Rating: 
Summary: CREEPY...
Review: It was a perfect night for viewing a "horror" movie that was listed as a comedy(there were a few funny scenes, but it's not a comedy!) on the box from Blockbuster...It was thundering outside, and the lightening was incredible. Along with this creepy night out, is a creepy character who is played by a very creepy Willem Dafoe. While I do think he is one of the better actors around, he's always had a sort of odd way about him. He's not conventionally good looking at all, but can he act!!! And as Max Schrek he is amazing!!! I did see the original Nosferatu on video a few years ago, and Dafoe looks exactly like him in the movie and captures the whole aura of the actor that played him. That's what really creeped me out, and he has these long claw like nails to go along with the 'vampire' make-up. At first I just thought this movie was going to be like the making of nosferatu, I didn't realize they were satirizing it and making him out to be a real vampire. It's an excellent hook, and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I can't say enough good things about Dafoe's performance. It's just mind blowing. He should have gotten the Oscar! To think he lost it to Benico Del Torro, in Traffic! While he is a good actor, I don't think he was anywhere near as amazing as Dafoe. John Malkovich is amazing as the director of the film. I think he must get controlled by Max Schrek. some of his behavior seems so outlandish, and he gives the end of the film an element that just makes you really keep thinking about the movie long after it's over. I recommend a viewing of this movie to all fans of Dafoe, Malkovich, and vampire movies fans.
Rating: 
Summary: Shadow of a Possibility...
Review: This film starts so well...but then shows signs of strain and lack of artful focus. To my mind, these two signs appear when one of the studio workers, who is on a ladder, begins to descend the ladder and at the same time explains to the producer and others involved just who "Max Schreck" is. The film could have been an enticing and involving examination of film versus "reality" (are we acting...or are we real in our everyday "real" lives? What is the borderline between actual reality...as we perceive it and experience it IN OUR MINDS...and the "reality" which we see projected in light and shadows and colors upon the screens and then react to and interpret...as if it also were another kind of reality?)... And, indeed, there are lines of the dialogue which try to lead us in that direction: "Our battle -- our struggle -- is to create art. Our weapon is the moving picture. Our poetry will be shadows that lengthen and conceal. Our light will play across living faces that laugh...and agonize." "We are scientists engaged in the creation of memory." But, then, the film itself which surrounds these promising, enticing possibilities delivers less than the lines. The core film is a supposed examination of the making of the film "Nosferatu" by the German director F.W.Murnau. This approach is interesting when thought about...for we, as the audience, are watching a film (which is a fictional creation -- not a reality) which concerns a character named "F.W. Murnau" who is making a film (in the film we are watching)which is about a fictional vampire... who is supposed to be "Count Dracula" (Bram Stoker's famous fictional creation) ... but Stoker's widow did not give the real Murnau permission to use the book, so Murnau changed the name of the vampire to "Count Orlock" and the name of the film he was making to "Nosferatu" -- and to intertwine perceptions even more disturbingly, the character of "Max Schreck" in "Shadow" is supposed to be a "real" vampire hired by the character director "F.W.Murnau" to portray Count Orlock in the film which he is shooting. Though it all sounds murky and confused, it remains clear in the viewing...the problem comes in some of the acting...Malkovich tends to chew up the frames a bit when he blusters, "I AM THE DIRECTOR!" ...and when he confronts and berates "Max Schreck" for having preyed upon his cameraman...it again seems more bluster than good acting. Of course, perhaps the real F.W. Murnau was a histrionic, melodramatic, blusterer...if so, then Malkovich is giving a true performance; but without that knowledge, the performance looks forced and overdone. William Dafoe's makeup should have been as creepy as that of the reel "Count Orlock" in the original "Nosferatu"...in the scene of the confrontation, the character looks more like a German Expressionist version of "Scrooge" (as portrayed by Alastair Sim). There are, indeed, some involving scenes as well. When the actor/vampire "Max Schreck" is told to think of something he really desires...but cannot have...he says..."Light...the light of the sun..." Then, later, in the film he projects a scene of sunlight onto a sheet and tries to grasp it...and then looks directly into the projector to see the sunlight projected onto his retinas. The other affecting scene comes at the end of the film, when "Murnau" is hand cranking the camera and shooting the death of "Orlock"...as "Orlock" dies, the figure is transformed...and finally the death becomes a strip of celluloid film dissolving within the projector itself... and we watch as it melts. Some of the dialogue seems improvised...whether it is or not. So as the film goes on, it becomes a "struggle" within the mind whether to go on "believing" in this film and being involved with it, or stepping outside the film as a reel experience, and to begin to see it as an object that is trying to manipulate you into believing in its depth and meaningfulness. When you realize that you are outside any film, then the film has lost you...you stop participating in its "reality" and you become critical of its object-ness and its flaws...and its manipulations upon you. Such promise and potential unfulfilled, makes one wonder what would have happened with this film if a director like Bergman, or Antonioni, or Cocteau had sunk his teeth into it?
