|Page 5 of 35:||              |
|Index||345 reviews in total|
I always like to plug this film in more than any other in the vampire
genre. The atmosphere just draws me in with the shades of black and
white acting as the color scheme, allowing me to focus on the film and
not be distracted by random colors. The vampire's design is so
haunting, the silence of the piece helps with the vampire's mystique,
leaving only his movements to provide the chills.
A few negatives I have with this film is firstly, the music. My copy of the film uses an organ to provide the sound. It is bit repetitive but it does the job for me. Others I have watched have used totally unfitting or just annoying scores. The characters get really no development in my opinion, and I just don't care about them. It could be a fault of the medium at the time or I'm just missing it.
The film is definitely a must watch, especially with the right score.
Nosferatu is a 1922 German film directed by F.W. Murnau, written by
Henrik Galeen, and starring Max Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, and
Liked it, didn't love it. There are so many times during horror films when I think of a smarter plan of action than the characters did, and this movie was just the same. I totally understand that it is a classic, and it definitely deserves to be. It's important to note the time this movie came from while critiquing it. Things in the film that may seem amateur now were ground-breaking back then. The film unfolded in a somewhat confusing manner. Something I've noticed about watching these earlier films is that the pacing is strange. It will be moving incredibly slow and/or including scenes that weren't really necessary, and then things that should take a long time happen in a snap with no explanation. I know that's vague but when watching, be prepared for seemingly random behavior stemming from somewhat ambiguous motives. I thought I was having difficulty suspending disbelief, but you can only blame it on that so many times before you have to accept that the film just isn't filling in all the blanks. It was successful in creeping me out, that's for sure. Interesting enough but I did find myself ready for it to be over a while before it actually was. It has awesome special effects for 1922. There were interesting, creative angles. It is a classic for a reason, definitely, and I'll recommend it, I guess.
Bechdel test: 0/1 Did not pass. Only one female character and her sole reason for existence was to worry about her husband and be in utter despair.
Did I enjoy it? Yes. 1/1
Do I ever want to see it again? I would watch it again, yes.
Do I ever want to include it in my own collection? It's already included but I don't think I would intend to buy it if it wasn't.
7/10 Bye love you -Jessie Carlson
"Nosferatu" is a horror movie which was an unauthorized adaptation of
Bram Stoker's "Dracula" with some changes because of rights, so they
changed the names and from "vampire" became "Nosferatu" and "Count
Dracula" became "Count Orlok". But the plot and also the storyline is
about the same as we know it nowadays.
I have to admit that even though this is an old movie I liked it because it is considered one of the must see horror movies in order to understand the history of horror. This movie maybe is considered as a just old horror movie that can not give you anything but I have to disagree with this opinion and for instance I have to say that this movie can give you a lot. Some of them are that this movie was the idea of vampires to be killed by sunlight and of course this movie was the start of horror movies in that times.
Finally I believe that "Nosferatu" is a movie that everyone has to watch because through this you can have a historic lesson about cinema and of course horror. I have also to prepare you not to have any visual expectations from this movie or plenty of action but instead of this it has much of suspense. Also you have to take into consideration that this movie is about one hundred years old, so do not judge it hardly and also do not judge it before watching it.
This movie is only equal to Dracula 1931.
It is the shadow aspect of the Vampires.The Jekyll of Jekyll and Hyde.
The hidden horror that lurks within all Vampires.
One might choose to become like Bella Lugosi or Nosferatu or perhaps something else.
It is up to you to make that choice.
We have the freedom to choose what we want to be and accept as part of us and that can be anything at all.
The world is filled with all kinds of creatures with diverse personalities and biologies even when appearing to be the same speceis.
No one knows it all even if you belong to all of this.
Nosferatu 1922 is the dark side of you.Not just the Vampires.
The extreme that lies on the far end of the road if we choose to take it.
A cursed life which is doomed from the start.
