MVictorPjinsiste Okay, this isn't your usual summer blockbuster. It's got next to no action, no sex, no fights, no explosions, no blades, no chases, no violent personality conflicts... What it has is death. All these images, rythm, musical background (a hypnotic, eerie score by eclectic german band Popol Vuh) and themes are about death, oppressing death, and how it wins in the end.Even Adjani, most beautiful woman in the world at the time and today still, looks like an incarnation of a melancholic death, a ghost held up by pure emotions alone, a pre-raphaelite image of sadness and perfection. The creature itself, an avatar of death rather than a super-powered gentleman, expresses pain and solitude, stuck in timeless half existance and despair.With him, death journeys toward the protagonists' home, borne on a ship manned by the dead, bringing with her infertile soil, pestilence, confusion and finally, acceptation; The dance of the dead in the city's streets may have been one of the most intense cinematic experience I witnessed at the time, and today still I am filled with emotion as I recall the last meal, and the tranquil acceptation of inevitable death.I do not easily give scores above eight, but this was something else, and the memory of a grainy, slowly flying bat, without malice or even intent, coming down on an eerie, hypnotic musical background, as being the very image of death, is in my mind on this day still. Such images are what cinema is supposed to provide us with.

Cineanalyst Spoilers Warning Elaborated: Review contains spoilers for "Nosferatu" (1922), as well as for this film, "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht."Werner Herzog's remake of the 1922 silent film "Nosferatu," a loose adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula," is a laborious effort. F.W. Murnau's 1922 film was an interesting adaptation—altering the story considerably (although not enough to avoid a lawsuit from Stoker's widow for copyright infringement). It replaced the subtext of vampirism as venereal disease in Stoker's late-nineteenth-century tale with the plague and reset it to earlier in the century. Herzog does the same thing, but he largely abandons the naturalizing of the supernatural that went with the 1922 version. Instead, he makes Dracula lovesick... which isn't especially compatible with plague rats.In the 1922 film, the Van Helsing character was a pseudoscientist who explained vampirism as a natural phenomenon, and, in the end, he found himself powerless over it; in this 1979 version, the same character, instead, is a skeptic until he sees the supernatural for himself— after which, he drives a stake through it. Other character changes include Jonathan Harker not beginning as the happy-go-lucky chap he was in Murnau's classic, and the names of Stoker's Lucy and Mina are inexplicably switched around. As in the 1922 version, the main points of these female leads are combined in one character while the other one is just vestigial. Meanwhile, Klaus Kinski plays Max Schreck's part with sad eyes and slack-jawed heavy breathing between the slow movements and slow line delivery characteristic of the entire cast and production. And the makeup job is impressive, but as an obvious makeup job—and it's clownish.The film's slow pace wouldn't necessarily be a burden if, as in the 1922 version and a few other "Dracula" adaptations, it'd done something more interesting and cohesive with the narrative. Instead, we're left to mostly awe at the drab cinematography, admire the stilted acting, and wonder at the excess of Herzog's insertion of many shots of bats and rats. The 1979 film has a more mobile camera than the 1922 one, but it's at the expense of quicker editing. The average shot lasts ≈20 seconds here, whereas it was ≈8 seconds in Murnau's "Nosferatu" (as per the cinemetrics website). Herzog has done better; perhaps, part of the reason his "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (1972) is truly a masterpiece is due to its average shot length being nearly half that of his "Nosferatu."The 1979 version also maintains a bit more of Stoker's novel, including borrowing some of the dialogue (such as the "children of the night" line). It also expands on the doppelgänger theme between Dracula and Jonathan, which was only hinted at in the book. Here, there's an allusion to Dracula, after his death, transmigrating into Harker's body. Unfortunately, this, along with the laughable Van Helsing ordeal, also drags the pace out even more; in 1922, the Nosferatu just vanished from exposure to sunlight and that was that.(Mirror Note: the mirror scene is the best part here, as it combines the shadow of the vampire from the 1922 "Nosferatu" with the absence otherwise of a reflection from Stoker (whereas he did cast a reflection in the 1922 film). Only Dracula's shadow is seen in Lucy's mirror, which announces his arrival in the shot before he stalks up beside her.)

