Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Werner Herzog's Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht is a visually stunning film. The story and scenes are clearly a homage to the original Nosferatu:A Symphony Of Horror. It is a beautiful homage to F. W. Murnau's 1922 film.Klaus Kinski plays Count Dracula, (in the 1922 movie, the rights to Bram Stoker's book Dracula could not be obtained so the Count's name was changed to Orlok.) He is very much like Max Schreck, the same gaunt appearance, the same long fingernails and rat-like features.Kinski is brilliant in the role of the lonely nobleman who is doomed to an eternity of existing on the edges of society rather than being able to fully take part in it. Kinski brings a pathos to the role and you can feel a sympathy with him even though he is a rodent-like, repellent creature. Isabelle Adjani is a standout as Lucy Harker. Her lovely yet fragile presence is perfect to play the beautiful wife of Jonathan Harker, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz. Roland Topor as Renfield was a good choice as well. His crazed laugh was almost as good as Dwight Frye who played Renfield in Tod Browning's Dracula.What makes this film a classic are the lyrical, almost dreamlike scenes that show the slow but steady buildup to horror as Lucy sees her beautiful town being destroyed by the Count and the thousands of rats that he unleashed to spread disease, panic and despair. The last supper scene with the dying diners was breathtaking in it's restrained beauty and despair.This truly is a beautiful film, slow but ultimately rewarding. The musical score as perfect in setting the mood.The only gripe I have about the film was the treatment of the animals used. Apparently, the rats that were used were badly treated and so underfed that they had started to eat each other. They were also dipped into boiling water as part of a process to dye them gray and many of them died as a result. There were also allegations of other animals being mistreated as well.But despite this, it is a wonderful film and a truly unique experience to watch.

"Nosferatu the Vampyre" (also known as "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht" auf Deutsch), is a remake of the F.W. Murnau film, which follows Count Dracula and his "interest" in buying a castle near the Black Sea; Jonathan Harker, along with his wife, Lucy, become entangled with the Count, who has had a profound effect on Jonathan.Often lauded as one of the better vampire films, Werner Herzog's retelling of the 1922 film is indisputably beautiful. The film opens with a chilling montage of various corpses in a catacomb, followed by a lingering shot of a bat against a dark turquoise sky, all set to a chilling and ethereal score. This is the kind of fashion in which the entire film is presented; long, moody shots of characters, and quiet emphasis on foggy fields and dark mountain passes. It is these precise moments that make Herzog's film stand out, and are also what make it so eerie. The score is haunting and accentuates the loneliness and solitude of these scenes, and the turnout is equally gorgeous and harrowing. As a mood piece, the film is phenomenal.Some have complained about the film's slow nature, and I'll give them that—this is not a narrative-driven film, and it is slow as molasses at times. The viewer needs to understand what they are getting themselves into here, as it is a far cry from most contemporary vampire films. Klaus Kinski's performance as the meek and paltry Dracula is memorable for its evocation of total despair. Isabelle Adjani is decent, although I actually found her understated and somewhat eccentric performance to be a bit single-note; she's done far better in her career, but she's not bad by any means. Bruno Gaz is also a solid presence as the hero-turned-victim, Jonathan Harker.Overall, "Nosferatu the Vampyre" is an aesthetic accomplishment that is completely visually absorbing. Herzog wrings atmosphere from every shot and musical cue, and the film is unforgettable for that. It is unusually slow-moving, so it's not something that can really be casually-viewed. In any event, it is a hazy and quietly unnerving film, and one of the best horror remakes to date. Memorable scene: the Count's initial intrusion into Lucy's room—check out the cinematography. 8/10.

I found this film to be a bit of a mixed bag. It has many strengths - thick atmosphere, haunting score, great cinematography, fantastic locations and great set design. Most of all, Klaus Kinski is mesmerizing as Count Dracula. He has such a strong screen presence and everything about him - the way he moves, speaks, stares - it all just works and feels very compelling. He steals every scene he is in to the point where many of the scenes without him feel dull by comparison.And I hate to use that word - dull - but for some reason I couldn't shake it from my mind for some sections of this movie. The pace is slow and brooding, which is something that I tend to like. A lot of my favorite horror films are slow and deliberate, The Shining chief among them. But it's all in the execution, and here I found the slowness to be a bit burdensome. The movie can come off as wooden at times. Apart from Klaus, the acting can be a bit questionable as well, especially with Lucy's character. I'm sure she is just following direction from Herzog, but I found her to be a little blank and unconvincing, which is a pretty major issue considering she is meant to carry essentially the entire second half of the film. There are also some moments that play as hokey: all the members of a bar turn in unison and gasp at the mention of Dracula, characters read aloud about vampires from a book when no one is around etc. However, the scenes that work, absolutely work (and they uniformly involve Klaus). It's worth seeing for those scenes and the nice atmosphere, but I don't think it's a film that I'll be hurriedly returning to any time soon.

(84%) Without doubt one of the better Dracula based movies ever put to film. It's certainly up there with Universal's classic, Hammer's, or pretty much anything else, even Blade 3. The opening is one of out and out horror with really hideous looking deformed mummified corpses that marks one of the sharpest descents into terror ever, but thankfully for the squeamish there's some footage of fluffy kittens playing to balance out the dread. This follows the actual Dracula story quite well, and like the novel the best part is Jonathan Harker making his way toward the count and his grim fate. Klaus Kinski's is superb as the foul monster, and even though I found him very amusing in parts there's still something very creepy about the design. The stunning Isabelle Adjani is also fantastic as Lucy Harker who fits the role better than anyone else could. The only issue here is the fact that this is at its best in the first half, while the second is just not as strong, but overall this is a must-watch for all followers of Dracula: the dirty old man.