Pluskylang Great Film overall

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Prometheus-Covenant So Jonathan spends 4 weeks to reach Count Dracula's house so he can sell Count a new house but when Jonathan finally arrives, he sees a bald, pale white guy with long claws and Jonathan has zero reaction to those long claws on Count's fingers. Hmm, interesting.Jonathan is sleeping in Count's house and Count walks inside the room and tries to... scare Jonathan? Or something. Their acting is HILARIOUSLY awful. They act with zero emotion. I was not buying anything they were doing.Oh and you got to give credit to the makeup artists. I love how Count's face is pale white but his neck is much darker than his face.And when Count is inside a coffin, how the fvck does he get all those men to transport all the coffins when Count is inside one of the coffins the entire time? After Lucy gets bit in the neck by Count and Count dies from sunlight, Van Helsing goes upstairs with a stake to make sure Count is dead and Jonathan shouts out "Help!" inside the house and some cop shows up. Hmm, I guess that cop had some super hearing ability or something. The cop says to Van Helsing "Did he kill the Count?" Van Helsing says "Yes." Cop says "Arrest this man." LMAO! That is some top notch acting right there.And omfg, that short guy who would laugh nonstop like a goddamn retard is so fvcking annoying. I really wanted to stop watching the film because I could not stand his laugh. I really don't know why this movie is considered to be a "classic" or even "beautiful" lol. I guess people have weird tastes.

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.

Nigel P The original 'Nosferatu (1922)' remains one of the greatest early films. However, possibly feeling that some aficionados might be put off by the understandably scratchy quality, German director Werner Herzog set about recreating the atmosphere original.For the pivotal character of Dracula, or Count Orlok, Herzog cast his friend, the mighty Klaus Kinski, who brings an incredible haunted intensity to a role that seemed to be made for him. Whether staring longingly at Harker's bleeding hand, or his bride Lucy, or snapping into inhuman speed due to his blood-lust, Kinski shines like a beacon in every single scene. It truly is an unearthly performance, he is probably the creepiest vampire of them all.There were two versions shot of this; an English and a German version. Perhaps because English is not the actors' native tongue, only Kinski emerges with a believable performance. Other members of the cast do well to sustain the slightly 'removed' atmosphere vital to such a dreamlike horror, but the acting does occasionally stray into wooden territory.And yet everything else is wonderfully ethereal. Harker's journey, Dracula's arrival by boat at the Varna seaport, the infestation of plague rats, the vibrant but desolate town, the choice of location and architecture … all these things come together to make a truly spooky film. Happily, the ending doesn't strive to placate the viewer, as Harker – one of the few survivors of the story – begins to look a little unwell.

KhurramAtta This movie is simply amazing. Bruno Ganz and especially Klaus Kinski did an excellent job acting their parts. One can even argue that Kinski was born to play this role. Atmosphere is chilling, imagery is brilliant and performance are really good. What's not to like? OK, only one thing: That laugh was so annoying, like REALLY annoying but it was a minor character anyway. Did I mention that cinematography was excellent? This is one of the most visually beautiful movies I've ever seen and I've seen a lot of movies, let me tell you. Nosferatu, the Vampye is for anyone who likes to watch a good-acted brilliant movie. Not for someone who watches movies for their stupid jump scares and explosions. All in all, this is a brilliant effort by Werner Herzog (Director) and Klaus Kinski ( But you already knew that!)