay in doors, only peaking out through a window occasionally. What I disliked about the film was the length of this particular cut. Due to the absence of recorded vocals, it would be best to limit the length of silent films to about an hour, give or take a few minutes. My peak level of concentration occurred at just before the hour mark, and the last 30 minutes seemed to burden my patience somewhat. I can definitely see the utility of the shorter Nosferatu cuts that were supposedly put together.
|
