Rating: 
Summary: What if a classic horror film was made with a real monster?
Review: Early on in "Shadow of the Vampire," when director F. W. Murnau (John Malkovich) tells the cast and crew of his 1922 horror classic "Nosferatu" that he has hired unknown actor Max Schreck to play Count Orlock, he explains that Schreck has been studying with Stanislavski in Russia and is one of those actors who gets subsumed by his role. This is an intriguing enough conceit, but Steven Katz's script takes this film's conceit a bit further by having "Schreck" turn out to be a real vampire. This explains not only the need to shoot all of his scenes at night but also why he keeps attacking crew members, biting their necks and drinking their blood. The producer (Udo Kier), the writer (Aden Gillett), the new cameraman (Cary Elwes) and the film's star (Eddie Izzard) are getting increasingly nervous about people dying while making this film, but Murnau is totally consumed with getting his vision immortalized on celluloid. Since he would be willing to make a deal with the Devil to do so, coming to an arrangement with a vampire with regards to the life's blood of his leading lady (Catherine McCormack) is a relatively trivial matter. "Shadow of the Vampire" has an obvious affection for the way in which silent movies were made, and key sequences of the film emulate the style of the time (shot in black & white, iris in & iris out, etc.). Both Schreck and Murnau are interested in immortality, albeit of different sorts, and it is not surprising that by the end of the film there is the question of which character is the real monster is quite debatable. Dafoe's performance as the title character was certainly worthy of an Oscar nomination, one of those grand disappearances beneath the make-up reminiscent of John Hurt in "The Elephant Man." Malkovich is at the stage in his career where it is difficult to notice how good he is because of how good he is (he improvised a lot of the dialogue during the final scene). Producer Nicholas Cage certainly deserves credit for getting E. Elias Merhige to direct another film. It had been almost a decade since Merhige wrote and directed "Begotten," and he was threatening to become the J. D. Salinger of contemporary American cinema. "Shadow of the Vampire" is destined to become a beloved little horror film, if not a cult classic. Given the subject matter, the DVD extras are pretty sparse this time around. Merhige does the audio commentary alone and there are brief interviews with him, Dafoe and Cage. However, the featurette is standard Hollywood fare when what I was really expecting was a documentary-style look at the original "Nosferatu" with film historians or horror writers holding forth on its greatness. While having seen the original "Nosferatu" is not necessary to understanding "Shadow of the Vampire," it certainly would enhance your enjoyment of this film, and since "Shadow" is only 93 minutes long, you can easily do a double feature on a Friday night when the moon is full. Finally, please remember this is a film that requires the willing suspension of disbelief and do not get sidetracked by how a vampire who casts no reflection in a mirror can be captured on film. Just enjoy the ride.
Rating:
Summary: A Different Kind of Vampire Flick
Review: This is not your typical "jumping out at you" vampire flick. First and foremost the acting is superior. Malkovich and Dafoe are acting perfection. These two make the film worth seeing as they inhabit their characters to the degree that you forget they are acting. The story is a little predictable -- I knew what was going to happen within the first few minutes -- and at times the plot plodded along. Overall, however, I think it's worth a look!
Rating: 
Summary: Please don't bother buying this DVD
Review: The movie was filmed beautifully with great effects. However the movie was far too short and the concept that the movie was based on was never REALLY explored to a great degree. I found the movie unsatisfying as a whole. If you'd like to rent this movie be my guest. It isn't a waste of time or anything but it certainly wasn't what I was expecting.
Rating: 
Summary: More than just a movie
Review: This movie creates a "style". Nothing that you have seen before. The B&W visuals, the subtle comedy, the great acting and the smart script makes it a classic. Malkovitch was authentic in his performance as usual and Dafoe deserved an Oscar.
Rating:
Summary: Chilling
Review: I was surprised in a good way and a bad way. It wasn't quite what I expected. The next day after I watched it, I realized this might have been the most finely directed and produced movies I have ever seen, and not to mention the acting. Dafoe put on one of the finest performances I had ever seen. The expressions and the finger nail clicking were humorous but at the same time disturbing. Malkovich was over the top in a good way. That's the only way he should act because nobody else can do it the way he can. Cary Elwes sweetened the deal too. I was looking for Nicholas Cage (the producer) to make a cameo, but there was no room for that in a, as some reviewers say, "non-Hollywood movie." F.W. Murnaeu wanted to use the moving picture as art, and E. Elias did that. Chilling, and horrible in the best way.
Rating:
Summary: Willem Dafoe rules!
Review: In 1922, German film director Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, directed an unlicensed screen adaptation of Bram Stoker's classical horror novel, DRACULA. The film was NOSFERATU. It featured actor Max Shreck (and with such a name what else can you star in besides horror films?) as the eerie Count Orlock (a.k.a. Vlad Tepes Dracula), Greta Schröder as Ellen Hutter (a.k.a. Wilhelmina Murray) and Alexander Granach as Makler Knock (a.k.a. Jonathan Harker). The shooting of the film is apparently shrouded in much mystery, with people disappearing from the set, and this sets up the premise for SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE, a fictional film about the making of - fans will argue - the best film version of the well known story of Dracula. John Malkovich stars as the eccentric film director F. W. Murnau, who in his quest for absolute realism in his work has gone to the length of hiring a real life vampire, Max Shreck, as the role of Count Orlock, who has been promised the lovely Greta Schröder as a "fee" for starring in the film. It may all sound ridiculous, but it works out great. Willem Dafoe stars as Max Shreck, and boy... what a performance! He *is* Max Shreck. It's a complete transformation. You basically can't tell the original Shreck from the Dafoe variety. Some of the scenes from the original has been reconstructed down to the tiniest detail, and it's an amazing result. And we're not just talking about external resemblance here. With just a fixed gaze, Willem Dafoe manages to bring back the eerie feel that the original Max Shreck gave the Count Orlock character. So is it a must to have seen the original NOSFERATU in order to fully enjoy this film? Well, of course, I can only speculate on this question, for I know not what it is like to see SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE without having seen the original Murnau film, but I would assume that some of the thrill is lost if you have no knowledge of NOSFERATU. Because it must be said that SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is a rather peculiar film which seems tough to label. You can't really call it a horror film for it's not especially scary. It may be perceived as a black comedy, but also this label seems a bit off. So part of the fun of watching the film, besides getting great performances from Malkovich and Dafoe (the other cast members, for instance Cary Elwes and Udo Kier, also deserves credit), was comparing the film with NOSFERATU. But if you have seen Murnau's "symphony of horror" (and enjoyed it) and have a taste for films that don't follow the standard Hollywood formulae, then I would probably label this film with the only label that seems fit, "a must see".
