|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jan 27, 2021 3:34:43 GMT
What’s the verdict on this one? Only the English language version available upon viewing. A tad slow but things later move once our title character is on the ship. The cinematography is stellar, particularly its use of shadows. Not much desire to ever watch it again, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 27, 2021 3:36:00 GMT
I really liked it. Much more than the 1922 version.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 27, 2021 3:40:03 GMT
It is a good movie for the most part, but I think it has pacing problems and I dislike the casting of Bruno Ganz here. It also lacks the same level atmosphere and creep factor of the original. It does have maybe the creepiest opening credits sequence of all time though.
As big of a fan I am of Werner Herzog, I think his style doesn't fully mesh with the material.
6.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by alexhurricanehiggins on Jan 27, 2021 5:12:53 GMT
Classic
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Jan 27, 2021 5:56:32 GMT
It's a very arthouse type of horror film. I love the look of the vampire, but the 1922 original is my preferred version.
By the way, I visited the town where the rats congregate in the film back in 2013. It looked identical to how it appeared in 1979. It's in the Netherlands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 27, 2021 6:00:46 GMT
I prefer the original. The vampire is a total creep.
The atmospheric set design looks good in the 79 version though.
I wonder how many actors have played both Renfield and "Dracula" like Kinski did.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 27, 2021 7:56:11 GMT
What’s the verdict on this one? Only the English language version available upon viewing. A tad slow but things later move once our title character is on the ship. The cinematography is stellar, particularly its use of shadows. Not much desire to ever watch it again, though. 10/10. |
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Jan 27, 2021 10:21:00 GMT
Had a successful re-watch, back in fall of 2017, during the October Horror Challenge: 
October Horror Challenge - Day Seventeen:
Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)It have been far too long since I last watched this Herzog Kinski film, and what I do remember most from back then was the eerie/chilling opening scene with the mummiefied bodies and their horrifying facial expressions along with a very unsettling theme by Popol Vuh. And just as 10-12 years ago, this very scene is still as unpleasant to behold as it was back then. The mummies/dead people are both scary and yet somehow fascinating, and is also the scariest scene of the film and before you know it, a huge flying bat lashes out with its wings in the darkest hour of the night and the beautiful Isabelle Adjani screams her lungs out, as she realizes that it is just a "dream". Werner Herzog's Nosferatu is not just a great remake of the original german classic from 1922, but one I liked even more and while the former was more creepy, the 1979 version is at times stunning to look at, and many of the scenes could almost be a painting where the scenery, locations and use of music is almost magical to witness. I guess the one word that fits well to describe this film is: haunting. It might just be the most beautiful vampire movie I have seen. Bruno Ganz does a fine job as Jonathan Harker and the same goes for Isabelle Adjani in the role of his beloved Lucy. But it is of course Klaus Kinski who steals the show as count Dracula and this time he portrays him not as the "classic" Kinski character with the chaotic rage and close of being a complete lunatic, instead here Klaus delivers a very different kind of personality to Dracula, where as Max Schreck was creepy as hell, the 1979 version is more of a depressed and lonely figure, who seems to have very little to "live" for and is not scary or as menacing as other vampires in movies, but I liked how he put in a more tragic side to the story, and he did so very well. However, the real star of this film is not Kinski, but the locations, the scenery, the music as they all play their part very well in making it a very impressive and haunting adventure/horror movie to watch, and while some of the scenes later on becomes maybe a bit too "surreal", I liked that we got to see more of what horrible things Jonathan experienced during his stay at Dracula's mansion/castle. Not the best vampire movie I have seen, but it might just be one of the most beautiful horror films that I have ever watched. 8/10 |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 27, 2021 11:26:26 GMT