TheWatcher I did not know the existence of this movie until I read some information on Klaus Kinski a few days ago. This movie was referenced in his work, so I did a search on my cable service. Yes indeed, there it was available for rent. The two "pro" reviews showed ratings in the 90's. "Wow", I thought, "This must be a very great movie". I pressed the button to rent and watch this very positively reviewed movie with great enthusiasm. The opening shots were dramatic, haunting, and forebode some quality cinematography. But then, the actual "acting" began, and it was downhill fast from there.This highly rated movie should have been a great quality movie with excellent production technique, fantastic story, and exceptional acting. Any movie that gets very high ratings should have those things, otherwise it can NOT rate highly.The only area where there was some talent was in the cinematography as there were some interesting shots. However, a small handful of interesting shots can not and do not make or save a movie that has a weak story/adaptation, disregard for technical quality of images, proper film exposure, consistent color, and other aspects that say "professional. The acting would be sub par even for aSci-Fi channel movie from a decade ago. Shark-nado anyone? :)This movie looks, feels, and paces like a student film that bodes well for the student rising to something great in the future. I've not seen any other movies by this director so I can't speak to his other work. I am speaking about this film specifically, so I have no pretense and have no prejudices prior to watching this film.This much ballyhooed movie leaves me wondering what movie the positive reviewers were watching? Perhaps the positive reviews came from Kinski and/or Herzog fans who think neither can do no wrong? Perhaps those viewers imbued this film with ideas and images they thought about after having read Bram Stoker's "Dracula"? Some of this movies story line obviously takes from that book, as most "Dracula" movies do, as Stoker gave that vampire his name. The original 1922 Nosferatu takes the basis of Dracula and attempts a slightly different attempt, which is more homage. The existence of the 1922 Nosferatu makes this 1979 film not an homage to either the book or the silent film.This movie was a waste of my time and my $4. I can get back neither my time nor my $4, but I can post my honest review of this poorly done movie that will not delight, frighten, enlighten, nor even entertain. It's quite boring, slow, non frightening, poorly acted, and technically poor movie making regardless of the lack of CGI or grand special effects. I agree that over the top technology does not make a good or great movie either, for example the "Transformers" movies. They have great CGI work, but overall they suck. :)I've read some reviews about this movie that wax on and on with some deep diatribe about how this Dracula "suffers" and is in some immortal need of love and love lost. Yet all of those ideas, concepts, and verbiage are from the mind of the person who writes those reviews, as clearly NONE of that is in the actual movie itself. Other than some over the top breathing noises from Kinski I get no emotion that his character hates his curse. Bringing mice to kill the population from plague actually destroys what the vampire needs, HUMAN BLOOD. If the people die from a disease, then he doesn't then get access to their "living blood". Or is his hate of his fate such that he will kill the rest of the world and in so doing he too shall die from want of living blood!? See? I just read more into it than was actually there. If that was part of the story, and told in such a way as to make that understandable, then that might have worked better.Kinski's take on Dracula has interesting imagery, but again most of it is taken from the 1922 original. The appearance of the vampire is not new of different because it looks like the 1922 vampire. Kinski's fingers are creepy, however his lines and lackluster delivery makes one wonder why this movie wasn't simply kept SILENT, as I think it could have been an improvement. There are some scene's where Kinski makes some odd moaning sounds as if he were some rebuked child who was told to stop touching something and sullenly recoils away. That is NOT scary or frightening, not does it imbue the Dracula character with awe inspiring horror as he hunts for a much needed love as well as lust for blood. Nope, none of that happens.POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT:And then there is the quite too easy "twist" regarding what happens to Johnathon Harker. His transformation into a vampire is obvious and silly at best, as it adds nothing to the movie or the story line. Why is he becoming a vampire? We are not told. Here the director relies on the audience knowing the Dracula and vampire stories and that's not adequate from a story telling point of view. Dracula may have a compelling reason to feel deep sorrow about the love he lost, but Harker's story is far from compelling enough to warrant some extension of Dracula's character, and thus the ending is pointless, and fits in with the overall "nothing to see here folks" aspect of this movie.

Charles Camp 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.