Rating: 
Summary: DUDE OF THE VAMPIRE
Review: Ever since I heard the concept, of vampire playing an actor that was playing a vampire,I said that is a stunning concept! Add to the fact that it was about the making of the legendary german film NOSFERATU,it was a smashing premise. Then I saw the pre-views ,Hmmm looks good! Then I saw the movie!The pre-credit scene already started to lose me. I started yawning! And I told myself that this could be bad! I never yawn on a vampire movie..even if it was down right chessy! Halfway to the film! I suddenly said this is the most horrible piece of filmmaking filth that I ever stumbled upoun! There is no real development! There is no logical progression! The actors ,except Dafoe are all stiff and unreal! The humor is extremely forced!And the ending monolgue of MALKOVICH with all those insepid lines was down right hilarious!Then I saw the BEGOOTEN preview of the director that was part of the discs extras! Nd i said what a load of BS! If i saw this stupid trailer first then I would have just skipped the movie entirely because it was equally bad! Experimental horse ...! Cage should have just given it to a seaoned director like BURTON or sodenbergh god knows it would have been better than this......dude!
Rating: 
Summary: A wasted opportunity
Review: This film is basically a retread through the making of FW Murnau's 1922 masterpiece Nosferatu - eine Symphonie des Grauens. Basically it tells the fictitious tale of how Murnau hires Max Schreck (who will not appear out of make-up and costume) and tries to confuse us or merely blur our perceptions of whether or not Max was in fact a brilliant character actor or a real vampire. Ludicrous, but it could have worked. Unfortunately I do not think it has, I think the film is a lacklustre bore. Murnau's classic vampire movie, though not his best film remain one of the most poetic of all horror films. I think Willem Dafoe in Shadow captures the feel of Schreck, I also feel that his acting is superbly understated given the camp performance he could have gone for instead. Whilst the original film is a film that survives repeated viewings, I would never wish to see Shadow of the Vampire again. It really was dull, I became aware of the way the director has tried to delay the predictable and inevitable finale. So to wrap up I'd say that the idea behind the film was ludicrous but could have actually been a lot of fun and could have worked, I do not think that Shadow of the Vampire uses the potential of the story, which could have been an exciting movie with a darkly suspenseful set of sequences, instead we get a slowly moving movie that has very little to offer. John Malkovich also stars but just does angry again, which we have seen numerous times before in film such as In the Line of Fire and Con Air. John just seems to give pretty much the same performance in a number of films, which is a shame. Willem Dafoe on the other hand who I have always considered a good actor, but never anything really special delivers a quite remarkable performance from behind the heavy make up. Overall a wasted opportunity, a great performance from Dafoe, a great score and a nice opening credit sequence are the highlights amongst many lowlights on offer here.
Rating:
Summary: Different... and creepy!
Review: In Shadow of the Vampire, Director F.W. Murnau, thwarted in his efforts to obtain permission to make a movie based on the novel "Dracula," changes the vampire's name to Count Orlock and goes ahead with his project, the 1922 classic "Nosferatu." And why not? He's found the perfect "actor" to play the monster - a real vampire! As the vampire/actor, Willem Dafoe is unrecognizable and truly disturbing. His lurching movements and bizarre facial expressions mirror those of Max Schreck as Nosferatu. As cast and crew fall prey to their "eccentric" costar, Murnau (John Malkovich) keeps the film rolling, driven by his own need to finish his movie. What a bizarre concept! I thought this film would be funny - and it was - but it also made my skin crawl. Malkovich as Murnau was a soft-voiced madman, totally unconcerned with the loss of his crew, except as it affected his ability to complete the project. There was a lot going on here - the homage to the original classic, the "behind the scenes" look at how the film would have been made, had it starred an actual vampire (!), and Murnau's efforts to work around the foibles of his increasingly petulant "star." If only we'd been allowed to get to know the victims better before they met their untimely ends, this would have been a classic in its own right! It was ambitious, and it certainly had a unique premise... even though it fell just short of perfection, it's still pretty close.