Rating:
Summary: The most realistic portrayal of a vampire since Nosferatu!
Review: As I read and write reviews I realize that their really is no point to them. Everyone has such varying opinions, one person can love a film and another person hates it just as much. But I've already written too many reviews to stop now, so I too will add my opinion to the pile, and remember that the best way to know if you might agree with someone is to read some of their other reviews and see just how often you agree with them. Now, on to Shadow of a Vampire. When I first saw a preview for this film on television, I was instantly excited! There are not enough horror films being made latley that don't involve aliens! I'm sorry, but I prefer classic horror, and not alien or slasher stuff! And when it comes to vampires, most of the time little effort is put into the story ideas. Here is a wonderful exception! The story here is truly engaging! The idea of taking a real situation, the filming of an actual, existing film, and throwing in a case of the supernatural, is a welcome change from the two usual vampire storylines: reviving Dracula or erotic vampires. Anyway, it was not easy for me to find this movie at one of the local theaters. First I had to wait a long time past the release date! Finally I found it, and while it wasn't quite what I was expecting, it was still wonderful. Before seeing it, movie trailers and the internet had me thinking that it was a film that would not reveal whether or not Shreck was an actual vampire until the end, if at all. This was not the case however. It is not long after Shreck's appearance that we learn the truth. This perhaps would have added an interesting element to the movie, but never the less, it was still one of the best vampire movies ever made so far. The portrayal of the vampire is extremely real. All of the acting of course is wonderful. The film seems short, although I have not checked the running time, but frankly I'm glad of that. I've grown weary of these 3 hour theatrical bombs that have been coming out lately, that are nothing more than the film industry's equivalant of boy bands. This movie, in all its briefness, makes its' point, and does it beautifully! John Malkovich is brilliant as usual, and Willem Defoe was equally stunning. There were laughs, but it never, not even in previews, appeared to be a comedy to me. I was surprised to see that statement from one reviewer. I was expecting a psychological horror film, and while it wasn't set up the way I thought it was going to be, I still got what I expected. The real horror in this film was the madness of humans, not necessarily the bloodlust of vampires. There were so many clever and subtle hints to nazi-ism throughout the film too. While this movie could have been a tad more clever, it was still very clever! Now, I'm not saying the vampire is all out scary. This movie is mainly horrifying in a disturbing sense. It sticks with you. It's wonderful though, definitely among the best movies of the year, and a welcome new addition to my DVD collection.
Rating:
Summary: Wow I'm the first to type a review on this film at Amazon.com
Review: This film is very good good score good make-up and sensational performance from Willem Dafoe as the vamp.Oscar nominations for make-up and Best Actor Willem Dafoe. See it
Rating:
Summary: A cult classic in the making!
Review: I must say that I had some strong reservations whne I came in to watch this movie, e.g., will the actors be adequate in these demanding roles. To my pleasent surprise this movie, i.e., Shadow of the Vampire VHS ~ John Malkovich is a classic (if so a cult classic) in the making. Malcovich is awesome, phenomenal and shows great fortitude, vigor and resolve as he potrays the complex character that we F.W Murnau. Defoe is also amazing in his grasp of the role of Schreck and his performance is definetly Oscar/Academy award worthy and I think the performances in this movie, i.e., Shadow of the Vampire VHS ~ John Malkovich were overlook for more easily accesible movies, e.g., Traffic; which in itself is a pity since the award should go the best performance of that actor in question, e.g., Defoe's portrayal of Count Oleg. In my point of view this is by any means possible an A class movie that should not be missed by people whom love movies with a higher intellect.
Rating:
Summary: Nosfeartu's Shadow
Review: F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" remains one of cinema's greatest achievements more than 80 years after it first saw the light of day. Its hypnotic, dreamlike cinematography, Max Schreck's haunting performance, and the revolutionary visual imagery and metaphoric texture of the film staked out new cinematic ground. Most vampire movies pale in comparison. E. Elias Merhige's "Shadow of the Vampire," however, manages to inject new blood into a genre that has spawned more than its share of anemic imitators. The premise is breathtaking in its boldness - "Shadow of the Vampire" will be a film of the making of the original "Nosferatu" in which Marnau has made a Faustian bargain with a real vampire who will play the role of an actor called Max Schreck who is playing the vampire in Marnau's "Nosferatu." This potentially perilous premise works thanks to a brilliant script, and cast of actors that are - top to bottom - outstanding. The result is a film that manages to be a rather profound meditation on the ambiguous demands of creativity which can be both life-sustaining, and all consuming to the point in which lives are destroyed. In the end the director Marnau (played by John Malkovich) manages to confer eternal cinematic life upon the vampire Schreck (Willem Dafoe) only by destroying him. Marnau, it seems, has been willing to cross his entire cast in the pursuit of cinematic shadows that linger beyond the grave, images that will flicker in the dark, forever.
|