Allow me to start off by saying that Nosferatu is a complete, shameless
rip-off of Dracula. Sure, the vampire's name has been changed, and the
story moved from London to Bremen, but the plot and many of the
characters remain the same. Bram Stoker's widow actually sued the
filmmakers for copyright infringement, securing a court order that all
copies of the film be destroyed. We are fortunate today that a handful
of prints survived. Sure, Nosferatu may be a rip-off, but it's still
one heck of a horror movie.
The movie does have some very real problems. Although the filmmakers had one of the great novels of the previous century to work with, the problems of adapting it into a screenplay, together with the constraints inherent to all silent films medium, mean that some plot points never become all the way clear. There is also a bit of Bad Exposition Syndrome involving the film's solution. And although Professor Van Helsing appears, he never actually confronts the villain.
But the issues are more than made up for by Nosferatu's sheer creepiness. Conrad Viet (?) playing the title role, sports one of the all time great horror movie makeup jobs. His pointed ears, completely bald head, narrow cheekbones, and bushy eyebrows give him an aspect that is terrible to behold. His hands are oversized, with his fingers narrowing into long claws. And forget the standard pair of fangs; all of his teeth are needle sharp, and his mouth is absolutely packed with them.
This eeriness extends to practically every other aspect of the film as well. The Transylvanian castle fills the viewer with foreboding from the moment it is first seen, and the darkly lit halls and corridors within are no less disquieting. Even more menacing is the ruined manor in Bremen. Every window is broken, part of the roof is collapsed, and indeed it seems that at any moment the entire structure could come crashing down.
The special effects are also worth noting. Although crude by today's standards, there is still something frightening about seeing doors open and close on their own, or coffin lids floating through the air. We know that these sights can't be real; the jerkiness of the movements tells us that something is up. But the incompleteness of the illusion only adds to the feeling that something is not right, heightening our sense of apprehension.
Great advances in production values have taken place since this film was made, and I admit that Todd Browning's Dracula, made only a decade later, had much better plot and characterization. But Nosferatu is still the one of the most frightening movies I've ever seen, able to give even the hardiest of audiences nightmares. And if it can still have this effect today, just imagine what it must have been like for people watching this in 1921. It's not hard to picture many a burgher making their way home through the dark, narrow streets of Berlin or Munich, convinced that their every step was shadowed by an immortal being that lived only to suck the very life out of them, and to You're not reading this in the dark are you?
Highly influential silent horror classic. It follows the basic story of Dracula. As pretty much everybody knows, they did this adaptation of Stoker's novel without permission. His widow sued and won. The court ordered that every print of this film be destroyed. Thankfully for us, somebody saved a copy. That this film was made nearly a century ago is astonishing. The makeup for the ratlike Count Orlock, played by Max Schreck, is amazing even by modern standards. Orlock still stands to this day as the most uniquely frightening vampire ever put on film. Director F.W. Murnau creates an eerie, otherworldly atmosphere. He uses many authentic "Old World" locations that are very spooky. There are lots of creepy and scary moments in Nosferatu. As much as I love the Universal and Hammer Draculas for their entertainment value, I think this is the scariest of all the different versions I've seen. It's best seen at night, as most great horror films are.
I have loved this film since I experienced it late night on TV some time ago. I watched it on a B&W portable and was impressed by its style, cinematography and invention. I have since viewed it on VHS and DVD but had not truly been able appreciate the true vision of this movie until I viewed it this week on the remastered three disc BD from Masters of Cinema, as part of their 'Eureka' collection. In a world full of CG and 3D movies, this still stands head and shoulders above the rest as a great piece of cinema and history. In high def on a large screen TV it is phenomenal, with deep contrast you make out all the character and set details as never before. It bothers me to think this movie was nearly wiped out of existence when the estate of Bram Stoker won their case to have all copies of the film destroyed based on copyright infringement. Thank the maker they never got all of the copies.......
This is pure (true) vampire film. Deeply Gothic sets and costuming, a
wickedly evil vampire and a more than scary visual atmosphere in this
black and white silent horror movie classic.
