Customer Reviews

Shadow of the Vampire

5 star:		(40)
4 star:		(49)
3 star:		(21)
2 star:		(16)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

this fictionalized and embellished account of the filming of the 1922 classic vampire tale Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens,directed by Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau was certainly eerie and atmospheric.Willem Dafoe is unrecognizable as Max Schrek/Count Orlock underneath all the prosthetics and makeup,and pretty much inhabits the character.John Malkovich portrays Murnau as possibly insane.the scenes of interaction between Murnau and Orlock crackle with intensity.i also liked the opening sequence.i thought it really set the mood,although i could see how some people might think differently.it is a bit long,and at first glance doesn't appear to be relevant to the rest of the film.anyway,i liked it.for me,Shadow of the Vampire is a 4/5

This film is candy for film lovers, especially for those like myself who can't get enough of the early silent cinema. An imaginative and creative reconstruction of the filming of the film classic "Nosferatu," the film is very entertaining and inventive, and shouldn't disappoint any viewer. But I don't think it would hold the same level of fascination for someone who hadn't already been captivated by the original.

My only complaint, made with the understanding that not every film can satisfy every expectation, and that the film works well enough within its own plan, is that by portraying Max Schreck as a "real" vampire, we don't get to see anything about the "real" Max Schreck who I imagine to be fascinating in his own right. The film also does not shed much light on the question why this film is horrifying on its own, at least for the time in which it was made, because it feels the need to set up the scariness of the film for a contemporary audience by portraying Mr. Schreck as if he really were a strange and scary character in "real" life, i.e. as if he weren't a good actor, who happened to have found a role for which he was ideal. Now to say he is a good actor may surprise some who find his performance over the top -- but his performance really was a powerful one for the day in which it was made. It is the slow deliberateness, and singularity of purpose, that is frightening; today as film goers we tend to lack the imagination required to find this performance powerful, and want instead violence and sudden movements.

What I find most interesting about older films like Nosferatu one is that they achieve their effects using very different techniques than are used in contemporary horror films -- but that if you put yourself in the right frame of mind you can discover yourself feeling something like what one might expect a contemporary of the film to have felt. While "Shadow" succeeds on one level, as a contemporary film that replaces horror with gleeful campiness, it manages to keep the viewer at a distance from the horror of the original.

Willem Dafoe was great in this film, but that's as far as this good review goes. Maybe, I just didn't "get" what they were trying to do with this film. The story seemed extremely underdeveloped and was very rushed toward the end. Like the entire film crew suddenly realized that they had drug their feet during filming and had 10 minutes to tie it all up. Nosferatu was brilliant, and this almost downplays it's brilliance.

First of all I must admit I don't much care for most vampire movies -- different reasons for different ones. But this one I just loved! Willem Dafoe was SO camp as the very creepy looking vamp, and you could tell he was enjoying the heck out of his role. That makes it really good, when the actor is really enjoying playing a Creep. Also, the whole storyline and cinematography, other actors, screenplay, everything was just Excellent. I don't give many movies (of any genre) 5 stars, but this one I do. Awesome!!

A brilliant idea, a brilliant cast...and then comes director E. Elias Hemorroid to lend it absolutely no sense of drama or tension. Still, a fascinating failure that deserves cult status.

What a great idea for a screenplay: What if the slightly mad German director of a legendary vampire film insisted on casting a real bloodsucker for the lead role? Sadly, the director has limited skills, and the supporting cast is just so-so. But, Willem Dafoe more than makes up for these flaws with an astonishing portrayal of an ancient, cranky vampire who is vain enough to want to be a movie star, and ordinary enough to be willing to suck the blood out of ferrets in return for being the center of attention on a movie set.

Is Dafoe's performance Oscar-worthy? I think so. It certainly is better than some of the mediocre performances that have won of late. The script is strong, as well, and the cinematography is beautiful at times.