The title character in NOSFERATU doesn’t appear until around the 30-minute mark. That means that director F.W. Murnau knew about the rule of horror cinema where you do that with the monster in order to create suspense. But after you do that, you can focus completely on him. And you know what? That's what should've happened here! COUNT ORLOK has no real personality. He was interesting enough for me to want to see more of him... but he only appears in a total of 9 fucking minutes! The rest of the movie is about the humans who happen to be as boring as ORLOK’s hobbies must be (he's a vampire, after all). That’s why I don’t think the movie is good: The ratio between interesting scenes versus the uninteresting ones. Murnau also knew about how to scare. The shots of ORLOK’s shadow and the way he lurks around are insanely creepy. But, because they’re only a few, it’s not enough to save the movie. 4/10 DRACULA is a major improvement over NOSFERATU. It gives the title character a bigger role. However, it makes the same mistake: The human characters are boring. Also, the ending is a little anticlimactic. Bela Lugosi's performance is great. I saw the version with the Philip Glass' music score. It sounds a little too modern (it was composed in the 1990s after all), but it still helps to make the movie scarier than it already was. 7/10 FRANKENSTEIN 7/10 What a cheat! THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN's title character only appears at the end! Putting that aside, some of the scenes work (especially one involving THE MONSTER and a blind man), but it doesn't work overall. It's like they came up with those scenes as ideas for the premise and then instead of choosing one they just decided to glue them together (kinda like THE MONSTER was created). The result is a meandering sequel that feels more like an afterthought of the 1st installment. And because those scenes have different themes and tones (horror, comedy, etc.), it's also very uneven. Boris Karloff's performance is as good as before, but Una O'Connor ruins every scene she's in. 4/10 DRACULA'S DAUGHTER 1/10 SON OF FRANKENSTEIN 3/10 The title character in THE WOLFMAN is terrifying. Unfortunately, the plot is a complete rehash of FRANKENSTEIN. I doubt one had to watch this franchise back-to-back (like I did) to realize that. 4/10 THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN 5/10 FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN 1/10 SON OF DRACULA 1/10 HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN 0/10 HOUSE OF DRACULA 0/10 NOSFERATU 1979 has the same mistakes the original version had, and it doesn’t have any improvements. It’s more stylish, but that doesn’t make it scary. Klaus Kinski's performance is far from bad, but he’s no Max Shreck. 1/10 DRACULA 1992 7/10 VAN HELSING 3/10 Adapting an old novel into a modern setting and adding fantasy elements? No problem… as long as you keep the essence of the novel. I, FRANKENSTEIN doesn’t have the theme of how dangerous it is to play God. I have no problem with making THE MONSTER more human or making him talk normally (the reason why the title of the movie isn’t I AM FRANKENSTEIN is explained at the end), but why add demons? And gargoyles? Actually, the graphic novel this is based on had a lot more monsters, including vampires. It would’ve made more sense to leave the vampires and eliminate the other ones. You know, because of the long-time connection between FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA. Oh, I see. They wanted to rip-off UNDERWORLD but in not such an obvious way. When I was researching on the graphic novel, which I haven’t read, I came across an interview with Kevin Grevioux, the creator. I was surprised that he talked with so much passion about a story that feels like he must’ve written in 5 minutes. It’s bland and the only creative part is what happens to the demons and the gargoyles when they die. The performances are mostly weak because the actors aren’t having fun with their ridiculous dialogue. Aaron Eckhart's is the worst because he’s not even trying. There’s nothing wrong with the action sequences. I mean, there’s no shaky cam and the slow motion isn’t excessive, which is a compliment considering modern action movies... but that’s not enough. Especially with such terrible visual effects. I can forgive certain clichés as long as they make sense. For example, when TERRA tells ADAM something like “I’ll go alone and you’ll go alone. That’s better, because you only care about yourself.” What?! She had just met him at that point! There are many scenes like that and they show how poorly constructed the movie was. 0/10 DRACULA UNTOLD 0/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
|
|
Post by Hurdy Gurdy Man on Jan 27, 2021 16:19:22 GMT
I wonder how many actors have played both Renfield and "Dracula" like Kinski did. Not the same but similar case: Rutger Hauer played Dracula in Dracula III: Legacy and Van Helsing in Dario Argento's Dracula.
|
|