What I am not crazy about is the film's score (the music we hear)- most of it is not very Gothic nor suspenseful or mysterious sounding enough for me. It's too "cutesy" sounding for my taste - and that ruins the atmosphere that is created within an otherwise good movie.
All in all this is a pretty good movie to watch and Max Schreck is one of the creepiest vampires to ever graze the screen. It is worth watching if you like your vampires extremely scary.
My choice for the scariest horror film ever made (with considerable
honourable mention to Ridley Scott's Alien) is the quintessential
vampire film F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens.
Made in 1922, its age is part of the reason why it's so strikingly
horrific. It feels all the more tangible and eerie, especially due to
it being shot on location rather than a soundstage. It doesn't offer
shock horror that we're so used to and desensitized from these days,
given its silence, but instead incites an overwhelming sense of unease.
Is there anything more convincingly ghastly than Max Schreck as Count
Orlok? A substitute here for Bram Stoker's famous Dracula due to rights
issues, but a character that is no less a part of pop culture.
The figure of the vampire seems to be no longer one of horror. Saturated and romanticized over recent years of PG-13 young adult films, not to mention an abundance of parodies, Schreck's performance however still stands tall as an iconic monument in monster movies. Perhaps it is due to the nature of the character in this context. Klaus Kinski almost meets Schreck's match in Herzog's 1979 Nosferatu remake (it takes a lot to claim that Kinski has been outdone in the scary faces department), and Willem Dafoe's committed portrayal of the actor in the mediocre Shadow of a Vampire is one of the greatest performances of all-time in its own right.
While myths perpetuated in the aforementioned film wherein Schreck is believed to be so convincing as a vampire because he is one are easy to shake off, he does indeed bring an otherworldly atmosphere. Even when he does nothing in the frame but stand, the film has a crippling tension in his enigmatic mystery. His grotesque rat-like makeup with his pointed ears and bulky nose, his tall rigid intimidating figure, the claws of his hands and nails, and the hollowness of his face are all pure nightmare fuel. Even his silhouette sends shivers down my spine. Schreck uses the tool of his body impeccably to create a sense of perpetual menace.
Its most haunting scene comes just passed the midway point when the film's protagonist has escaped from the vampire's castle and Orlok slowly follows him via a ship transporting coffins. The image of Orlok springing out of a coffin is chilling. As he kills off the sailors, which is later blamed on the plague, it suggests a sinister omniscience and omnipotence about him that previous scenes couldn't implicate, and it hints at the crushing inevitability of death.
Even so, it isn't as overtly expressionistic as other German films of the time, especially Murnau's own films, but that restraint only makes it more generous to the actors and the story. The simplicity of the iconic frames of looming shadows is enough to withstand 92 years. The film outside of Schreck is still quite notable, in its storytelling ideas (it was the first vampire film to suggest that they could be killed by sunlight) and penetrating themes of fear, narcissism, sexuality and death. Nosferatu is as thoughtful as it is unsettling. I was lucky to see it with a live orchestra two years ago and that experience has stayed with me since. An essential horror film.
Read more @ The Awards Circuit (http://www.awardscircuit.com/)
Any critic would elect this movie the masterpiece of expressionist cinema. Beyond the definitions, any viewer can not help but consider it a series of pictures at an exhibition, harbingers of horrific suggestions beyond the capabilities of Friederich and Munch. Max Schreck will probably be remembered as the Nosferatu closer to the figure of the vampire that has ever appeared on the screens, so as to suggest (to some) that Murnau had a real vampire playing the role. It seems then that Schreck was his real last name, curious twist of fate, since it means "Terror" in German! Although the names of the characters from the novel "Dracula" by Bram Stoker were all changed, the director was sued by Stoker's heirs and lost the lawsuit. Returning to the movie, even if seen in a cut version (missing half an hour) it is a timeless masterpiece, and I think that instead of staying here to hear me talk about it you should go and see it!
|Page 5 of 35:||              |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|