Hey; I haven't posted in a while but I just wanted to say how much I've been thoroughly enjoying your reviews.
Didn't Werner Herzog make a shot-for-shot remake of this with Klaus Kinski in the 1980s? I wonder if that's any good. I'm in the minority in that I think shot-for-shot remakes (like Gus Van Sant's Psycho with pre-fat Vince Vaughn and pre-nuts Anne Heche) are very interesting projects that are worth doing. It's kind of like approaching cinema the way one would approach classical music.
Not me! I love this movie. I gave it four and a half stars in '05.
While I only know of three examples (this, The Golem and Cabinet of Dr. Caligari), I absolutle adore the strange experience that is watching them. Yes, they're old and yes, if you watch them late at night you might fall asleep because there's no dialogue. But for me, the images made here are far more compelling than the horror flicks from the 40's and 50's. These are my favorite classics.
Part of the problem was the crappy public domain DVD that I watched. (Damn you lazy 50 packs!) Octo's pictures of The Golem were intriguing and I wish the version of Nosferatu I saw was as well cared for.
Once I finish these damn reviews I want to go back and add links. We really should have an alphabetical list of links to every movie that's been reviewed on Horrorthon.
I meant to watch the Psycho shot-for-shot remake this year. I only saw it once but I remember there being something fundamentally wrong about it.
Unfortunately I had the same experience as you JSP. I actually watched this last year but found myself putting off a review until one day it was mid December and I wasn't up to it. Like JSP, my copy of this film is terrible, which no doubt biased my experience. It's amazing what a difference it makes to watch a crisp version of an old film. Over the past few months I've watched numerous 1940s/1950s film noir and horror movies and I've found that it's always more enjoyable to watch a cleaned up, re-mastered copy. Even the bad ones play better when given the deluxe treatment.
Yeah. I saw the Psycho remake and my attitude is that the execution is flawed but the basic idea remains cool.
Van Sant actually got Saul Bass himself to recreate his opening title animation. It's nearly the same thing except that he introduces green lines in with the white and black ones.
The $60 grand becomes $600 grand.
The opening shot across Phoenix that moves into the hotel room window onto Marion and Sam is done with one shot, which Hitchcock wanted to do but couldn't figure out a way to pull off.
Because the rights to Bram Stoker’s Dracula could not be obtained, Nosferatu became an unauthorized (yet relatively faithful) adaptation. Real estate agent Thomas Hutter sets off for Transylvania to finalize the sale of a new castle to the mysterious Count Orlok. He continues his journey despite the ominous warnings from the locals and the even more ominous Book of the Vampires he finds in his hotel room.
One super-creepy chariot ride later, Hutter arrives and meets Orlak, whose face is obscured by his hat. The two dine uncomfortably together and Hutter spends the night. When he awakens he finds two strange bite marks on his neck. After rediscovering the Book of the Vampires, his suspicions get the better of him and he explores the castle. His worries prove valid when he discovers Orlak sleeping in a casket. He daringly escapes through a window. He then sets out to warn the town about the sinister truth behind Orlak who also appears to be responsible for a sudden plague.
Nosferatu is a stirring example of the profound impact that German silent expressionist cinema has had on the world of horror movies. Its relevance can be seen in almost every classic movie to date and its ability to capture the cerebral subconscious nightmare of the human psyche has yet to be matched. The innovative use of lighting transports the viewer to – oh, who the hell am I kidding?
Truth be told, the only thought this movie provoked in me was “My god, this movie is fucking old!” I appreciate the value of early silent horror movies and I encourage everyone who participates in Horrorthon to experience at least one of them. However, be prepared to yawn and stare at the time remaining display of your DVD player. The iconic shot of Count Orlock standing in the doorway is indeed a worthy moment but – you know... Personally I found myself looking forward to the ending so that I could concentrate on something slightly more interesting such as balling socks.
posted by Johnny Sweatpants at 4:58 PM on Nov 7, 2007
"Nosferatu"
10 Comments -
Hey; I haven't posted in a while but I just wanted to say how much I've been thoroughly enjoying your reviews.
Didn't Werner Herzog make a shot-for-shot remake of this with Klaus Kinski in the 1980s? I wonder if that's any good. I'm in the minority in that I think shot-for-shot remakes (like Gus Van Sant's Psycho with pre-fat Vince Vaughn and pre-nuts Anne Heche) are very interesting projects that are worth doing. It's kind of like approaching cinema the way one would approach classical music.
November 07, 2007 6:17 PM
RIOT!
Way to put into words what I'm sure many probably secretly think...
November 07, 2007 7:12 PM
Not me! I love this movie. I gave it four and a half stars in '05.
While I only know of three examples (this, The Golem and Cabinet of Dr. Caligari), I absolutle adore the strange experience that is watching them. Yes, they're old and yes, if you watch them late at night you might fall asleep because there's no dialogue. But for me, the images made here are far more compelling than the horror flicks from the 40's and 50's. These are my favorite classics.
November 07, 2007 9:09 PM
I've never seen the Kinski version. I'll put that on the list.
November 07, 2007 9:17 PM
Part of the problem was the crappy public domain DVD that I watched. (Damn you lazy 50 packs!) Octo's pictures of The Golem were intriguing and I wish the version of Nosferatu I saw was as well cared for.
Once I finish these damn reviews I want to go back and add links. We really should have an alphabetical list of links to every movie that's been reviewed on Horrorthon.
I meant to watch the Psycho shot-for-shot remake this year. I only saw it once but I remember there being something fundamentally wrong about it.
November 07, 2007 10:05 PM
Unfortunately I had the same experience as you JSP. I actually watched this last year but found myself putting off a review until one day it was mid December and I wasn't up to it. Like JSP, my copy of this film is terrible, which no doubt biased my experience. It's amazing what a difference it makes to watch a crisp version of an old film. Over the past few months I've watched numerous 1940s/1950s film noir and horror movies and I've found that it's always more enjoyable to watch a cleaned up, re-mastered copy. Even the bad ones play better when given the deluxe treatment.
November 08, 2007 4:16 AM
Yeah. I saw the Psycho remake and my attitude is that the execution is flawed but the basic idea remains cool.
Van Sant actually got Saul Bass himself to recreate his opening title animation. It's nearly the same thing except that he introduces green lines in with the white and black ones.
The $60 grand becomes $600 grand.
The opening shot across Phoenix that moves into the hotel room window onto Marion and Sam is done with one shot, which Hitchcock wanted to do but couldn't figure out a way to pull off.
The hotel and the Bates House are the same.
Come on; it's cool.
November 08, 2007 7:59 AM
What's cool is seeing the Bates Motel set in real life! It's every bit as creepy as you can imagine, even in the bright sunlight of L.A.
November 08, 2007 8:08 AM
Really?
November 08, 2007 8:48 AM
Totally!
November 08, 2007 8:53 AM