Hmmm. Interesting film. Like many pieces of art that thinks about art, it gets a bit idea-ridden. But the thoughts are interesting, and Dafoe's performance as Schreck / Count Orloch is something divinely weird. Here is a movie with a genius makeup artist, who manages to re-create the vampire of Nosferatu (no creepier vampire has ever been shown on screen, I think) with exactitude . . . and Dafoe gives him PERSONALITY! It's not just the pity-the-monster pathos, though that's beautifully touched on when, alone in a cave, he begins reading from Tennyson's 'Tithonus' . . . "The woods decay, the woods decay and fall / the vapors weep their burthen to the ground / Man comes and tills the field and lies beneath / and after many a summer dies the swam.../ Me only cruel immortality consumes. . . " but the absurdity of his situation. He has read Dracula, he says, and finds it sad, because the poor count has no servants, and has to be seen by his guest serving the table, making up a meal he cannot partake. He feeds like an old man pees, he says, all at once or in drips. He ghoulishly stuffs down a passing bat like a Circus geek. He snorts and sniffs like one so long alone has has forgotten to have normal manners. After rudely smacking his lips feeding greedily on the desired maiden (no maiden indeed!) he snores in piggy satiation. He is awful and repellant, and very, very funny at the same time. Malkovich's Murnau is a little less of a delight. The whole idea of his character--one so obsessed with creating immortal (or should we say undying?) art that he is willing to expose his cast and crew to the depradations of the real vampire thing, is a sort of mad scientist joke that has all the manifest and hard-to-believe stupidity it usually does in the old horror flicks. He keeps cranking away at the camera while Orloch snaps necks and sucks noisily on the heroine's throat. He has striven so hard for verisimilitude that he is willing to have a rogue creature on the set, but then he complains peevishly when the count dares to commit a murder in such a way as to spoil the composition in the frame. Still, what he says about art and film is telling, and memorable. The director is meant to show us another sort of monster, I guess--the kind who gets so in the grip of an idea about imitating reality that he wittingly or unwittingly shoots a snuff film. This is a level of irresponsibility it's a bit hard to accept. But then, of course, it's a level of irresponsibility in our minds because we rapidly come to believe that Orloch either believes he is the real thing or IS the real thing . . . and how real is THAT???? Meanwhile the cast and crew continue to accept his unpleasant presence as that of a method actor who takes his art very seriously. It's a clever hall of mirrors in which not all the characters have reflections. The incorporation of footage from Nosferatu is done extremely well and seamlessly. And yes, there is irony in recalling that one of the first things done in film, was to put on deathless celluloid the moving life & murderous acts of the undead.

This is a case of where the TRAILER is a way better than the movie itself. It is hard to imagine that someone could make a mess out of the story of the making of Nosferatu but E. Elias Merhige has managed to do exactly just that. There is "nothing" happening in this movie what-so-ever except for the director complaining about his production and Willem Dafoe as the actor Max Schreck trying to manipulate him as some "accidents" (of which there are very few) happen on set. Schreck is interesting for the first two minutes and then simply becomes just plain Disney. It is unintentionally funny when it is not meant to be. It is not funny when it tries to be. Dafoe thinks he is in a pantomime most of the time and it looks like one too. His performance is clumsy even at the best of times. You will see through the latex in the first five minutes. It looks cheesy and fake.

John Malkovich is back again playing an early 1900's version of......... John Malkovich.

BAH! Why bother even writing this review. This was just a mess of a film that looks restrictive in every department.

In short if you want to see a movie about the production of old horror classics then watch "Gods and Monsters" instead of this terribly ill-directed and misplaced mess. There, go do that instead. You will thank yourself for it.

Shadow of the Vampire was released with little fanfare, and the film was too quirky to earn any real money at the box office. The first time I saw Shadow of the Vampire, I was amused by the weird humor and thought it was pretty decent. Watching Shadow of the Vampire for a second time, I realize that I vastly under-appreciated this film. Shadow of the Vampire is stunning.

This film is a loving homage to silent filmmaking. Though I haven't seen all of the original silent film "Nosferatu", I've seen enough to know that Shadow of the Vampire did a great job of recreating the art direction in Nosferatu.

The humor in Shadow of the Vampire is obvious, but subtler is Willem Dafoe's sad portrayal of bizarre actor Max Schreck. Dafoe's performance can be overlooked because of his makeup and his amusing facial expressions. However, underneath the humor is a sad, lonely man. "How can you hurt me when I don't even know how to hurt myself?", asks Max. To me, that means that Max is a tortured soul that has no way to end his suffering.

The ending of Shadow of the Vampire is questionable. Did the film need to end in such a dark manner? Maybe not. But even if one questions the choices of director E. Elias Merhige and writer Steven Katz, the first 70 minutes of Shadow of the Vampire should not be dismissed. Shadow of the Vampire is simultaneously touching, funny, bizarre, and tragic - and well worth seeing more than once.

When I fist saw the original Nosferatu a few halloweens ago,I had no idea what I was getting myself into.The portray of this animalistic vampire was played beautifully.Shadow of the Vampire was another movie I wanted to see but after seeing Nosferatu I just didn't have the guts to see it.Years later I worked up my nerve and sat through this movie.I was well impressed especially with Willem Dafoes part as the mysterious Max Schreck.I recognized him as the Green Goblin in spider-man so it shouldn't have been to bad.After I saw this movie I did sleep with a nightlight for about a week (how embarrasing).But this movie is a delightful horror treat.I heard Dafoe was nominated an oscar for his role in this,if that's true than he sure deserves it.However the ending just left me with too many questions.That was pretty much the only problem with this movie.
I'm not a fan of horror by any means,but occasionally I'll enjoy a good horror flick.I ended up seeing this movie because it was halloween night,and it was on.I'd love to see it again,and I strongly recommend it to fans of horror,or just in the mood to be creeped out.