Rating:
Summary: I Swear Hubby Needs Me As Laugh Track....
Review: When given a totally straight delivery, hubby has a tendency to watch a film in equally literal fashion. Thus, he was about to miss the fun of this film entirely. However, I started ROTFLMAO and it occurred to him, "Hey, this is funny." Yes, this film is absolutely hilarious and it is more about the lengths people will go for their passions and needs than it is about vampires. John Malkovich plays filmmaker Murnau making the original "Nosferatu" back in the '20s, a silent film. Willem Dafoe plays the lead actor Max Schreck, who is actually a vampire hired by Murnau to play the part as the ultimate touch of authenticity for his film. Murnau only has his film on his mind. He will and does do anything for it. Schreck only has feasting on blood on his mind, both cast and crew's but ultimately the leading lady as the piece de resistance. The cast and crew, in turn, are so used to being around crazed artistic types that Schreck's insisting on remaining "in character" and only shooting at night and in "full costume" strikes them as his "sacrifice" for his acting craft! Willem Dafoe is absolutely fabulous, as usual, and certainly deserved his long overdue best actor Oscar nomination. Malkovich does his usual solid job but the role isn't that different from his other roles. This film reminds me of "Barton Fink" and "The Muse," which also covered the far out behavior of creative artists and the prices they are willing to pay. What makes all three so good is that they are not exaggerations in the slightest. Doubt my word? Check into a live-in summer art studio course for several weeks and you'll come home knowing no exaggeration is necessary. The DVD has some fascinating extras on it including Dafoe getting made up for the role.
Rating:
Summary: Great entertainment
Review: If you have not seen Nosferatu, go out to the video store and rent it now(it's a great movie in its own right). Then watch this movie. You'll be blown away by the wit and the cleverness of the script. That, coupled with superb performances from Dafoe and Malkovich, make this a modern classic.
Rating:
Summary: subtle, but wickedly funny
Review: People who need a laugh track to tell them when to laugh should not see this. People capable of seeing -- on their own -- the humor in bizarre situations will love this. If you have even been around theatre people, you will appreciate how a crew could accept really, really odd behavior as normal -- in an actor. Beautiful transitions between the silent classic and the color "present". Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: A good vampire movie
Review: i wanted to see this movie the the thetar but I never got a chance to so I was ecstatic when it finally game out on video. I like vampires and vampire movies so I thought this was really good and very well done. I say you should deffinintly watch this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but could have been better!
Review: NOSFERATU rates among one of my all-time favorite horror classics, and I always thought to see a film version today or even a modern day re-working of the film would be a visual feast. We must remember we are very fortunate to see NOSFERATU today. Henrik Galeen adapted the story from Bram Stoker's novel DRACULA and published the novel without clearing copyright restrictions. Stoker's widow, Florence Stoker filed a lawsuit and all prints were ordered destroyed. Miraculously - one print survived! The rest is history. But back to SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE. There is no getting around the fact performances from both John Malkovich as F.W. Murnau the famed Director of NOSFERATU, and Willem Dafoe as Max Schreck who portrayed Count Orlock is nothing short of incredible. I cannot even describe in words how great they are. Udo Kier, Catherine McCormack, Eddie Izzard, and Cary Elwes are also a joy to see, but the entire story seems to be lost in its' own fantasy and fails to depict a historical projection of what actually happened during NOSFERATU's production in late 1921. Dafoe's Max Schreck (how did they get the make-up so perfect, by the way?) - is an actual vampire! He is unpredictable, creepy, cunning, charming at times, and ever lustful for McCormack's Greta Schroeder. He is more disobedient about taking Murnau's direction seriously than a house cat wanting its' treats before supper. And therein is seemingly the entire focus of the script. After filming the scene where Izzard (portraying Gustav von Wangenheim's Thomas Hutter) cuts his finger, and Orlock reacts as any vampire would react, he gets overzealous and kills the cameraman. That is where the tension between Schreck and Murnau begin, but the uneasiness concerning how he found this...animal is never fully explained. The film has its' ups and downs, but overall I see no reason to advise anyone not to see it, so if you love NOSFERATU as much as I do, and want to learn more it would be worth the DVD price. It's only that I felt the film deserved more of a plot to accomplish what it might have behind a different script.
|
