AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

tapio_hietamaki I'm not a film buff or anything like that, so I feel completely unqualified to talk about this beautiful movie at length. I'm sure there are a lot of interesting details relating to its production, actors and shooting locations - things infinitely more compelling than who is sleeping with who in Hollywood, which is what people seem to be more interested in.The scenes in the countryside and the mountains seem so real that they might be a documentary - not actors, but Werner Herzog knocking on the door of a building he thought was beautiful in a remote village somewhere in Romania or Bulgaria and filming the lives of the people who happened to open the door.The scenes in Dracula's - uhh... I mean Orlock's - no wait this is the movie where they actually call him Dracula - Dracula's castle are eerie as anything I've ever seen. Imagine being trapped in the middle of nowhere in that stone ruin, at the mercy of that *thing* that dwells there...Which brings me to Klaus Kinski. What an actor! I've seen him play Jack the Ripper and Aguirre besides Dracula, and he is always menacing, always a real presence, but in this movie he is hideous, inhuman, an albino bat that truly threatens your life. The scene where he approaches Jonathan after he accidentally cut himself gives me chills - Dracula's inhibition, Jonathan's terror, the shadows...The movie is spectacularly beautiful. The sea is a presence, as are the mountains, and the beautiful European city of Delft where the movie was shot - though it is said to take place in Wismar - but most of all the darkness and the shadows. The vampire sits in the shadows, unmoving, for a long time, until the shadows move and reveal his pale face, a face out of nightmares.

John H I don't think I've ever felt quite so emotionally involved in a vampire film as with this re-interpretation of the classic silent horror film from 1922. It's slow-moving, but also beautifully photographed and extremely atmospheric. At least two of the performances (Roland Topor's Renfield as well as Kinski) are histrionic - and yet still convincing. I'm a fan of Hammer Films and their very different approach to the same material, but this is the first time I've seen an authentic looking Transylvanian inn and a landlord and landlady who looked the parts. Even Dracula himself (this version uses the original names) is believable - while you're watching the film, you feel this scary but pathetic creature *is* a vampire. The film's climax is powerful and tragic, although let down slightly by the twist at the very end.If you haven't seen this, try to get hold of it - ideally in the German version which, in the words of the director, is "more authentic". Don't expect explicit violence or gore but a "slow burn" and truly original take on the story.

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.

jacobjohntaylor1 This a remake of Dracula. And it very disappointing movie. 1922 version of Nosferatu is very scary movie. It is one of the scariest movie ever made. And this is not scary at all. Nosferatu 1922 is a remake. Because there was a movie based on Dracula in 1921 called Dracula. I have never seen this movie. I am told it is lost. Nosferatu (1922) is such a good movie I don't know if the original Dracula could be better. I can believe that is it is better then crap. It is badly written and has an awful ending. You have to be under 7 to really get scared of this movie. Which it disappointing considering that the 1922 version is one of the scariest movies ever made. Do not see this movie. See the 1922 version. This movie is a wast of time and money.